It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Whether Or Not Homosexuality Is A Choice Is Irrelevant

page: 15
27
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


there is a measurable, long-term effect on the character development and growth of children in their early years on to adulthood.

Is this so? I'm very interested. Could you please provide links to the studies in which these effects were measured?


Homosexuality will inevitably lead to families, since marriages where approved this has only increased the trend, and those families will want to adopt or conceive via artificial insemination. It is the children that grow up in these households or environment that will be greatly affected

Are you saying homosexual parents will bring up homosexual children? Gosh, if I believed that, I'd be a homophobe myself. Extinction of the human race in a couple of generations, wouldn't you say?

But... if the children of gay parents turn out to be gay due to conditioning, being gay can't be a choice, can it?


edit on 21/3/15 by Astyanax because: of conditioning.




posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263


Check the sources in this OP here

I did. Nearly all your references date back to the Stone Age of research into the subject, the 1960s and early ’70s. The latest of your sources is dated 1985, and that one's just reporting anecdotal evidence. I'm certain that a more diligent survey of the literature, focusing on more recent publications, will show the issue in a very different light.

The researchers you quote — or their interpreters — all seem to be assuming that the negative perceptions of male homosexuals regarding their fathers' attitudes toward them constitute an accurate report of the fathers' actual feelings and behaviour; and assuming, further, that the said feelings and behaviour were the cause, or were among the causes, of their sons 'becoming homosexual' — or, as we would say now, to self-identifying as gay.

These assumptions ignore many possibilities, such as, for example:
  1. gay boys often (and understandably) develop relationship problems with their straight fathers;

  2. straight fathers (just as understandably) are disappointed and perhaps made anxious by their homosexual sons, intuitively (and perhaps unconsciously) recognising their homosexuality and reacting to it;

  3. That embittered young homosexuals, beaten down and reviled by the straight male world, can come to view their fathers as symbolic representatives of that world, causing them to resent, quarrel with and turn away from them.

I'm not saying any of the above are necessarily true, but they are alternative interpretations to the disgustingly Freudian view of family relations that appears to motivate the principal researcher cited by you: this fellow Beiber. Dr (presumably) Beiber seems to view a male child's upbringing as a struggle by fathers to overcome their wives' attempts to seduce their sons away from their Straight Destiny:


We have come to the conclusion that a constructive, supportive, warmly related father precludes the possibility of a homosexual son; he acts as a neutralizing protective agent should the mother make seductive or close-binding attempts."


In the Sixties, I suppose, it was actually a moral advance for psychologists to put some 'blame' for a son's homosexuality on the father of the family. Till then or thereabouts, Freudian orthodoxy consisted of blaming the mother exclusively.

Anyway: your evidence ain't no good. Hope your teammate ISeekTruth101 has some better shots in his locker.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Reply to MKMoniker


CHILDREN RAISED IN GAY AND LESBIAN HOUSEHOLDS SUFFER

News report on a highly rigged study that compares mainly children who experienced unstable home lives with children whose parents stayed together for 18 years. No attempt was made to correct for this statistical imbalance


What bound these supposed products of same-sex families was instability, because regardless of how long they lived with their supposed gay parents, Regnerus threw them all in the same bucket with the common variable of having had a parent who had a same-sex relationship. He compared this bucket to another bucket of kids who grew up with the same mother and father for at least 18 years. That the latter group turned out to have fared better is not surprising considering they enjoyed a life of stability in comparison to the former Source

And the other 'study' mentioned in the article is a piece of postmodernist tripe: an opinion piece, basically.



STUDY SHOWS LINK BETWEEN HOMOSEXUALITY AND PEDOPHILIA

Garbage from the right-wing Christian homophobes at the Family Research Council, discredited much earlier in the thread.


LINK BETWEEN HOMOSEXUALITY AND PEDOPHILIA

The same right-wing homophobic drivel on a different web site, with a broken reference link. By the way, neither this nor the previous article allege a link between homosexuality and paedophilia, so you simply made that up.



OUT FROM UNDER: THE IMPACT OF HOMOSEXUAL PARENTING

As far as I can make out, this book by an unhappy woman who, evidently scarred by her own childhood experiences (which had nothing to do with being raised by a homosexual parent), generalizes her misery as if it applied to children raised by gay parents.

I must say the evidence trail is a bit thin so far. Any better to come? I doubt it. Regnerus is the religious right's best shot.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: MKMoniker

I never knew Australian was a religion.

But I want to believe.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


there is a measurable, long-term effect on the character development and growth of children in their early years on to adulthood.

Is this so? I'm very interested. Could you please provide links to the studies in which these effects were measured?


Homosexuality will inevitably lead to families, since marriages where approved this has only increased the trend, and those families will want to adopt or conceive via artificial insemination. It is the children that grow up in these households or environment that will be greatly affected

Are you saying homosexual parents will bring up homosexual children? Gosh, if I believed that, I'd be a homophobe myself. Extinction of the human race in a couple of generations, wouldn't you say?

But... if the children of gay parents turn out to be gay due to conditioning, being gay can't be a choice, can it?



No, what I meant by saying homosexuality will lead to families is that a homosexual couple will want children, to form a family, and this is what leads to same-sex parenting. Do you require any more clarification from me on anything I have said?

The studies are out there on Google, just look at single parent case studies and you get your answer.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
Based on the argument I posed for same-sex parenting, and the correlation with single parenting that I suggested ... you only need to look at statistics for single parents to see the obvious negative impacts.




Affirming the Consequent

This is a fairly difficult fallacy to understand or spot. It is categorical in nature and, essentially, means reversing an argument, or putting the cart before the horse, meaning reversing or confusing the general category with the specific/sub-category. Note that in this fallacy the premises/reasons are actually correct or valid; the error is found between the premises and conclusion. Usually, the error occurs because we incorrectly assume that the Premise was a sufficient condition, when in fact it was only a necessary condition (one of many conditions) necessary to prove the conclusion.

Fallacy Ex:
Premise: Ducks are birds.
Premise: Ducks swim in the water.
Premise: Chickens are birds.
False Conclusion: Chickens swim in the water.
(Affirming The Consequent Fallacy: not all birds swim in water; swimming is neither a necessary or sufficient condition to be the thing "bird")

Fallacy Ex:
Premise: You loved The Matrix.
Premise: Keanu Reaves is in The Matrix
Premise: Keanu Reaves is in Speed.
Conclusion: You must love Speed.
(Affirming The Consequent Fallacy: you may have like The Matrix even if you don't like Keanu Reaves, or in spite of the fact that he was in it, or maybe you liked him in it but hate him in everything else etc.)


List of Logical Fallacies: University of Idaho


What on earth are you babbling about?



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
Based on the argument I posed for same-sex parenting, and the correlation with single parenting that I suggested ... you only need to look at statistics for single parents to see the obvious negative impacts.


Yet you've not shown any such correlation, just your feelings on the matter...


It is not feelings, it is a logical concept that clearly you cannot comprehend. If you can prove to me that it is not logical then go for it, because I presented the logical reasoning behind it.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


I blamed the homosexual parents for raising a child with the absence of a father or mother figure.

How the hell do you know they aren't providing an appropriate opposite gender role model?

Two lesbians who have brothers, for example. Or who choose to include the 'sperm donor' in the rearing of the child?

Two gay guys who include the birth-mother or (if she wishes to be 'anonymous' and absent, then) include their women friends in the nurturing and rearing of the child? Their sisters? Their mothers?

Male and female adults are readily available. All responsible parents make sure that their child of whichever gender has a mature male role model, as well as a mature female role model.




Stop being hypothetical and apologetic for same-sex parenting, stick to the immediate family. I can argue many people dont have siblings, such as myself, and moved to a nation with no family ties, such as myself. So stop running away from the argument by comparing apples and oranges, we are comparing the household, not the local community or the extended family that are not a central part of every ones life. The immediate family usually is.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
This thread is very pro homosexuality, and that is understandable, and most of the case studies and statistics surrounding homosexuality emanates from the USA where it is more widely accepted. So perhaps that is part of the reason many are being thick-skulled here and cannot see the negatives. But beyond this thread, ATS the USA and other European nations that have accepted homosexuality, and same-sex parenting with open arms, there exists a huge world, with opposing views. You can dismiss them all you want. But there are real dangers and consequences as a result of the choice made by homosexuals to parent children. This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of many.

By making the choice to go through with same-sex, parenting, as a homosexual, you have deprived the child of a father or mother role in the household.

There will be varying scenarios and environments — whether uncles/aunties are around or not is irrelevant as I am discussing the immediate family/ household that matters the most. Homosexual parenting still introduces a great risk that a child has no say in, and can come to only regret in adulthood.
edit on 21-3-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex. It "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.
edit on 3/22/2015 by eriktheawful because: removed spam link



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
But there are real dangers and consequences as a result of the choice made by homosexuals to parent children.


The danger comes from outside sources. From judgmental, prejudice, bigoted, hateful, religiously intolerant, ignorant people that don't mind their own business.

The same kind of people who are hateful of interracial marriage, or inter-faith marriage, or mixed ethnicity.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
In OP:



So, why is the issue of whether choice is a factor or not so prominent in the debate?


And the title is "Whether Or Not Homosexuality Is A Choice Is Irrelevant".

Such irony lol. Here we see people doing the very same thing already in this thread!


The answer is that it is very important. Christians are the ones who started it because if homosexuality is not a choice then that means God created them so therefore it cannot be a sin.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
It is not feelings, it is a logical concept that clearly you cannot comprehend. If you can prove to me that it is not logical then go for it, because I presented the logical reasoning behind it.


You have made a claim with nothing but that you 'think' or 'feel' as evidence.

The burden of proof is on you to show that your claims are correct and true, but if you're just using mere opinions and emotions as evidence then no-one has any business taking you seriously (ignoring your homophobia ofc).

And you know what they say about people having to resort to ad hom attacks right?



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

I sourced some modern research on previous page.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: Astyanax

I sourced some modern research on previous page.


Where? I didn't see it. I would like to read it.
-----------
Never mind. Found it.

NARTH has been totally discredited.
edit on 21-3-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
But beyond this thread, ATS the USA and other European nations that have accepted homosexuality, and same-sex parenting with open arms, there exists a huge world, with opposing views.


Yes. Backward, third-world countries.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

If homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality. But as can and has been shown, a homosexual cannot choose to be heterosexual.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TheJourney

If homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality. But as can and has been shown, a homosexual cannot choose to be heterosexual.


I'm not asserting that it is a choice. But saying I don't understand why that is the center of the argument, since free human beings can make whatever choice they want. It wouldn't matter if it WERE a choice, it's a pointless argument. Free human beings can make their own choices, so long as they aren't harming another. And 'choice' is just a filler term for a complex process of how sexual identity is formed, as you say in general not just with homosexuals but people in general. It shouldn't, anyways, be seen like just some conscious decision like what type of cereal to buy. And I'm not asserting that either way, just saying it doesn't matter.
edit on 21-3-2015 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney



But saying I don't understand why that is the center of the argument, since free human beings can make whatever choice they want. It wouldn't matter if it WERE a choice, it's a pointless argument.


I don't believe it to be a pointless argument. As I and others have stated it is the Christians who started it. They are the ones who push for laws and punishments for them. For them to admit that homosexuality is not a choice is to admit that God created them the way they are and that it is not a sin is a big no-no.

But then again... since they won't listen then perhaps it's really a pointless argument.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: TheJourney



But saying I don't understand why that is the center of the argument, since free human beings can make whatever choice they want. It wouldn't matter if it WERE a choice, it's a pointless argument.


I don't believe it to be a pointless argument. As I and others have stated it is the Christians who started it. They are the ones who push for laws and punishments for them. For them to admit that homosexuality is not a choice is to admit that God created them the way they are and that it is not a sin is a big no-no.

But then again... since they won't listen then perhaps it's really a pointless argument.


I understand the relative significance in terms of a fundamentalist Christian and their 'holy crusade' to stop others from committing what they believe to be sins, and shutting down some of their arguments. However, that's just in response to a faulty premise, and creating new terms to counter it. But the new terms may contain a certain flaw too, if you're thinking of it like, 'well since they can't choose we can't outlaw it.' Well, we have no right to outlaw personal choices that don't harm others I the first place, so I don't like the premise of 'since it's not a choice, we'll accept it. Freedom of choice in life is extremely important!
edit on 21-3-2015 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join