LDS II: The Mormons

[Slowvehicle]

I wonder if you have noticed that comments by my critics have taken the discussion down disparate paths, some of which you "own."

1. It was, in fact, you who claimed that the "moral issue" with marriage equality is "the good of the children," or words to that effect. You could look it up.

2. Your "critics" cannot obscure the fact that it was, in fact, you who claimed that the "moral issue" with marriage equality is "the good of the children," or words to that effect.

3. Perhaps you could clarify, or explicate, what you think you meant by your statement that I "own" some of the "disparate paths" down which your "critics" have taken the discussion. That is, if your intent was communication...

I used the qualifier "may." Nevertheless there is abundant literature that justifies my statement. I'll be pleased to provide it.

Have you read more than just the titles and cherry-picked sensationalist excerpts of this literature? Have you considered the sources of your information about this literature?

Have you considered the paternalistic nature of your offer to protect homosexuals form something that may happen? (While neglecting to offer similar "help" to other groups equally, or even more, at risk?)

Avail yourself of Madsen Pirie's excellent book, How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic.

Thank you for the fine, functioning link to the source you recommend.
Oh. As usual, it wasn't a link.

Pirie's book is, of course, about "winning arguments" rather than about presenting the truth of an issue. Which, now that you mention it, explains (among other things) your use of sources...

At any rate,I would rather continue to argue ethically than to stoop to such tricks as depending upon an inherently circular argument, then pretending that the inescapable circularity was not obvious.

Perhaps you even recognize the allusion to the classic example of a circular argument:

"If you pray hard enough,water will run uphill"
"How hard do you have to pray?"
"Hard enough that the water runs uphill..."

I'll take your word about that.

Perhaps you ought--your ignorance is leading you to depend upon the screeds of deceitful bigots. Did you read Foster Zygote's analyses of your sources, with the parts you left out restored?

Sorry, but you run off the rails here.

I'll break it down for you.

1. You said that the "moral issue" with marriage equality was "thegood of the children".

2. You sidetracked the issue with sources you claimed showed how inherently unhealthy the"gay lifestyle"might be.

3. I listed some other factors that are just as "unhealthy", just as "dangerous", and wondered why your sect is not opposed to them, instead of being so focused upon homosexuals.

4. Do try to keep up.

No, it's unnatural primarily because of the complications associated with it.

Then you would not object to a society where homosexuals had the opportunity to legally marry, encouraging monogamous, lifelong commitments, mitigating, even eliminating, the "complications"? And you intend to dedicate your sect to opposing remarriage after divorce,which increases the participants' exposures to more partners, putting them at risk for "complications"?

Marriage is defined as the legal union of a man and a woman. There isn't such a thing as "gay marriage."

May I point out that YOU are the one using the term "gay marriage"? I am, and have been, and will continue to be, using the term "marriage equality", which you dismissed as a euphemism without even realizing that my agenda is broader than same-gender unions.

Not only that, 15 states, and the District of Columbia, disagree with you--and no longer deny the benefits and protections of civil marriage to couples of the same gender.

Nor has civilization-as-we-know-it been sundered thereby.

You err. See my earlier post re. the NFSS study--just one study that indicates gay marriage is harmful to children.

...and see the severalresponses to your "response"...

I will be mocked for this, but I was simply trying to help homosexuals understand that they are not living a healthy lifestyle.

Which is why I asked you about the pregnant, the overweight, the meat-eating, skydivers, motorcyclists, urban cyclists, and their ilk. Your "concern is suspiciously narrow.

I don't need to mock you to point that out.

Your questions are based on false premises; hence, they do not merit a response.

Multiple posters have pointed out to you that sources you claim support your argument do not, in fact, do so. it is almost as if you are cherry-picking titles and biased reviews without actually reading the sources.

Perhaps the esteemed Mr. Pirie can help you with the concept of a "false premise"...

 

[Foster Zygote]

False. I posted the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), conducted by U. of Texas-Austin sociologist Dr. Mark Regnerus, which clearly showed that young adults whose parents had been in same-sex relationships fared poorly compared to parents who had not been in such relationships. By "fared poorly" they were more likely to report being sexually victimized, on welfare, or unemployed when the mothers were in a same-sex relationship (175 respondents). When the fathers were in a same-sex relationshiip, young adults were much more likely to have contemplated suicide, to have a sexually transmitted disease, or to have been sexually abused (73 respondents). You dismiss that study because it isn't congruent with your biased, preconceived perspective. Please note that I have avoided accusing you of bigotry.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/new-research-on-children-of-same-sex-parents-suggest...
You mean that study that was just another conservative anti-gay propaganda piece?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/10/supreme-court-gay-marriage_n_2850302.html

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2013-03-29/new-documents-contradict-regnerus-claims-on-gay-parenting-study/

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/06/a-faulty-gay-parenting-study.html

The study, of fifteen thousand adults between the ages of eighteen and thirty-nine, turned on this question:

S7. From when you were born until age 18 (or until you left home to be on your own), did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex?
Yes, my mother had a romantic relationship with another woman
Yes, my father had a romantic relationship with another man
No
A yes—even a single “romantic relationship”—put the person in the category of child of gay or lesbian parent, and excluded them from the category of intact biological families, regardless of their actual living situations.

That's incredibly bad methodology, designed to manufacture a result that would benefit the anti-gay marriage social conservatives who funded the study.

Kindly note that I am not anti-gay.

In that case, you should probably stop citing so many anti-gay sources.

 

[skyrider44]

Can you show me anywhere in that link that shows the doctor recommending against being gay?
Or recommending against having anal sex?

There are multiple sites, some authored by physicians, that warn of the risks and dangers associated with anal sex. Here are excerpts from just one of them from an article by Dr. David Delvin:

"Anal sex has always been a highly controversial subject, and the controversy that surrounds it looks set to continue into 2012 because evidence accumulates that this practice may sometimes lead to anal cancer" [emphasis added].

"Anal sex does carry considerable health risks, so please read our advice carefully."

To avoid simply parroting what Dr. Delvin says, I will paraphrase the balance of his comments.

Anal intercourse presents evidence that it has a higher transmission rate than virtually any other sexual activity.

Main health risks: 1) Human papilloma virus (HPV). 2) Human papilloma virus and warts. 3) HPV and cancer. Certain strains of HPV virus have cancer-producing potential. 4) Hepatitis A. This is a viral infection. It isn't life-threatening but can cause jaundice and stomach pain. 5) Hepatitis C. This causes progressive and sometimes terminal liver disease. 6) Escherichia coli (E. coli). This can result in severe illness, but is rarely fatal.

Muscle relaxant drugs (amyl nitrate, butyl nitrate, glyceryl trinitrate) are used by some people to make anal sex easier and more comfortable. "We do not recommend this." [Dr. Delvin explains the risks, including dizziness, low blood pressure, and loss of consciousness. "Amyl nitrate, when taken with Viagra, may cause a drastic drop in blood pressure with potentially fatal consequences."

Dr. Delvin notes that anal sex, if practiced with care, is possible for most couples, but he adds: "[Anal sex] does carry health risks and there are safer sexual practices that couples can enjoy."
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sexandrelationships/analsex.htm

 

[abaddon]

Kindly note that I am not anti-gay.

But you self evidently are. You are attempting to defend the bigoted view that gay marriage is in some way abhorrent. For some reason which you are unable to articulate.

Personally, I am pretty much as straight as it gets, but for the life of me I cannot see what it is that scares you so much. Doesn't bother me at all. Dude over there is gay? Good luck to him. Chick over there is a lesbian? Good luck to her. And if either can form a long term relationship, more power to them. And should they desire to formalise that relationship, why should that be excluded by law?

 

[Loss Leader]

Marriage is defined as the legal union of a man and a woman.

No, it isn't. It's defined that way by you. It's defined that way by many US states. But it's not defined that way in New York, New Jersey, Vermont, California, the District of Columbia, the United States of America (federal), Canada, and a growing number of places which will soon include Illinois

There isn't such a thing as "gay marriage."

Thousands of homosexuals are married to each other all over the US - and more each day. How can you possibly defend such a statement?

 

[Pup]

You would be correct if it weren't for the fact that several studies show promiscuity is a problem among homosexuals.

Are those studies in countries and cultures that encourage homosexuals to marry?

If there's a "problem" with promiscuity among homosexuals, seems like the obvious way to attack it would be the same way the Mormon church attacks the problem among heterosexuals: by encouraging people to marry and make a lifelong commitment to be faithful during marriage.

 

[halleyscomet]

ls are married to each other all over the US - and more each day. How can you possibly defend such a statement?

It's important to separate theological statements from secular ones. What skyrider44 appears to be referring to is not the legal construct of marriage as recognized by a government, but the theological construct that evolved after the Romanization of Christianity by Charlemagne. From a religious, LDS perspective, gay marriage does not exist, because it is not, in his dogma, divinely recognized.

The core issue here is the effort by extremist religious to enforce theological meanings of terms and ideas in the secular sphere. Instead of rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and Rendering unto God that which is God's, they're trying to take away that which is Caesar's and place it in God's control. This seems like a good idea to them, but it goes against the teaching of Christ. History shows that consolidating secular authority under religious control leads to violence, oppression, mayhem and "conversion by the sword." In many regards, Christ's response to the attempt to "trick" him with a taxation question is really good advice even today. People often forget that the separation of Church and State has a very solid Biblical foundation. It was dictated by Christ himself.

 

[bruto]

You would be correct if it weren't for the fact that several studies show promiscuity is a problem among homosexuals.

Holy expletive deleted, batman. Did any thinking occur before this one?

So in a society where (if you had your way) marriage would be forever impossible for homosexuals, and, if one presumes you adhere to the Mormon principles you say you do, all homosexual acts would be at least frowned upon and declared immoral and unnatural, if not suppressed and marginalized...surprise surprise! They don't act married! Who'd have suspected?

In the very first link you provided in post #78, in the part you saw fit to quote, in fact, one of the recommendations for avoiding the risks cited was "BE MONOGAMOUS." Now it might seem fairly evident to some, but in case it is not evident to everyone involved here, it is a lot easier to be monogamous if monogamy is permitted.

Of course it's possible to be non-legally monogamous and I've known a few homosexual couples who have indeed been so. They've done so even though their relationship was unenforceable, devoid of benefits, childless,( and, in some cases long ago, criminal).

Unfortunately, along with many promiscuous heterosexuals, I have also known a few homosexual persons who, faced with the dilemma of living at peace in a world in which they are scorned as unnatural and forbidden to have children (and in some cases not so very long ago at risk of losing custody of any children they did have), tried to live as heterosexuals, with the inevitable result that both they and their spouses were unhappy. There is, needless to say, but in case it has escaped anyone's attention I'll say it anyway, no way that this situation promotes the ideal of happy well adjusted heterosexual parents. One could, of course, argue that the solution is for secretly gay parents to live celibate lives and never to become parents, but in the real world this does not happen. In the real world real people do real things.

If you're going to argue against gay marriage on the grounds that promiscuity is somehow a gay problem that disqualifies them, you need to do better than to present arguments that address everyone, gay and straight, and openly suggest monogamy as a solution. And you need in addition to find arguments that somehow suggest that offering the option of marriage to gay couples would, somehow, decrease that monogamy rather than increasing it. This would be the case even if it were true that the problem of promiscuity is greater among homosexuals. For any argument based on promiscuity, it would be useful, though not entirely necessary, to demonstrate that the promiscuity itself is real or inherent, but it would be utterly necessary to demonstrate that the option of marriage would make it worse. You cannot make the argument that promiscuity itself is a disqualification for marriage, since it exists everywhere among those who are already married, so if you are going to make an argument that it disqualifies gays from being married, you MUST prove that marriage will make it worse.

That argument, along with the fundamental argument that gays are in some inherent way more promiscuous than others, failed miserably and notoriously when bozos like the egregious Archbishop of Vermont and the aptly nicknamed "Ruthless Ruth" Dwyer tried them here in 1999. In case that escaped you, we got Civil Unions, and later we got gay marriage. The thing you believe does not exist exists. Good practice has trumped bad theory, and your future is our past.

 

[halleyscomet]

I was in error in my previous post. Modern concepts of what it means to be "Married" do not date to the Romanization of Christianity. They aren't that old. For example, gay marriage was recognized by the Catholic Church in the Medieval period.

This Cracked.com article, of all things, has a fairly well researched introduction to Medieval Gay Marriage.

 

[Craig4]

False. I posted the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), conducted by U. of Texas-Austin sociologist Dr. Mark Regnerus, which clearly showed that young adults whose parents had been in same-sex relationships fared poorly compared to parents who had not been in such relationships. By "fared poorly" they were more likely to report being sexually victimized, on welfare, or unemployed when the mothers were in a same-sex relationship (175 respondents). When the fathers were in a same-sex relationshiip, young adults were much more likely to have contemplated suicide, to have a sexually transmitted disease, or to have been sexually abused (73 respondents). You dismiss that study because it isn't congruent with your biased, preconceived perspective. Please note that I have avoided accusing you of bigotry.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/new-research-on-children-of-same-sex-parents-suggest...




Kindly note that I am not anti-gay.

How many of the respondents were adopted from foster care?

 

[RandFan]

Marriage is defined as the legal union of a man and a woman. There isn't such a thing as "gay marriage."

Marriage is whatever the state says that it is.

Gay Marriage Around the World | Pew Research Center's Religion ...

Same-sex marriage in the United States

Your argument by definition is fatuous.

 

[skyrider44]

. . .The word "unnatural," when applied to homosexual behavior, is pejorative. It is not anything but pejorative. If you do not mean it to be pejorative, you should not use it.

I stand by the following statement (and there are others like it) from medical sources.

". . .human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by seamen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an 'exit only' passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic."
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/male-homosexual-behavior/

The same source calls the list of diseases "found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners. . . alarming." Here is the list:

anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human papilloma virus, isospora belli, micosporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C, syphilis.

The threat that living a homosexual lifestyle poses to human health is very real. Study after study after study makes that clear. The threat cannot be wished away by semantic manipulation.

 

[skyrider44]

Once again, do you think that we aren't going to read the sources ourselves?

Let's look at what the Mayo Clinic has to say, in greater detail than you have presented.

Why do you suppose the Mayo Clinic identified those specific problems and advised people to take precautions? Answer: Because they are strongly associated with homosexual behavior.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I wonder if you have noticed that comments by my critics have taken the discussion down disparate paths, some of which you "own."

1. It was, in fact, you who claimed that the "moral issue" with marriage equality is "the good of the children," or words to that effect. You could look it up.

2. Your "critics" cannot obscure the fact that it was, in fact, you who claimed that the "moral issue" with marriage equality is "the good of the children," or words to that effect.

3. Perhaps you could clarify, or explicate, what you think you meant by your statement that I "own" some of the "disparate paths" down which your "critics" have taken the discussion. That is, if your intent was communication...

I used the qualifier "may." Nevertheless there is abundant literature that justifies my statement. I'll be pleased to provide it.

Have you read more than just the titles and cherry-picked sensationalist excerpts of this literature? Have you considered the sources of your information about this literature?

Have you considered the paternalistic nature of your offer to protect homosexuals form something that may happen? (While neglecting to offer similar "help" to other groups equally, or even more, at risk?)

Avail yourself of Madsen Pirie's excellent book, How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic.

Thank you for the fine, functioning link to the source you recommend.
Oh. As usual, it wasn't a link.

Pirie's book is, of course, about "winning arguments" rather than about presenting the truth of an issue. Which, now that you mention it, explains (among other things) your use of sources...

At any rate,I would rather continue to argue ethically than to stoop to such tricks as depending upon an inherently circular argument, then pretending that the inescapable circularity was not obvious.

Perhaps you even recognize the allusion to the classic example of a circular argument:

"If you pray hard enough,water will run uphill"
"How hard do you have to pray?"
"Hard enough that the water runs uphill..."

I'll take your word about that.

Perhaps you ought--your ignorance is leading you to depend upon the screeds of deceitful bigots. Did you read Foster Zygote's analyses of your sources, with the parts you left out restored?

Sorry, but you run off the rails here.

I'll break it down for you.

1. You said that the "moral issue" with marriage equality was "thegood of the children".

2. You sidetracked the issue with sources you claimed showed how inherently unhealthy the"gay lifestyle"might be.

3. I listed some other factors that are just as "unhealthy", just as "dangerous", and wondered why your sect is not opposed to them, instead of being so focused upon homosexuals.

4. Do try to keep up.

No, it's unnatural primarily because of the complications associated with it.

Then you would not object to a society where homosexuals had the opportunity to legally marry, encouraging monogamous, lifelong commitments, mitigating, even eliminating, the "complications"? And you intend to dedicate your sect to opposing remarriage after divorce,which increases the participants' exposures to more partners, putting them at risk for "complications"?

Marriage is defined as the legal union of a man and a woman. There isn't such a thing as "gay marriage."

May I point out that YOU are the one using the term "gay marriage"? I am, and have been, and will continue to be, using the term "marriage equality", which you dismissed as a euphemism without even realizing that my agenda is broader than same-gender unions.

Not only that, 15 states, and the District of Columbia, disagree with you--and no longer deny the benefits and protections of civil marriage to couples of the same gender.

Nor has civilization-as-we-know-it been sundered thereby.

You err. See my earlier post re. the NFSS study--just one study that indicates gay marriage is harmful to children.

...and see the severalresponses to your "response"...

I will be mocked for this, but I was simply trying to help homosexuals understand that they are not living a healthy lifestyle.

Which is why I asked you about the pregnant, the overweight, the meat-eating, skydivers, motorcyclists, urban cyclists, and their ilk. Your "concern is suspiciously narrow.

I don't need to mock you to point that out.

Your questions are based on false premises; hence, they do not merit a response.

Multiple posters have pointed out to you that sources you claim support your argument do not, in fact, do so. it is almost as if you are cherry-picking titles and biased reviews without actually reading the sources.

Perhaps the esteemed Mr. Pirie can help you with the concept of a "false premise"...

 

[bruto]

I stand by the following statement (and there are others like it) from medical sources.

". . .human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by seamen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an 'exit only' passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic."
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/male-homosexual-behavior/

The same source calls the list of diseases "found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners. . . alarming." Here is the list:

anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human papilloma virus, isospora belli, micosporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C, syphilis.

The threat that living a homosexual lifestyle poses to human health is very real. Study after study after study makes that clear. The threat cannot be wished away by semantic manipulation.

Many of the ailments cited above are not present for those who live monogamously. It would be utterly and unabashedly stupid and absurd to suggest, for example, that gonorrhea has any connection at all to what part of one's monogamous partner one uses. Get real. The problems listed may exist among those living some specified lifestyle, but they are not problems that attach to the physical act of homosexual love. It is utterly backwards to cite as reasons for banning the normalization of homosexual behavior and marriage the ills that result from the very ban you want. Nor, I hasten to add yet again, are the problems thus described exclusive to homosexuals. I hate to break it to you, innocent though you seem to be, but anal sex is not an exclusively homosexual practice, and in most places at least, its practice is not barred, nor is it made a reason to ban or dissolve marriage among heterosexuals who might practice it.

Besides, as one continually seems to have to mention, your argument ignores the approximately half of those affected by gay marriage bans who, though they certainly will never show them to the likes of you, possess vaginas.

By the way, for those who might not be aware of it, the "American College of Pediatricians" cited as the source of Skyrider's above quotation is not the more generally known American Academy of Pediatricians. It is an organization founded in 2002 by social conservatives promoting a religious viewpoint, with the explicit and stated goal of opposing the viewpoint of the American Academy of Pediatricians. The latter organization has made statements accepting homosexuality and suggesting that the quality of parenting is not directly related to orientation. Readers of the ACP site will be treated to information on "gender identity disorder" and suggestions that homosexuality can and should be reversed. They also oppose contraception and abortion, promote spanking, and link directly from their site to The Heritage Foundation, the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine, and Focus on the Family.

 

[joobz]

I stand by the following statement (and there are others like it) from medical sources.

". . .human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by seamen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an 'exit only' passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic."
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/male-homosexual-behavior/

The same source calls the list of diseases "found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners. . . alarming." Here is the list:

anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human papilloma virus, isospora belli, micosporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C, syphilis.

The threat that living a homosexual lifestyle poses to human health is very real. Study after study after study makes that clear. The threat cannot be wished away by semantic manipulation.

That's not a medical site. It's an anti gay site created by bigoted anti-gay doctors who write sciencey sounding nonsense with the intent of pleasing other anti gay bigots. If you want a real medical site, go to the AMA or mayo or the cdc or NIH or other reputable sites.

 

[Foster Zygote]

How many of the respondents were adopted from foster care?

That's a good question. A number of methodological problems have been brought to light regarding the study.

200 researchers respond to Regnerus paper

He creates several categories of “family type”, including “lesbian mother” and “gay father” as well as “divorced late,” “stepfamily,” and “single-parent.” But, as the author notes, for those respondents who indicated that a parent had a “same-sex relationship,” these categories were collapsed to boost sample size:
"That is, a small minority of respondents might fit more than one group. I have, however, forced their mutual exclusivity here for analytic purposes. For example, a respondent whose mother had a same-sex relationship might also qualify in Group 5 or Group 7, but in this case my analytical interest is in maximizing the sample size of Groups 2 and 3 so the respondent would be placed in Group 2 (LMs). Since Group 3 (GFs) is the smallest and most difficult to locate randomly in the population, its composition trumped that of others, even LMs. (There were 12 cases of respondents who reported both a mother and a father having a same-sex relationship; all are analyzed here as GFs, after ancillary analyses revealed comparable exposure to both their mother and father)."
By doing this, the author is unable to distinguish between the impact of having a parent who has had a continuous same-sex relationship from the impact of having same-sex parents who broke-up from the impact of living in a same-sex stepfamily from the impact of living with a single parent who may have dated a same-sex partner; each of these groups are included in a single “lesbian mother” or “gay father” group depending on the gender of the parent who had a same-sex relationship. Specifically, this paper fails to distinguish family structure and family instability. Thus, it fails to distinguish, for children whose parents ever had a same-sex relationship experience, the associations due to family structure from the associations due to family stability. However, he does attempt to distinguish family structure from family instability for the children of different-sex parents by identifying children who lived in an intact biological family. To make a group equivalent to the group he labels as having “lesbian” or “gay” parents, the author should have grouped all other respondents together and included those who lived in an intact biological family with those who ever experienced divorce, or whose parents ever had a different-sex romantic relationship. That seems absurd to family structure researchers, yet that type of grouping is exactly what he did with his “lesbian mother” and “gay father” groups.

New York Times

The New Yorker

The study, of fifteen thousand adults between the ages of eighteen and thirty-nine, turned on this question:

S7. From when you were born until age 18 (or until you left home to be on your own), did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex?
Yes, my mother had a romantic relationship with another woman
Yes, my father had a romantic relationship with another man
No

A yes—even a single “romantic relationship”—put the person in the category of child of gay or lesbian parent, and excluded them from the category of intact biological families, regardless of their actual living situations. (And what does that yes mean? Sex once in a bar? An infatuation from a distance?) Regnerus says that he chose this question because he doesn’t want to get into sorting out who’s really gay—and that can be a complicated issue, to which he, unfortunately, has an absurd response. Because of how the study is set up, any stress to a child from living with a married man and woman, one of whom had ever had a same-sex affair of any kind, would be ascribed to having a gay or lesbian parent, and statistically erased from the analysis of “mom and pop” families.

Slate

The Atlantic

 

[abaddon]

I stand by the following statement (and there are others like it) from medical sources.

". . .human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by seamen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an 'exit only' passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic."
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/male-homosexual-behavior/

The same source calls the list of diseases "found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners. . . alarming." Here is the list:

anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human papilloma virus, isospora belli, micosporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C, syphilis.

The threat that living a homosexual lifestyle poses to human health is very real. Study after study after study makes that clear. The threat cannot be wished away by semantic manipulation.

Are you really proposing that straight couples do not engage in anal sex, cos it sure as hell seems you are.

 

[skyrider44]

Holy expletive deleted, batman. Did any thinking occur before this one? . . . If you're going to argue against gay marriage on the grounds that promiscuity is somehow a gay problem that disqualifies them, you need to do better than to present arguments that address everyone, gay and straight, and openly suggest monogamy as a solution.

I haven't argued against gay marriage on the ground that promiscuity is "somehow a gay problem." I simply listed precautions homosexuals should take according to the Mayo Clinic. Independently of the Mayo Clinic post and the issue of gay marriage, I may have alluded to a study or studies showing that promiscuity occurs at a higher rate among homosexual men than it does among non-homosexual men.

 

[skyrider44]

Holy expletive deleted, batman. Did any thinking occur before this one?

Correction: In my response to Pup's Post 89, I did refer to promiscuity in connection with gay marriage. I apologize for the error.