David Quinn and Gay Marriage

Monty.

NuMarvel wrote: »

That's not really a stone you should be throwing in this particular glasshouse, don't you agree?

No, I'm not your champion David Norris

wonderfulname

philologos wrote: »

However, there can be discussions over whether or not the State should give due preference to the traditional family of mother, father and child over alternative arrangements. I think that discussion is valid and necessary in and of itself. It is in that regard that antiskeptic originally argued as far as I can see.

The preference is entirely a cultural one, stemming from conservative catholic upbringings, the discussion is not necessary, all evidence shows that the make up of a family has no bearing on a child, I find it ridiculous that engrained outdated beliefs on the nature of the family are given as much credence as actual evidence and fact.

mikeyboy

Monty. wrote: »

Wholesome life long male friendship/companionship is fine, sodomy etc. is not. All but a very few dysfunctional confused animals know which hole to stick it into. You cannot blame a small minority of confused animals for a dysfunctional urge, yet you wish to use this confused dysfunctional urge as an excuse why humans should not resist such dysfunctional urges. Just because someone has the urge to do something does not mean they have the right to act on it, nor claim it is natural, nor claim they have the "right" to build marriage and parenthood around it with Satan inspired clever sophistry in order to normalise their lust of sodomy and make it acceptable as it was in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Fool us into condoning your acts of sodomy and the building of marriage and parenthood around it ? Never
What's the next agenda, normalising the “right” to having “loving” sex with minors ? Hah.
Go back to your sophistry and spin now so . . .

Your condemnation of homosexuals must at least in part be based on Leviticus 18:22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." Since that refers only to male homosexuality does that mean you find lesbianism acceptable?
Do you also refrain from eating pork, Leviticus 11:7-8? Wearing clothes made of more than one kind of cloth or planting more than one kind of seed in a field, Leviticus 19:19? Cutting your hair or shaving, Leviticus 19:27? Eating shellfish, Deuteronomy 14:9? Forbid a woman to speak in church, 1st Corinthians 14:34?

NuMarvel

Monty. wrote: »

No, I'm not your champion David Norris

If David Norris is the only thing that comes to mind when you talk about sex with minors, then I suggest do a little bit more research. Others, who are theoretically far more ardent followers of the Bible, have actually carried out the act. I think it's very clear who is more deserving of your scorn and stone throwing.

philologos

wonderfulname wrote: »

The preference is entirely a cultural one, stemming from conservative catholic upbringings, the discussion is not necessary, all evidence shows that the make up of a family has no bearing on a child, I find it ridiculous that engrained outdated beliefs on the nature of the family are given as much credence as actual evidence and fact.

Having had neither a conservative or a Catholic upbringing I still think that it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father when they are growing up. Male and female role models are essential in child development. The research you've presented contradicts other research which has looked into gender roles in child development.

There's nothing outdated by saying that a child should in the vast majority of cases have a mum and dad and that this should be ensured where possible by the State in defending marriage and in adoption preference.

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

Having had neither a conservative or a Catholic upbringing I still think that it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father when they are growing up. Male and female role models are essential in child development. The research you've presented contradicts other research which has looked into gender roles in child development.

There's nothing outdated by saying that a child should in the vast majority of cases have a mum and dad and that this should be ensured where possible by the State in defending marriage and in adoption preference.

Absolutely everything there is just, wrong, wrong, wrong..

• "Male and Female Role Models are "essential" to child development"

  • Says who?

• "Nothing outdated by saying a child should in the vast majority of cases have a mum and dad"

  .
  • This doesn't say anything about gender of the mum and dad parents tho doesn't it. Couldn't a mum just as easily be male? If you are claiming that the mother must be female and the dad male then it's completely outdated and at odds with the consensual position of almost 50 years of intense scientific research.

oldrnwisr

philologos wrote: »

Having had neither a conservative or a Catholic upbringing I still think that it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father when they are growing up. Male and female role models are essential in child development. The research you've presented contradicts other research which has looked into gender roles in child development.

There's nothing outdated by saying that a child should in the vast majority of cases have a mum and dad and that this should be ensured where possible by the State in defending marriage and in adoption preference.

You think that it is best, or you actually have evidence to back up your assertion?

I've already pointed out here that the research says exactly the opposite of what you're claiming and a-ha has also pointed out here that the consensus of the relevant medical organisations is that there is no difference between children raised by a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple.

The view may not be outdated but it is most definitely wrong.

wonderfulname

philologos wrote: »

The research you've presented contradicts other research which has looked into gender roles in child development.

APA wrote:

it is significant that, even taking into account all the questions and/or limitations that may characterize research in this area, none of the published research suggests conclusions different from the others.

So where exactly is your other research? Myself and others have offered solid external reference to back up our position, you have done no such thing. In all the time I have looked into research on the effects of being raised in a defacto family I have never once seen a conclusion other than that the sexual orientation or number of parents in a household has no bearing on the well being of a child, evidently neither has the American Psychological Association, I'm sure whatever evidence you provide us you'll want to pass on to them, they'll feel ever so foolish...

PDN

You are in the Christianity Forum, not After Hours. If you want to discuss this topic here then you do so with the understanding that Christians tend to believe in and try to follow the Bible.

Therefore. If you can't enter a discussion without snide remarks about holy books or muppetry about fantasy then it would be better for you not to bother.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Monty. wrote: »

Wholesome life long male friendship/companionship is fine, sodomy etc. is not.

It'd be great if you could answer why not, particularly if you can do it without reference to your holy book.

Monty. wrote: »

All but a very few dysfunctional confused animals know which hole to stick it into. You cannot blame a small minority of confused animals for a dysfunctional urge, yet you wish to use this confused dysfunctional urge as an excuse why humans should not resist such dysfunctional urges.

First off, this isn't a few confused animals. Homosexual behaviour has been recorded in over 1500 species and well-studied in over 500 species. Bruce Bagemihl presents a review of the literature on homosexual behaviour in animals in his book Biological Exuberance. This of course has already pointed out to you.

Monty. wrote: »

nor claim it is natural

If 1500+ species of animal which practice homosexual behaviour is not natural then I'd love to know what your definition of natural because it's obviously one that I wasn't previously aware of and certainly not this one.

Monty. wrote: »

nor claim they have the "right" to build marriage and parenthood around it with Satan inspired clever sophistry in order to normalise their lust of sodomy and make it acceptable as it was in Sodom and Gomorrah.

I think that this entire argument would be best served by sticking to facts and not fantasy. So unless you can demonstrate that a being called Satan actually exists or that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah actually happened can we stick to real points.

So, like I said to gimmebroadband, do you actually have something useful to contribute to this debate?

philologos

wonderfulname: This is from a few years ago with some quotations from a text on the influence of gender roles on children. In this case it was particularly in the case of fathers. More citations here.

Your position if true, refutes the idea that gender is significant in child rearing. Other studies on the other hand say that gender roles are significant in child rearing. Someones wrong, no?

I am highly skeptical of the claim that a woman can fully replace a father's role in a childs life, likewise I'm highly skeptical that a man can replace a mother. Men give different things to children than women do. If you take a look on google scholar for studies on gender roles in child rearing you'll see a whole lot more as well. Men and women are different and as such they complement eachother in child rearing. Each encourage their child differently, each deal with their child differently, and children can learn a lot from how each deal with others too.

In other words, I don't buy it because it doesn't make much sense to me.

When I get a bit more time I might do a fresh search on the subject.

Penn

philologos wrote: »

wonderfulname: This is from a few years ago with some quotations from a text on the influence of gender roles on children. In this case it was particularly in the case of fathers. More citations here.

Your position if true, refutes the idea that gender is significant in child rearing. Other studies on the other hand say that gender roles are significant in child rearing. Someones wrong, no?

I am highly skeptical of the claim that a woman can fully replace a father's role in a childs life, likewise I'm highly skeptical that a man can replace a mother. Men give different things to children than women do. If you take a look on google scholar for studies on gender roles in child rearing you'll see a whole lot more as well. Men and women are different and as such they complement eachother in child rearing. Each encourage their child differently, each deal with their child differently, and children can learn a lot from how each deal with others too.

In other words, I don't buy it because it doesn't make much sense to me.

When I get a bit more time I might do a fresh search on the subject.

But you seem to be prioritising gender roles over an actual happy home life.

Think of it this way: Thousands and thousands of children either in State care or going from foster home to foster home because there aren't enough people who wish to adopt. A homosexual couple wish to adopt, so after background checks by the State into how good a home life they could give to a child, that child can then be raised in a loving environment as decided by the adoption agency as they would for any couple. Sure, gender roles do play a factor, but surely you'd agree that growing up with same-sex parents is better than growing up in State care with no parents, or even growing up with your own bad parents. Normal parents aren't really checked to see if they're raising their child right. Couples who want to adopt are.

philologos

I'm not saying that at all though Barrington.

What I am saying is on average that it is better for a child to have a mother and a father. There might be cases where the mother and father are awful and other parents (preferably other father and mother situations) should be considered.

Penn

philologos wrote: »

I'm not saying that at all though Barrington.

What I am saying is on average that it is better for a child to have a mother and a father. There might be cases where the mother and father are awful and other parents (preferably other father and mother situations) should be considered.

Right, so it's not black and white.

So if a same-sex couple and a hetero couple both want to adopt a child and the adoption agency determines that the same-sex couple could provide better for the child but the hetero couple can provide the gender roles, but each in a stable, loving environment, which couple do you think should be allowed to adopt the child?

oldrnwisr

PDN: Yes, fair enough, I probably did forget where I was for a moment. I do stand over the points I made but the way they were phrased was excessive and snide. I apologise for that.

philologos wrote: »

wonderfulname: This is from a few years ago with some quotations from a text on the influence of gender roles on children. In this case it was particularly in the case of fathers. More citations here.

You're not off to a great start here philologos. The first citation you make in support of your argument, The Role of the Father in Child Development by Michael E. Lamb actually says the opposite of what you're arguing. From his summary:

First, fathers and mothers influence their children in similar rather than dissimilar ways.

Stated differently, students of socialization have consistently found that parental warmth, nurturance and closeness are associated with positive child outcomes regardless of whether the parent involved is a mother or father.

Secondly, as research has unfolded, psychologists have been forced to conclude that the characteristics of individual fathers - such as their masculinity, intellect, and even their warmth - are much less important, formatively speaking, than are the characteristics of the relationships they have established with their children.

Marital harmony is a consistent correlate of child adjustment, whereas marital conflict is a consistent and reliable correlate of child maladjustment.

The conclusions drawn by the author again and again, suggest that the optimal environment for a child is a happy home where there is harmony between parents and a stable loving relationship between parent and child. The gender-specific characteristics that a father may have are not as important. It also makes no mention of a comparison between heterosexual and homosexual parents and so you're not really comparing like with like by referencing this study.

When I get a chance I will look through your other citations as well.

philologos wrote: »

Your position if true, refutes the idea that gender is significant in child rearing. Other studies on the other hand say that gender roles are significant in child rearing. Someones wrong, no?

There may be studies which have conflicting conclusions, philologos, which is why we have scientific consensus. The consensus position of the relevant medical organisations, which a-ha has already posted, supports the idea that the gender of the parents plays no significant role in the outcome of the child.

philologos wrote: »

I am highly skeptical of the claim that a woman can fully replace a father's role in a childs life, likewise I'm highly skeptical that a man can replace a mother. Men give different things to children than women do. If you take a look on google scholar for studies on gender roles in child rearing you'll see a whole lot more as well. Men and women are different and as such they complement eachother in child rearing. Each encourage their child differently, each deal with their child differently, and children can learn a lot from how each deal with others too.

You may be skeptical but the evidence is there. Now if you have analysed the studies conducted comparing homosexual and heterosexual parenting and found flaws then post them. Even the author of the study you cited, however, doesn't agree with your intuition.

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

wonderfulname: This is from a few years ago with some quotations from a text on the influence of gender roles on children. In this case it was particularly in the case of fathers. More citations here.

These are useless. You are just saying that having the child raised in a dual relationship with a father role model and mother role model is optimal. D'uh! Then you make the bizarre leap that this is evidence against the notion that dual homosexuals couples are the less adequate choice.This is akin to going it's obvious apples are good for you, but here is some of the research that supports apples being good for you. Ergo, apples are better than oranges. How about comparing the apples with the oranges?

I am highly skeptical of the claim that a woman can fully replace a father's role in a childs life, likewise I'm highly skeptical that a man can replace a mother. Men give different things to children than women do. If you take a look on google scholar for studies on gender roles in child rearing you'll see a whole lot more as well. Men and women are different and as such they complement eachother in child rearing. Each encourage their child differently, each deal with their child differently, and children can learn a lot from how each deal with others too.

Pseudo skeptical more like. Have you any research that compares the hetero couple to homo couple that shows that the role of the father or mother can only be carried out by the traditional sex? Like it or not, there is no suggestion that the roles a parent plays in his/her child's development is anyway dependent upon their sex. It's like two parents being killed in a car crash, and two older brothers or sisters in their 20s raise the youngest sibling who is just a few months old. Can you suggest any plausible reason ,or point to research that shows, why these two brothers/sisters wouldn't be appropriate for raising their sibling? Finally, to put this myth to bed are you really going to suggest to me that a brother and sister raising a child together would be more preferable than either two brothers and two sisters?

philologos

Malty T: If you assume as you have done already in the thread that a woman can be a "father" and a man can be a "mother" then I'm sure you could conclude that. I don't see any valid or proper reason to believe that though.

andre2010

Firstly as a gay man id like to add something.. I currently have no plans or think I will ever have plans to adopt a child. Im not the brooding type. But I am only 30, so this may change in the future. I think that it has been scientifically proven numerous times that same sex parents have no detrimental effect on the development of a child. Links have been provided, but there is no point in trying to change someones view by forcing your own on them, regardless of how true you think it is

Secondly, while I find it hurtful to hear some of the comments made on this post, especially from Monty, you have to remember that this is a Christianity forum. You really have to know your audience. We cannot really get annoyed with what seems to be a devout religious person speaking his mind in a religious forum. I personally think that what he is saying is ridiculous and id rather base my fact on studies carried out by the scientific community than take the word of a book written thousands of years ago by guys clearly out of their faces on drugs talking to burning bushes and snakes. But everyone is entitled to an opinion, regardless of if you feel its correct or not. But I say to Monty, if you are going to follow the bible, then you cannot pick and choose which parts you believe and choose to follow. You MUST and I mean MUST follow it to the t if you want to avoid hell and Satan. You must accept slavery also and never eat meat on a Friday also. You do realize that more than likely if you are to believe everything you read, then youre on your way to meet satan also. See you there my friend, the only difference is, im going to enjoy my journey there, you can enter hell through the front door, i will happy enter through the back :P

Fanny Cradock

andre2010 wrote: »

You MUST and I mean MUST follow it to the t if you want to avoid hell and Satan. You must accept slavery also and never eat meat on a Friday also.

While I'm not interested in defending Monty, it might be best if you actually understood the thing you reject first. What you wrote above is nonsensical.

andre2010

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

While I'm not interested in defending Monty, it might be best if you actually understood the thing you reject first. What you wrote above is nonsensical.

Im sorry but i dont agree with you. Its not Nonsensical, yes maybe a little sensationalized i agree and i dont mean to cause offence, but if Monty wants to be as draconian about this, then he must be following what the bible is telling him. My point i was making is, you cannot just pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow, you must follow it all, otherwise, you go to hell. Im almost certain ( and i say ALMOST) as i do not know the guy personally, but i feel that from what ive read of the bible, there is no way that the majority of catholics follow every single thing it says. Yet victimize others who live their lives differently, its hypocrytical in my opinion. Sorry, i may not be making my point properly here, but i hope you get the gyst

Fanny Cradock

andre2010 wrote: »

Im sorry but i dont agree with you. Its not Nonsensical, yes maybe a little sensationalized i agree and i dont mean to cause offence, but if Monty wants to be as draconian about this, then he must be following what the bible is telling him. My point i was making is, you cannot just pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow, you must follow it all, otherwise, you go to hell. Im almost certain ( and i say ALMOST) as i do not know the guy personally, but i feel that from what ive read of the bible, there is no way that the majority of catholics follow every single thing it says. Yet victimize others who live their lives differently, its hypocrytical in my opinion. Sorry, i may not be making my point properly here, but i hope you get the gyst

O.K. - how about this. You start a thread about the probation against eating meat on Friday and the absolute compulsion Christians have to accept slavery and allow this thread to stay on topic.

Monty.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

It'd be great if you could answer why not, particularly if you can do it without reference to your holy book.

Yes, I know it's your goal to try and exclude God and his word.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

First off, this isn't a few confused animals. Homosexual behaviour has been recorded in over 1500 species and well-studied in over 500 species. Bruce Bagemihl presents a review of the literature on homosexual behaviour in animals in his book Biological Exuberance. This of course has already pointed out to you.

If 1500+ species of animal which practice homosexual behaviour is not natural then I'd love to know what your definition of natural because it's obviously one that I wasn't previously aware of and certainly not this one.

Identified abnormalities out of 1.74 million species identified to date.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

So unless you can demonstrate that a being called Satan actually exists or that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah actually happened can we stick to real points.

Unless you can demonstrate Satan does not exist or Sodom and Gomorrah did not happen . . . .

Monty.

Wicknight wrote: »

Does that include anal sex between married heterosexual couples?

Yes, of course. There are sins that "cry out to heaven"

Voluntary murder (Genesis 4:10)
The sin of impurity against nature –Sodomy and homosexual relations (Genesis 18:20)
Taking advantage of the poor (Exodus 2:23)
Defrauding the workingman of his wages (James 5:4)

Wicknight wrote: »

Is it the actual act that you object to, or homosexual relationships?

Sex outside sex in heterosexual marriage for the pro-creation of life, and that's a bigger separate topic. This thread is essentially about the current attempt of trying to build "gay" "marriage" and child adoption around Sodomy in an attempt to normalise it.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why, what happens if sodomy becomes acceptable?

God will turn the vast majority of the human race over to their passions and Satan.

Dave!

I gather you believe oral sex is a sin too?

Monty.

NuMarvel wrote: »

That's not really a stone you should be throwing in this particular glasshouse, don't you agree?

Besides which, the old "homosexuality = paedophilia" argument is beyond old at this stage, and even you should know the difference between the two.

Who's claiming "homosexuality = paedophilia" ?
Your failed attempt to drag and distract the discussion off topic is noted.

oldrnwisr

Monty. wrote: »

Yes, I know it's your goal to try and exclude God and his word.

I don't have a goal to exclude God or his word. It is important to me, however, to establish what is true. As Bertrand Russell once said: "When you are studying any matter or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only: what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out." Now if you care to demonstrate that the Bible is true and authoritative then fine, but until then I don't think it's pertinent to a factual discussion on gay marriage.

Monty. wrote: »

Identified abnormalities out of 1.74 billion species identified to date.

OK, let's back up for a second. My first post in this thread was in response to gimmebroadband's comment about homosexuality being unnatural, where I posted several links to studies of homosexual animal species, since anything occurring in nature cannot by definition unnatural. Following this you made a comment about this being just "a few dysfunctional animals". I pointed out that it has been observed so far in over 1500 species.

Now, first off, your species estimate is off by about a factor of 1000, which is impressive. You opened your post by talking about animals, as was I in my post. The current best estimate for the total number of animal species is 1.37 million. BTW, the widest estimate for the total number of species today is still no larger than 100 million so I don't know where your figure comes from.

Secondly, the figure of 1500 species is by no means an upper limit and is only currently limited by our knowledge of the behaviour of studied species.

Third, maybe you'd like to provide evidence why homosexuality is an abnormality or dysfunction, and I mean characteristically not statistically. You're making a bad is-ought argument here. Just because a particular behaviour is more common does not mean that it ought to be the behaviour across all members of the population.

Monty. wrote: »

Unless you can demonstrate Satan does not exist or Sodom and Gomorrah did not happen . . . .

I'm not the one claiming that they do exist, you are. The burden of proof is yours.

NuMarvel

Monty. wrote: »

Who's claiming "homosexuality = paedophilia" ? Your failed attempt to drag and distract the discussion off topic is noted.

You made the claim, when you compared the campaign for same-sex marriage right with the "right" to have sex with a minor. But I'm happy to see that you accept that the two issues are completely unconnected, and you're correct that this thread should focus solely on marriage equality for same sex couples.

Monty.

Wicknight wrote: »

There is complaining about homosexuality and then there is hysterically invoking Satan at the mere mention of it.

There are other Christians on this forum how manage to object to homosexuality in some what of a less flaming manner

For most Christians, Satan and his methods of temptation and trickery is accepted fact, not hysteria, and attempting to portray it as so will not work I'm afraid.

Monty.

mikeyboy wrote: »

Your condemnation of homosexuals must at least in part be based on Leviticus 18:22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." Since that refers only to male homosexuality does that mean you find lesbianism acceptable?
Do you also refrain from eating pork, Leviticus 11:7-8? Wearing clothes made of more than one kind of cloth or planting more than one kind of seed in a field, Leviticus 19:19? Cutting your hair or shaving, Leviticus 19:27? Eating shellfish, Deuteronomy 14:9? Forbid a woman to speak in church, 1st Corinthians 14:34?

A TV trick from West Wing as I recall. As any Christian knows, the bible must be understood and interpreted in its entirety.

Romans 1:26-27, First Corinthians 6:9, First Corinthians 7:2-16, Genesis 2:24, Ephesians 5:23-33, and others are all relevant to this thread.

Monty.

NuMarvel wrote: »

If David Norris is the only thing that comes to mind when you talk about sex with minors, then I suggest do a little bit more research. Others, who are theoretically far more ardent followers of the Bible, have actually carried out the act. I think it's very clear who is more deserving of your scorn and stone throwing.

Norris had two agendas
1) Normalisation and acceptance of male sodomy by promoting "gay" "marriage"
2) Lowering the age of consent for people like himself

Monty.

andre2010 wrote: »

But I say to Monty, if you are going to follow the bible, then you cannot pick and choose which parts you believe and choose to follow. You MUST and I mean MUST follow it to the t if you want to avoid hell and Satan. You must accept slavery also and never eat meat on a Friday also.

Can you provide us with a basis for that claim ?

Monty.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Now if you care to demonstrate that the Bible is true and authoritative then fine, but until then I don't think it's pertinent to a factual discussion on gay marriage.

Now if you can prove the bible is not pertinent to a factual discussion on this forum, work away . . .

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, let's back up for a second. My first post in this thread was in response to gimmebroadband's comment about homosexuality being unnatural, where I posted several links to studies of homosexual animal species, since anything occurring in nature cannot by definition unnatural. Following this you made a comment about this being just "a few dysfunctional animals". I pointed out that it has been observed so far in over 1500 species.

Now, first off, your species estimate is off by about a factor of 1000, which is impressive. You opened your post by talking about animals, as was I in my post. The current best estimate for the total number of animal species is 1.37 million. BTW, the widest estimate for the total number of species today is still no larger than 100 million so I don't know where your figure comes from.

Secondly, the figure of 1500 species is by no means an upper limit and is only currently limited by our knowledge of the behaviour of studied species.

Before you get too excited, I meant to write 1.74 million. Since when did 1500 out of 1.74 million make something statistically normal ?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Third, maybe you'd like to provide evidence why homosexuality is an abnormality or dysfunction, and I mean characteristically not statistically.

Maybe you could tell us how you, or any animal would be here at this stage if all it's ancestors were homosexual ?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You're making a bad is-ought argument here. Just because a particular behaviour is more common does not mean that it ought to be the behaviour across all members of the population.

From the same guy that said ;

oldrnwisr wrote: »

If 1500+ species of animal which practice homosexual behaviour is not natural then I'd love to know what your definition of natural

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The burden of proof is yours

Firstly, perhaps you can prove that for us.
Secondly as you're the one wishing to change the status quo, the burden of proof is actually on you.

PDN

Monty. wrote: »

Can you provide us with a basis for that claim ?

Don't feed the troll please.

oldrnwisr

Monty. wrote: »

Now if you can prove the bible is not pertinent to a factual discussion on this forum, work away . . .

I don't like repeating myself but the burden of proof is yours. You are the one proposing the Bible as a fact in support of your argument, so perhaps you can tell me why anyone should consider it to be true or authoritative?

Monty. wrote: »

Before you get too excited, I meant to write 1.74 million. Since when did 1500 out of 1.74 million make something statistically normal ?

OK, you meant million, but I'd love to know where you're still getting 1.74 million from. That's still 370,000 species to account for.

I never suggested, that 1500 out of 1.74 million is statistically normal. However, it is a far cry from " a few dysfunctional animals". I have asked you, though, what basis you have for characterising homosexuality as abnormal or dysfunctional, apart from statistics, so whenever you feel like answering that one...

Monty. wrote: »

Maybe you could tell us how you, or any animal would be here at this stage if all it's ancestors were homosexual ?

Nice strawman argument. I haven't said nor has anything I posted suggested that the observed homosexual behaviour in animal species is either a) all animals within a species nor b) exclusively homosexual. Yes, no animal whose ancestors were exclusively homosexual would be here today, but no one is claiming that.

Monty. wrote: »

From the same guy that said ;

Ok, I'll explain this again, as simply as I can. Anything which occurs in nature is by definition, natural. So if there are homosexual animals observed in nature then homosexuality is natural. Simples.

Monty. wrote: »

Firstly, perhaps you can prove that for us.

Certainly. Here you go.

Philosophic burden of proof

Legal burden of proof

In both cases above, the burden is on the person making the claim, which is most elegantly termed semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.

Monty. wrote: »

Secondly as you're the one wishing to change the status quo, the burden of proof is actually on you.

I must have missed the memo where you proved that Satan exists. Satan is: "the title of various entities, both human and divine, who challenge the faith of humans in the Hebrew Bible". If, contrary to Wikipedia, you have evidence to demonstrate the existence of Satan then it should be relatively easy to provide it. Then I can respond to the "status quo".

Monty.

PDN wrote: »

Don't feed the troll please.

You're right. That's all he seems to have left.
I'm glad to see you issue that reminder, I'll leave you to deal with him.

NuMarvel

Monty. wrote: »

Norris had two agendas
1) Normalisation and acceptance of male sodomy by promoting "gay" "marriage"
2) Lowering the age of consent for people like himself

I think you'll find that Senator Norris' agenda on the first point is to afford equal civil-marriage rights to same sex couples. Same-sex sexual activity has been already largely accepted and normalised for nearly 20 years, when the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Ireland's then-current laws criminalising same-sex sexual activity breached the European Convention of Human Rights.

I understand and respect that you have a different point of view, but the majority of people in Ireland accept that couples (be they same sex or opposite sex) have sex.

As for your second point, Senator Norris is already well past the age of consent. I don't think he needs to worry about getting it lowered for him or people in his age bracket. Nor does he have to worry about it being lowered for gay men or women. That was also done nearly 20 years ago when the State equalised the age of consent for both homosexual and heterosexual sexual activity.

Monty.

NuMarvel wrote: »

I think you'll find that Senator Norris' agenda on the first point is to afford equal civil-marriage rights to same sex couples. Same-sex sexual activity has been already largely accepted and normalised for nearly 20 years, when the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Ireland's then-current laws criminalising same-sex sexual activity breached the European Convention of Human Rights.

Because something is tolerated by the legal system, does mean it has to be accepted as normal or moral.

NuMarvel wrote: »

I understand and respect that you have a different point of view, but the majority of people in Ireland accept that couples (be they same sex or opposite sex) have sex.

This does not in any way justify sodomy, or partnerships, "marriage" and child adoption based on sodomy.

NuMarvel wrote: »

As for your second point, Senator Norris is already well past the age of consent. I don't think he needs to worry about getting it lowered for him or people in his age bracket. Nor does he have to worry about it being lowered for gay men or women. That was also done nearly 20 years ago when the State equalised the age of consent for both homosexual and heterosexual sexual activity.

Norris's admiration for man-boy sodomy, and his desire for a lower age of consent has been well documented in the press.

Dave!

Is oral sex immoral too?

Monty.

Dave! wrote: »

Is oral sex immoral too?

This is off topic for this thread, but the short answer is that it depends on if it is open to creating life inside marriage.

NuMarvel

Monty. wrote: »

Because something is tolerated by the legal system, does mean it has to be accepted as normal or moral.

It's not just tolerated by the legal system though. It was changed by the political system. As far as I'm aware, few if any politicians voted against the law decriminalising same-sex sexual activity, and I'm certainly not aware of any politician losing their seat at the next general election for voting the measure through.

Perhaps that's not conclusive proof, but it's certainly indicative of the general population's acceptance.

Monty. wrote: »

This does not in any way justify sodomy, or partnerships, "marriage" and child adoption based on sodomy.

Leaving aside your apparent assumption that ALL gay men in a relationship engage in anal sex, you presumably have no objection to at least lesbian couples being allowed to marry and adopt? Their relationship isn't "based on sodomy".

Zombrex

Monty. wrote: »

For most Christians, Satan and his methods of temptation and trickery is accepted fact, not hysteria, and attempting to portray it as so will not work I'm afraid.

Which again raises the question of why you cannot discuss this subject in a less hysterical fashion when other Christians who believe homosexual acts are a sin seem perfectly able to.

For example, why mention Satan at all. Sin is discussed all the time on this forum, very really requiring that Satan be brought into the topic. In the Bible homosexual acts are described as a sin. So is pre-marital sex. So is being disrespectful to your parents. So is using prostitutes. In fact quite a lot of things in the Bible are a sin.

Yet these subjects can be discussed without bringing Satan into it? It is a sin, one of many. You seem to be promoting it as a particularly bad one, and then bringing Satan into the mix and I'm not sure why but I hope you can understand why people got the impression that to you this is a particularly prickly subject.

Monty.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Perhaps that's not conclusive proof, but it's certainly indicative of the general population's acceptance.

It's not proof, at best it's indicative of tolerance.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Leaving aside your apparent assumption that ALL gay men in a relationship engage in anal sex, you presumably have no objection to at least lesbian couples being allowed to marry and adopt? Their relationship isn't "based on sodomy".

Sodomy is a particularly vile rejection of pro-creation by man, but the bible is quite clear that women should not lie with women, marriage is not for the societal normalisation of same sex acts, it's for the loving pro-creation of children and the human race as per God's will.

Monty.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which again raises the question of why you cannot discuss this subject in a less hysterical fashion when other Christians who believe homosexual acts are a sin seem perfectly able to.

For example, why mention Satan at all. Sin is discussed all the time on this forum, very really requiring that Satan be brought into the topic. In the Bible homosexual acts are described as a sin. So is pre-marital sex. So is being disrespectful to your parents. So is using prostitutes. In fact quite a lot of things in the Bible are a sin.

Yet these subjects can be discussed without bringing Satan into it? It is a sin, one of many. You seem to be promoting it as a particularly bad one, and then bringing Satan into the mix and I'm not sure why but I hope you can understand why people got the impression that to you this is a particularly prickly subject.

Fail.

This is yet another thinly veneered attempt at ad homiem trolling and diversion, and an attempt to make it about me instead of the issue.

I refer to Satan regularly in other threads, particularly with respect to his control of the three very powerful and corrupted Vatican Carndinals Sodano, Bertone and Law.

I'll not be silenced regarding Satan, or the trick of trying to build marriage and child adoption around Sodomy in vile attempt to "normalise" homosexual acts and creat a modern version of Sodom and Gomorrah.

oldrnwisr

Monty. wrote: »

Sodomy is a particularly vile rejection of pro-creation by man, but the bible is quite clear that women should not lie with women, marriage is not for the societal normalisation of same sex acts, it's for the loving pro-creation of children and the human race as per God's will.

Yes, the bible is clear and makes repeated prohibitions of homosexuality. We don't base our laws on the bible, however. This ain't a theocracy.

NuMarvel

Monty. wrote: »

but the bible is quite clear that women should not lie with women, marriage is not for the societal normalisation of same sex acts, it's for the loving pro-creation of children and the human race as per God's will.

So, if marriage is for the procreation of children and the perpetuation of the human race, what does the Bible say about infertile couples marrying, and what is your own stance on it?

Monty.

NuMarvel wrote: »

So, if marriage is for the procreation of children and the perpetuation of the human race, what does the Bible say about infertile couples marrying, and what is your own stance on it?

How does any couple know they may or may not make a permanently infertile couple if they marry ? nor do they know what other incompatible genes etc. they carry even if they are fertile. Also there is no guarantee any couple will remain fertile, fertility is a very complex and never guaranteed/reliable for any couple over time. Also why should a heterosexual couple be denied further regarding the already limited amount of adopted children because a gay couples want to adopt as well ?

Monty.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Yes, the bible is clear and makes repeated prohibitions of homosexuality. We don't base our laws on the bible, however. This ain't a theocracy.

You want to talk about democracy ? Excellent.
Why is "gay" "marriage" and "adoption" not being put before the people in a proper referendum ? Why is a referendum on these issues being avoided at all costs ?

NuMarvel

Monty. wrote: »

You want to talk about democracy ? Excellent.
Why is "gay" "marriage" and "adoption" not being put before the people in a proper referendum ? Why is a referendum on these issues being avoided at all costs ?

The Government is probably awaiting the results of the Supreme Court appeal by (now) Senator Katherine Zappone and her partner before making any plans. After all, why go to the expense of a referendum if the Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage is allowable under the Constitution.

Plus, there's the fact that someone shouldn't HAVE to ask 4 million people for permission to get married...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULdaSrYGLQ

oldrnwisr

Monty. wrote: »

You want to talk about democracy ? Excellent.
Why is "gay" "marriage" and "adoption" not being put before the people in a proper referendum ? Why is a referendum on these issues being avoided at all costs ?

You kinda answered your own question there, costs. Well at least that's one reason expense. It is quite costly to hold a referendum, particularlyif you're only going to hold one.

Secondly, the passing of a referendum would require a change in legislation and the introduction of a new piece of legislation to accompany a referendum is unlikely given the current state of the government. Amendments to parental leave, for example, have been pushed back to 2013 because of the government's "heavy legislative agenda."

Thirdly, while Labour has a stated desire to overhaul the constitution by means of convention, Fine Gael, being the larger party is probably going to dictate the nature and progress of constitutional reform. Their election manifesto makes it quite clear that Fine Gael have a mind to hold several referenda to reform the constitution including judicial pay, TD numbers and the abolition of the Seanad. However, they have also stated that:

"This referendum will not address the articles dealing with rights/social policy as we want the focus to stay on political reform."

Fine Gael have already stated an intention to fix the political issues first, before moving on to social policy issues, so it is pretty clear why there isn't an agenda on the cards.

None of this speaks to my original point, however, which is it is irrelevant in a legal context what prohibitions the bible contain since we don't base our laws on it.

Zombrex

Monty. wrote: »

I'll not be silenced regarding Satan, or the trick of trying to build marriage and child adoption around Sodomy in vile attempt to "normalise" homosexual acts and creat a modern version of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Again with the hysteria over this issue. What makes homosexual acts more "vile" than any other sin?

Do you accept that non-Christians already have the legal right to do things that Christians consider a sin, and that if they do this that is between God and themselves, not an issue for other Christians.

For example, do you believe sex outside of a marriage should be illegal under the law, since it is a sin in Christianity? Do you believe that worshipping another god should be illegal, since it breaks the 1st Commandment?

If not then why are you picking homosexuality for special treatment? You sure it isn't anything to do with personal issues on the matter?

NuMarvel

Monty. wrote: »

How does any couple know they may or may not make a permanently infertile couple if they marry ? nor do they know what other incompatible genes etc. they carry even if they are fertile.

I would have thought that if marriage is that sacred an institution, and the purpose of marriage is for procreation, then the Church would ask prospective spouses to undergo some form of testing to ensure that children are at least possible. Obviously, that kind of testing wasn't around 2000 years ago, but it is today. I'm not expecting couples to be admitted to hospital for days on end, but aren't there simple enough tests that can at least check the basics?

And what's your stance on couples marrying when they know they are infertile, or have decided they don't want children and have taken the medical steps necessary not to procreate. Why do you think they should be allowed to be married?

Monty. wrote: »

Also why should a heterosexual couple be denied further regarding the already limited amount of adopted children because a gay couples want to adopt as well ?

In my world, they would have the right to be assessed as prospective adoptive parents exactly the same way as a same-sex couple would be. The child would then go to the couple who would provide the best environment for the child, who would nurture and love the child and basically help them grow into the best human being possible. If that's the heterosexual couple, then I'll fully support that, but the same-sex couple shouldn't be denied simply because of their sexual orientation.

My understanding of your reasoning is that they should be denied because they are abnormal and dysfunctional. Unless you could tell us how you, or any animal would be here at this stage if all it's ancestors were infertile?