Most of the post is pure drivel, recycled Pablum that ignores the crux of what she had to say
What she had to say was irrelevant to gay marriage. She said gay marriage is bad, but then she used arguments that didn't support her claim. They were non-sequiturs. I already pointed that out.
I grew up surrounded by women who said they didn’t need or want a man. Yet, as a little girl, I so desperately wanted a daddy. It is a strange and confusing thing to walk around with this deep-down unquenchable ache for a father, for a man,
They're lesbians, so they don't need men to have personal and sexual relationships with to satisfy their needs.
in a community that says that men are unnecessary.
This either means these women don't need men to satisfy their personal and sexual relationships in the same way heterosexual women do, or they're touting feminist nonsense. Not all homosexuals are misandrists or misogynists. So here we have YET ANOTHER non-sequitur.
It isn't worthy for it's insight. It is worthy for its obvious refusal to see the issue she raised, which I quoted in my post -- and which is notably missing from this lengthy regurgitated view you've now posted. I will post it again, for your review. If you wish to respond, address that specific issue. Talking around it -- which you also did by quoting the paragraph after the ones below, thus removing the context of your quote from her essay -- discredits you as being an unbiased observer.
Since I had absolutely no idea which quote you were referencing, I addressed what I thought it was you were referencing. So calling me biased for not knowing which paragraph you were referring to is merely a sad ad hominem attempt.
Deal with that, Percepi, otherwise you paint yourself as willfully ignorant.
She was around women who personally felt like they didn't need men in their lives while she felt she needed her father. This has nothing to do with gay marriage since the cause for her longing is the fact she's missing HER OWN father and has abandonment issues. When you take into consideration abandonment issues, you realize this isn't a gay marriage issue.
Remember, this woman could have grown up with two mothers and no father or one mother and no father. It doesn't matter if gay marriage is legal or not - she would have grown up without a father all the same. That's why it's a non-sequitur.
You're wrong. I just explained to you in post #72 exactly how science and philosophy refute these false assertions you two have been making but you weren't intelligent enough to grasp it.
First of all, philosophy doesn't measure objective truthfulness. It's an appeal to either the unknown or to emotion. That's not to say philosophy isn't important, but it's not objective. Second, you didn't prove anything scientifically. You said that anal sex is less pleasurable than vaginal sex due to the number of nerve endings - so what? This doesn't mean anal sex is therefore scientifically wrong. You can argue anal sex is wrong because God said it's wrong, but the fact the anus isn't designed for anal sex doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong UNLESS you believe God created man and considers it a sin. BUT that has NOTHING to do with science, it has to do with God declaring something. So no, you didn't prove anything scientifically.
Scientifically, our bodies were not designed to fly in airplanes or dive in submarines. We drink cows milk - something our bodies weren't designed or evolved for. These are all "unnatural" things (relatively speaking), so does that make them morally wrong from a secular viewpoint? No.
Secularly speaking, you have made no argument. Now, I repeat, if you believe it's a sin because God says so - fine. But if you're going to say it's wrong in a more objective manner regardless of God's say - then you run into two issues. First of all, you fail to recognize that without a God there is no "objective morality" (in fact, it's still not objective even with God - it's just relative to a higher authority). The second problem is that you're trying to say something can be bad regarless of God's say - which kills the wrong "You can't have morality without God."
Moral philosophy and human biology would be a great place for you to begin.
Moral philosophy dictates morality based on emotion. It is not objective by any means.
Earlier you argued that anal sex increases the likelihood of spreading AIDs. This does not necessarily make anal sex objectively immoral. Does it make it more dangerous? Sure. But this doesn't mean it's automatically 100% bad based on this criteria alone. Guess what, motorcycles are more dangerous than cars - does that mean motorcycles should be banned? What about fried foods and sodas? How about smoking? All of these things you can argue to be sins due to God demanding such actions as inappropriate - but without God there is no way you can say anything is objectively moral or immoral. And I know, you're going to ask whether this makes murder objectively moral. No, murder is not objectively moral - it's something we chose to be immoral as an appeal to our emotion based on the fact that we have a natural tendency to try and avoid death and murder as well as an understanding of how we thrive more easily when we don't kill. But none of this objective.
Such is ‘natural’ law, which can often be distinguished from ‘divine’ law only by the fact that the latter depends on special revelation, while the former represents principles which intelligent persons can perceive. As I've already explained repeatedly to you and in different ways, homosexuality is a negative deviation from natural law with respect to the human genome.
If you want to argue something is bad because God deemed it to be bad - fine. But if you want to argue something is bad because it would be bad even without God - then you have no case. This is especially true if you're under the idea that morality can't exist without a God.
Instead of coming on to a Christian forum and making a lot of blatantly false assertions to people who are already educated on these issues, why don't you stop making them and educate yourself. You'll end a lot better than you began and perhaps, in the process, you'll come to what 1 Timothy 2 refers to as a "saving knowledge of the truth" which is "good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
If God decided nobody was worth saving and he decided he would let no man into heaven, would this decision be righteous? it's a bit off topic - but I'm genuinely curious.
^ Natural law exhibit number two; the scientific evidence is clear that, on average, children do best with both a mother and a father and not just from a non-biological perspective but also a biological one too.
As apposed to children with same sex parents or children with only one parent? And aren't children with same sex parents still better off than children with single parents? Have any sources other than the one you provided (which I'll address below)?
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.
I'm assuming you're referring to this study?
How Single or Dual Parenting Affects Early Brain Development | TIME.com
Did you actually read about the study?
So researchers from the University of Calgary’s Hotchkiss Brain Institute (HBI) decided to take a closer look at different parenting models to figure out how they affected nerve growth and the behavioral consequences of that neural development.
Well, it looks like we're talking about the same institute.
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.
I'm wondering how this one slipped past you.
I know this probably isn't politically correct but I see quite a few fatherless "hood rats" where I live that could benefit from these findings.
How many of these children grew up with only a single parent? How many of these children have separation anxiety? And how many of these children grew up in homes with men who weren't their biological fathers? What kind of community do these children live in? What kind of social culture is dominant?
And lastly, I repeat, did you even read your findings?
That the American Psychiatric Association in former publications of the Diagnostic Statistical Manuals identified Homosexuality as a mental illness, then altered that under pressure from radical homosexual hate groups under threat, so as to say it is not necessarily a mental illness but an aberrant behavior that in no wise is equal to that of heterosexuality, and all this without one iota of new empirical evidence to support the changes in text but instead was done to pacify the radicals threatening the establishment, says everything about the disorder of Homosexuality.
Source please.
There is no evidence homosexuality is genetic, nor is there evidence it is not a mental illness.
To my knowledge, there isn't enough evidence to make any conclusive statements but there is compelling evidence to suggest homosexuality is in fact genetic.
If you're going to profess knowledge in this subject, maybe you should get some of the basics down. First, let's start with what a mental disorder is.
DSM-IV goes on, however, to note that, “Despite these caveats, the definition of mental disorder that was included in DSM-III and DSM-III-R is presented here because it is as useful as any other available definition and has helped to guide decisions regarding which conditions on the boundary between normality and pathology should be included in DSM-IV. In DSM-IV, each of the mental disorders is conceptualized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. In addition, this syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example, the death of a loved one. Whatever its original cause, it must currently be considered a manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual. Neither deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual, as described above.”
-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3101504/
The reason homosexuality was removed from the list is because it does not fit the above criteria. It's also reasonable to assume that homosexuality wad added to the list due to ignorance and possibly intolerance as well.
You're wrong! And you might want to apprise yourself of the definition of natural before making such an ignorant statement as that. When you do not know the definition of "natural" you're not equipped to debate or argue in this thread.
Perhaps you would care to provide us with a proper definition of what "natural" is?
When you correct someone, you sort of need to provide a correction...
I know these fashioner designers agreed that gays should not be parents that a family needs to be a mother and father. It's really sad, I had a friend that went through the worst being raised by a gay mother
I have tons of friends who went through the worst being raised by straight parents. So your point is... what exactly? That some gay people don't make good parents? Well, that's to be expected considering the variety of parents out there. Just look at all the horrible heterosexual parents out there!
Just because a kid is poorly raised by a homosexual doesn't necessarily mean homosexuality is the problem. Being raised by two mothers who constantly drink and party is just as damaging as being raised by a mom and a dad who constantly drink. Or if two mothers constantly argue every night, you'll see similar issues as you would with heterosexual parents who argue every night.
Are you talking about "humping"? Saying it makes me kind of laugh but our little dog "humps" the bigger dogs. It's more of a dominance thing than a homosexual thing....besides, an animal cannot be homosexual in the sense that it ain't a homo-sapien.
I guess you've never heard of Bonobos? Since many of the sources are accompanied by pictures, I'll let you do your homework on this one.
Whether or not homosexuality is a sin, there's absolutely no excuse to create bad arguments. If homosexuality is a sin solely because God deemed it to be a sin, then why do you have to find other ways to justify that homosexuality is wrong?
