Daughter Raised by Two Moms Speaks Out

[Percepi]

now you're changing the subject and muddying the waters again.

I think you have me confused with yourself.

You asserted that the gay agenda is not a slippery slope into more and more devious behaviors..

Devious behaviors such as...

"transgenders" are being allowed to use whatever locker room they "feel" like they should use.

OH, THE HORROR! THE HORRRRROR!

1. Not all transgender people are gay.
2. Not all gays are transgender.
3. A man who wants to be a woman is still required in most places to use the men's locker room.
4. Locker room policies should be decided by whichever establishment those lockers are built.
5. You're trying to ban gay marriage because of locker room privileges. That's pretty pathetic.

ll of it started with the "gay pride" movement. Next we will have men claiming minority status in that they should be able to have sex with young boys.....wait, we already do, it's called nambla and if it keeps going down the road it's going, someday they'll be able too without repercussion.

Oh, so we didn't have pedophiles before gay rights? YOU ARE A JEENYUS!

NAMBLA would exist with or without gay rights.

BTW, most homosexuals hate NAMBLA. So your argument actually just backfired in you face. You just proved homosexuality isn't a slippery slope without realizing it. Congrats!

Also, you believe women should serve men. This is a slippery slope to legalized rape. Don't believe me? Good, now you know how you sound.

You keep trying to justify why homosexuality is a sin. Do you feel like God deeming it a sin isn't good enough?

 

[Sirk]

I think you have me confused with yourself.



Devious behaviors such as...



OH, THE HORROR! THE HORRRRROR!

1. Not all transgender people are gay.
2. Not all gays are transgender.
3. A man who wants to be a woman is still required in most places to use the men's locker room.
4. Locker room policies should be decided by whichever establishment those lockers are built.
5. You're trying to ban gay marriage because of locker room privileges. That's pretty pathetic.



Oh, so we didn't have pedophiles before gay rights? YOU ARE A JEENYUS!

NAMBLA would exist with or without gay rights.

BTW, most homosexuals hate NAMBLA. So your argument actually just backfired in you face. You just proved homosexuality isn't a slippery slope without realizing it. Congrats!

Also, you believe women should serve men. This is a slippery slope to legalized rape. Don't believe me? Good, now you know how you sound.

You keep trying to justify why homosexuality is a sin. Do you feel like God deeming it a sin isn't good enough?

More muddied waters from the resident shill.

 

[p_rehbein]

This is the ONLY ARGUMENT NEEDED TO END ALL ARGUMENTS ABOUT THIS:

[h=1]Romans
1[/h]
1 .) Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 .) (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3 .) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 .) And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5 .) By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
6 .) Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
7 .) To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 .) First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
9 .) For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;
10 .) Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.
11 .) For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;
12 .) That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.
13 .) Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
14 .) I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
15 .) So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
16 .) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 .) For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 .) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 .) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 .) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 .) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 .) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 .) And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 .) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 .) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 .) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 .) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 .) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 .) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 .) Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 .) Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 .) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

[Percepi]

More muddied waters from the resident shill.

Don't throw dirt in the fountain and blame it on me.

This is the ONLY ARGUMENT NEEDED TO END ALL ARGUMENTS ABOUT THIS:

-clip-

Since religious doctrine can not be forced upon people within nations of religious freedom, those reasons do not justify laws banning homosexuality or gay marriage. However, if your views on homosexuality are based on the Bible, then I fully understand why you would call it a sin and I would not contest it without contesting Christianity as a whole. Essentially, I'm okay if you say homosexuality is a sin because God said so.

If you want to argue that homosexuality is a sin. Fair enough. It's in the Bible after all.

If you're the type of person who argues that God dictates all morality and that morality can't be determined without God, then coming up with non-religious reasons to keep gay marriage banned is hypocritical. So I welcome the consistency.

 

[Sirk]

Don't throw dirt in the fountain and blame it on me.



Since religious doctrine can not be forced upon people within nations of religious freedom, those reasons do not justify laws banning homosexuality or gay marriage. However, if your views on homosexuality are based on the Bible, then I fully understand why you would call it a sin and I would not contest it without contesting Christianity as a whole. Essentially, I'm okay if you say homosexuality is a sin because God said so.

If you want to argue that homosexuality is a sin. Fair enough. It's in the Bible after all.

If you're the type of person who argues that God dictates all morality and that morality can't be determined without God, then coming up with non-religious reasons to keep gay marriage banned is hypocritical. So I welcome the consistency.

It's big of you to allow another to make a point or argue however they choose. You're something else.

 

[lumberjack]

Percepi is trying to invalidate the fact that the gay agenda IS a slippery slope and tries to equate it with issues that do not relate with it.

It's usually not the GAYS who try to get into the girls' locker room, trust me.

 

[Sirk]

It's usually not the GAYS who try to get into the girls' locker room, trust me.

Nope...it's the guys who wanna pretend they're girls.

 

[lumberjack]

Nope...it's the guys who wanna pretend they're girls.

Those definitely are not the gays.
I don't understand why the LGB community should be supportive of transgenders/transsexuals in the first place.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Was she told she didn't need a man or were the people saying this talking about how they, themselves, didn't need a man?

They repeatedly said to her they didn't need a man, the implication being, "you don't need a man. Children are impressionable. They hear the message often enough, they will hear as referencing themselves.

Regardless, lesbians aren't necessarily man hating feminists.

No one said they "hate" men. They don't have to when the message is, "we don't need a man" which becomes, in her mind, "I don't need a man." But she rejected that message.

So if this woman was around a bunch of feminists, that sucks - but not all lesbians are idio...er... feminists.

I think you need to do more research into the politics of lesbianism.

Her father left her ...

Wrong! Her mother left her father. Yes, she said he wasn't the greatest dad, but it wasn't him that wanted the divorce. Her mother did, so she could pursue her unbiblical relationship with another woman.

This is normal when parents stop becoming a part of their children's lives.

Thanks for the psychology lesson -- said the addictions/marriage & family therapist.

It sounds to me like she was around women who talked about how THEY didn't need men. I they were telling her that SHE didn't need a man - I would 100% agree with you.

As noted above, the message comes out the same in the mind of a child.

But not all gay parents try to force their sexuality onto their children. In fact, I'm willing to bet most don't ...

You'd be wrong. In fact, a study by University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus found not only wide-spread sexual confusion among such adult children, but also the following regarding children raised in LGBT-partnered households, that they are ...

• ... more likely to be currently cohabiting
• ... almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
• ... less likely to be currently employed full-time
• ... more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
• ... nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
• ... 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting

In addition, children raised in same-gendered-relationship homes are more likely to have been on welfare at least temporarily, have fewer educational opportunities, have lesser feelings of safety and security in those families' homes, more likely to suffer depression, have been arrested more often as adults, and adult women coming from these homes have had far more sexual relationships -- with both male and female partners -- than their counterparts raised in heterosexual homes, even more than those women coming from divorced parents.

To be candid, Regnerus' department chair at UT-Austin has "disowned" the study, claiming it is academically flawed and the peer review process was "questionable." However, she did a study using the same techniques and using the same academic review committee two years before, so I'm not sure she has a valid complaint so much as she feels political correctness has been violated by Regnerus daring to call into question the viability of same-gendered parents, regardless of the fact his research deems them to be just exactly that -- inviable, in comparison to heterosexual-parented children.

... especially when you consider how children raised by gay parents are just as likely to be gay/straight as those raised by heterosexual parents.

Which is true, but as Regnerus' study showed, they are more unstable, less educated, more volatile in their relationships, and greater risk-takers leading to addiction, depression, and criminal behavior. Take issue if you will, just know that despite the department chair speaking out against her own staffer, the investigation into his research methods and peer review process found nothing untoward or questionable about his outcomes.

 

[Percepi]

They repeatedly said to her they didn't need a man, the implication being, "you don't need a man. Children are impressionable. They hear the message often enough, they will hear as referencing themselves.

Clearly there's not enough information to make an informed argument since she didn't go into enough detail.

I think you need to do more research into the politics of lesbianism.

Every lesbian is a politician or a social justice warrior? Way to stereotype. There are politics related to homosexuality - therefore all homosexuals are into politics! FLAWLESS LOGIC.

Wrong! Her mother left her father. Yes, she said he wasn't the greatest dad, but it wasn't him that wanted the divorce. Her mother did, so she could pursue her unbiblical relationship with another woman.

Her mother left her father, and her father abandoned his daughter. He stopped coming around according to this woman. Therefore, it's the father who left his daughter.

You'd be wrong. In fact, a study by University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus found not only wide-spread sexual confusion among such adult children, but also the following regarding children raised in LGBT-partnered households, that they are ...

A quick search shows how his study was sloppy.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/07/10/12-15388_Amicus_Brief_Psychological.pdf

owever, she did a study using the same techniques and using the same academic review committee two years before, so I'm not sure she has a valid complaint

Maybe you should consider her arguments instead of assuming she's wrong.

Also, can we address the last study you presented? It would be nice if you could at least admit you misunderstood it.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Clearly there's not enough information to make an informed argument since she didn't go into enough detail.

She didn't need to go into detail. Perhaps you'd like me to post study after study after study proving that what a child hears growing up is how he/she orders his life. That should be obvious by now, since it is not only proven empirically, but is becoming part of the "pop psychology" that so many people love to think makes them look and sound smart. Thing is, in this case, they're right.

Every lesbian is a politician or a social justice warrior? Way to stereotype.

Hardly. Are you aware there is a treatment theory among therapists called "feminist psychology"? At the other end of the spectrum is political lesbianism, idea that women may choose to become lesbians, and moreover, should do so. All of them. That's the thought among those espousing this political view. It is epitomized in a phrase usually attributed to author Ti-Grace Atkinson: "Feminism is the theory; lesbianism is the practice." The practice of political lesbianism is the preaching of the idea "We don't need men." There's your evidence, whether you like it or not.

There are politics related to homosexuality - therefore all homosexuals are into politics! FLAWLESS LOGIC.

Not all. But "most"is not an unfair nor hyperbolic statement.

Her mother left her father, and her father abandoned his daughter. He stopped coming around according to this woman. Therefore, it's the father who left his daughter.

No. Read the article. You can't logically discuss this issue if you haven't read what she wrote, and your insistence to this untruth proves you have not. No where does she say he "abandoned" her. He was shut out of his life, somewhat by his frustration with his ex-wife and the courts that gave her primary custodial care of his daughter, and somewhat by her mother's refusal to allow visitation according to the court's directives.

A quick search shows how his study was sloppy.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/07/10/12-15388_Amicus_Brief_Psychological.pdf

That's one opinion. Here's another: Children of homosexuals more apt to be homosexuals? A reply to Morrison and to Cameron based on an examination of multiple sources of data.Also peer reviewed, published in the same issue of Social Science Research as Regnerus' study. You can try to discredit it all you want. The evidence suggests you and the politically correct sociology departments of the nation's universities are wrong -- and like to lie about it.

 

[Percepi]

You keep talking about studies, but the first you completely misunderstood and the second was severely flawed. If you want to argue that it wasn't flawed, then point out the specific errors in my source.

Your stereotypes are also just literally made up. You can't differentiate feminists and lesbians even though not all lesbians are feminists and not all feminists are lesbians. And to say "most" are is pure imagination.

That's one opinion. Here's another: Children of homosexuals more apt to be homosexuals? A reply to Morrison and to Cameron based on an examination of multiple sources of data.Also peer reviewed, published in the same issue of Social Science Research as Regnerus' study. You can try to discredit it all you want. The evidence suggests you and the politically correct sociology departments of the nation's universities are wrong -- and like to lie about it.

What you linked is a response to a study performed by Family Research Institute. Family Research Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You claim it was published in Social Science Research. Is this the journal? If so, where is it published? Social Science Research - Journal - Elsevier

In the meantime, you might want to read this: http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

Lastly, while we're talking about sources, I want to revive a source you brought up. A few pages ago you said:

For example, new research shows that progeny brought up with both a mother and a father actually have more brain cells (see Hotchkiss Brain Institute study) resulting in boys having better memories and learning ability and girls developing better motor co-ordination and social skills. Interestingly, if the next generation grow up to be single parents, this biological benefit is passed to their offspring though it deteriorates in single parent scenarios in subsequent generations.

When I looked up the study, this is what I found: How Single or Dual Parenting Affects Early Brain Development | TIME.com

They started with eight-week old mice and placed them in three separate rearing environments. In the first group, impregnated females were left to birth their litters and raise their pups alone until the offspring were weaned; in the second group, impregnated females were placed in cages with a virgin female who helped the mother raise the pups until they were weaned; and in the third group, females were placed with the male fathers of their litters. Once the young animals were weaned, the researchers put them through a series of tests to measure their cognitive, memory and social skills, as well as their fear response. They also injected the animals with a dye that could track the growth of new neurons wherever they sprouted in the brain.

To their surprise, they discovered that being raised in either of the two-parent situations boosted nerve growth in the dentate gyrus, but especially for the male mice. Female mice showed the same amount of neural growth regardless of whether they were raised by one or two parents, but they still developed more new nerves in the memory-processing area of the brain than male mice raised just by their mothers.

Either admit you were wrong in this regard or explain yourself please.

You should just stick to "It's wrong because it's a sin" and leave it at that. Yes, this will make your argument against homosexuality based purely on your religious views, but your non-religious arguments are unfounded, unreliable, and simply wrong. Stick to the Bible.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

You claim it was published in Social Science Research. Is this the journal? If so, where is it published? Social Science Research - Journal - Elsevier

I gave you the link. Not my problem if you can't figure out the significance of the National Clearinghouse of Biotechnology Institute, National Library of Medicine, and the National Institutes of Health, relative to this subject matter. Had you actually read the credits of publication underneath the abstract for Dr. Schumm's study, you would have seen the Social Science Research Journal link. I use this source all the time. Maybe I should give the clueless lay person the benefit of the doubt and give them a map to the article, but I made the mistake of thinking anyone could figure it out.

A few pages ago you said:

The quote you cited is not mine, but then your post doesn't actually link my screen name to it, does it? That seems pretty disingenuous. I also did an advanced search for "Hotchkiss Brain Institute study" linked to my name, and found nothing in CC's memory, so I'm guessing you're attempting some b/s grandstand play you think will impress everyone else. Guess again.

By the way, what you're attempting is called an ad hominem attack. It is a primary argument of logical fallacy. You can't win the point, so you attack your opponent. I'd say "nice try," but the ruse wasn't good enough to rise to the lofty heights of mediocrity.

 

[Percepi]

The quote you cited is not mine, but then your post doesn't actually link my screen name to it, does it?

Sorry, you're right. I was under the impression it was from you but it wasn't. My bad.

I gave you the link. Not my problem if you can't figure out the significance of the National Clearinghouse of Biotechnology Institute, National Library of Medicine, and the National Institutes of Health, relative to this subject matter. Had you actually read the credits of publication underneath the abstract for Dr. Schumm's study, you would have seen the Social Science Research Journal link. I use this source all the time. Maybe I should give the clueless lay person the benefit of the doubt and give them a map to the article, but I made the mistake of thinking anyone could figure it out.

I was questioning a very particular publication, namely Social Science Research.

I'll concede that the source deserves attention, though concerning the original source material in which it evaluates, I'm still quite skeptical.

If you can, I would be interested in hearing everything you know about these studies.