Redress -Quite right, this I know, it came out wrong. It wasn't how I meant it to sound when I was thinking it. Humanity however is another topic. It would depend on how one defines humanity, but IMO there is a conscious desire to procreate; not necessarily specific as an expression of humanity, but conscious none the less.Evolution does not have a "goal
Legislate is to make into law, and regulate is to closely define said law. To regulate a lawful act is to put restrictions on the act, and provide for a penalty if the regulation isn't adhered to. However, endorsement is an extension in the full context in which I used it. Any meaningful law requires the endorsement of the people.Legislate and regulate are completely different than promote. We regulate tobacco, and parts of that regulation include high taxes to discourage use, not allowing advertising in some media, and so on. We regulate, but we do not promote. This is a large, unsubtle distinction. It's not careful parsing to try and make words mean what I want, it's an entirely different meaning
Right, of course, so what's your point? So why then do gay men have a much higher incidence of STD's? Of course "orientation" matters.Neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals can have sex only one way. Both can be promiscuous(high risk), both can engage in anal sex(high risk, and not including lesbians as much). Gays can also engage in such activities as Frotting, Mutual masturbation, oral sex, Dutch Rudders, and a host of others.
Ok, surely it must have an influence, all I'm saying is that it isn't always, or exclusively about the torment that others place upon you. Not all gay people kill themselves because their neighbor called them a fag.Several things wrong here. I did not refer to homophobia. I did say that society in general did, for whatever reason, **** all over gays. I have a close relative who came out in the 70's. She lost her job over it, she lost her home over it, she was banned from her church, and she had to leave town just to have a chance of a semi-normal life. She was told, by a judge, that she had to have supervised visitation of her kids to ensure she did not pervert them. Now, do you think that might have an effect on some one?
You can claim the possibility of some "built in mechanism", but I bet you cannot document it. I can document the troubles that gay people have had to deal with.
From your link:Hey look, it's Paul Cameron and crew. HINT: using Cameron is an automatic fail. Totally discredited. One example: Critique of "Obituary Study" by the Paul Cameron GroupNice.. Now what does this really mean? Cameron claims that based off "his" sample, he concludes that the avg lifespan of a homosexual is X amount. The author is correct, and I agree, it probably isn't a great sample, however, it doesn't necessarily make Cameron wrong in his conclusions either.An accurate estimate of the life span of gay men and lesbians would have to count such people. By restricting their analysis to obituaries in gay newspapers, however, the Cameron group systematically excluded them from the sample.
That might be true, however, can you provide proof he lies?The problem is not that Cameron is a gay hater, the problem is Cameron is an idiot and does not know how to research, and does not hesitate to lie.
Oh come now.. Hehe.. Did you read the study? The fact that Stacey is backtracking is not unusual. The God damn study is ALL about the results of homosexual parenting vs. heterosexual parenting. Are you saying that the study is something other than what it is? This is why to the right, this is the perfect study, and source to use against the left. Ms. Stacey has no axe to grind, yet her results are very damaging to the gay parenting lobby.Old data from when gays where more in the closet. By the way, Judith Stacy has complained about the misuse of her research, with people claiming it showed that gays where not as good a parents as straits, when she says it shows no such thing(YouTube - Dr. Judith Stacey on James Dobson's Distortions
Really? By whom exactly? I will be the first to say that you can't teach an old dog new tricks, especially if it's Pavlov's dog, but discredited by whom is what you have to ask yourself. Is getting off alcoholism discredited because a few jump back off the wagon. Please.Conversion therapy. Totally discredited. NARTH has tried to get homosexuality classified as a disorder, which it clearly is not.
As stated, it's all we have to go on. I'll repeat my challenge: Can you directly refute the claim?I did in fact read the whole study. First and foremost, do you realize it is not a study of gay marriage, but a study of AIDS? Next, do you know that the study is of people under the age of 30(hard to have long term relationships when you are young)? Did you know that two groups where selected to the exclusion of others in the first part of the study? Those two groups: promiscuous gays and gays with AIDS. So what kind of results do you think you are going to get if you only look at promiscuous people under the age of 30....
But what of the hetero's that needed mental help? To get an average, surely they sampled "straits"?No, the premise is entirely wrong. It's a recurring problem with gay research. It's like the research that showed gays had more emotional problems that straits. The problem was, they based in on gays who where seeking mental help...hello....
Hmm.. "Primarily homosexual", what does that mean? Also, using the measure of a homosexual act, is not the act of sex between a male youth by a male adult not still homosexual> If it isn't, then what is it? What about females?Pedophiles are not really gay or strait, they are primarily attracted to youths of either gender. In fact, research of men in prison for pedophilia showed that out of ~150 people, not one was primarily homosexual
Let me guess, it's about power right? (Waiting for that study that you folks usually post) I'll save you the time. Don't bother with the APA study, it is meaningless, and provides that the reader make huge leaps in logic. Why would the orientation of the offender, towards the victims sex, now suddenly become meaningless? So they are attracted to youth... Hmm, wait that doesn't work.. Ok, I'm all ears, please make the argument in your defense. I think I know why - it would be harmful to the gay movement if such a revelation made the mainstream, maybe that's why?