A Blogger: How, exactly, does a woman marrying another woman affect the needs of children?
By denying the child a father in the home who models the love of a man for a wife and family. The boy child is denied daily access to the one who should be his primary role model, affirming his own masculinity. The girl child is denied the love of a daddy who makes her feel feminine. Both may crave male love and one doctor’s article in Human Sexuality magazine –out of print now –drug companies published it for doctors –the doctor wrote that in his clinical experience, children denied a father tend to have what he called “male hunger” and become promiscuous with men.
A Blogger: Maybe, but are you going to then prohibit divorce or single parenthood because it doesn’t match some standard of “optimal?” Be consistent, or admit you don’t have an argument here.
So because divorce and single parenthood are on average not the
optimal situations for children, we should advance other parenting arrangements legally which we already know are not optimal –because the optimal is providing children with both their mothers and fathers? I have an argument. You are the one who does not. There is no reason to create a new form of “marriage” that has the denial of both parents for children built into the definition.
A Blogger: Who conducted these “studies?” When? What was the methodology? How much “earlier?”
Check out NARTH and Family Research Institute. I know all about FRI’s PC-discredited psychologists –but there is no legitimate criticism of their methods; they are published in peer-reviewed journals –and they often cite other people’s studies --which people have not been "discredited" by homosexuality defenders. [People can draw different conclusions from the same studies, you know.]
Two former presidents of the APA are in NARTH and complained that the APA was taking stands politically without valid research –when they claimed it was WRONG to counsel gays who wanted to be straight, wrong to suggest homosexuality was a mental illness, wrong to believe and affirm those who say they became straight. At least half the psychs in the country disagreed with the conclusions of the APA which had to back down eventually and admit they at least could not say homosexuality had a biological cause/ genetic or congenital--which I believe they had previously, erroneously stated. So now they say they don’t know what causes it. But there are many psychs who can point to environmental causes in the gay patients –and I can in my gay acquaintances.
You won’t consult NARTH or FRI because you don’t want to hear what they have to say, as your mind is made up. Granted, mine is too –but there are some good articles and research reported at NARTH. They haven’t really been discredited by the APA as you claimed. They are the ones who, with past APA presidents, cast doubt on the integrity of the APA –which did not have a vote of membership supporting their gay agenda and agreeing with them that homosexual orientation was not a mental illness.
A Blogger: So this is about “modeling the procreative unit of bio-design?” How are they doing that if they’re not procreating?
By being a man and a woman married, that’s how. Like Mommy and Daddy –even if they are NOT a mommy and daddy for reasons unknown to the child. IS that so hard to understand? They are role-modeling the normal marital unit of man with wife and it's nobody's business why they do not have children. I’ve already said that marriage is not just for procreation –but it is for a man and a woman and THEIR one-flesh union, THEIR intimacy, THEIR sexual design. (The Bible says God made Eve, not for procreation, but as a helpmeet fitting for him, a companion.)
There is nothing I want to see role modeled for youth about the unnatural couplings of same sex partners. Their relationships are a poor substitute for the real thing and we shouldn’t encourage the notion that it’s normal, equal to, just as good as, functional hetero marriage. It is high risk perversion.
A blogger: Same-sex relationships are not evidence of mental illness: this is the conclusion of real scientists with real degrees in relevant fields doing real research.
And there are scientists –maybe MORE scientists–who disagree with their conclusions. I know that Johns Hopkins won’t do transgender surgery any more.
From Wikipedia: “In 1979, when Paul McHugh became chairperson of the psychiatric department at Johns Hopkins, he ordered the department to conduct follow-up evaluations on as many of their former transsexual patients as possible. When the follow-ups were performed, they found that most of the patients stated that they were happy as members of their target sex, but that their overall level of psychological functioning had not improved. McHugh reasoned that to perform physical gender reassignment was to ‘cooperate with a mental illness rather than try to cure it.’ At that time, Johns Hopkins closed its gender clinic and has not performed any sex reassignment surgeries since then.”
I know you will say transgendering isn’t the same issue –but it is a gender and orientation issue. It is dissatisfaction with the role and purpose of one’s body –when the gay person chooses to couple in strange and risky ways with people of his own sex. So if it’s mental illness on the part of the transgender, it is mental illness for the homosexual. And the bi-sexuals are just plainly indiscriminate seekers of orgasms. All 3 have a quirk in the works between the ears which some of us would also call our sin nature. They deserve compassion, counsel, tolerance [for their co-existance and freedom of association in a free society.] and they deserve study and help–but not the advancement of their strangeness as something positive for youth to explore.
You talked about the value of pre-marital sex so people can find out which way they swing. If they never have orgasm with the opposite sex, I doubt very much they are going to think they swing that way. I think the activity (even via molestation) often reinforces the gender identity problem. I see you have no guilt for any fornication in your life, from what you said, but many people will have regrets –maybe women more than men –and wish they had come to their marriages virginal and without disease or memories of sex with others.
A blogger said: Given that pretty much everyone feels different and out of place at some point during adolescence, I think it unlikely that this is what causes homosexuality.
Exactly –pretty much everyone feels different and out of place during adolescence. Thus, our advice to youth should be that they need to wait until they get well into their 20’s if they are having doubts about their sexuality and gender and especially desires to transgender. And give their bodies and social selves some time to mature. We ought not be pushing them by condoning sexploration, suggesting they MIGHT be gay or "in the wrong body" and should check it out –like the Boston Sex Ed Conference would advocate. That’s just so wrong.
A Blogger: Here you go again, assuming that it needs to be “remedied,” when there is no actual scientific basis for that.
Yes, it needs to be remedied. Homosexuals are unfortunate in their orientation. There is nothing good about it. It's a highly promiscuous lifestyle for young people. They CAN make children but they don’t want to do what is needed to make children. They have some kind of mental aversion to the opposite sex. This is unfortunate because they cannot start a family even if they want to –by any normal means –and give the child both its mother and father. If they don’t bear children they have no one to care for them in older age and in fact, impose a burden on nieces and nephews or strangers and Uncle Sam –to care for them in old age. Granted a lot of dysfunctional heteros do the same thing. but we aren’t celebrating their acquired dysfunction–you want us to create and encourage homosexuality which has dysfunctionality for family and childlessness built in.
A Blogger: correlation does not equal causation.
Not always–but sometimes. If you find that a majority of homosexuals had certain common experiences not shared by most heterosexuals, it might mean something.
It really isn’t rocket science to KNOW that certain parents are wacky enough to have caused gender identity disorder in a child–or cause hunger for intimacy with the same sex because they denied it –or cause revulsion for the opposite sex by their behaviors. And then there are those kids who are just odd and get labeled gay for it–and begin to wonder if they might be gay. Today we see more and more kids identifying as gay, even from apparently solid 2-parent homes. When this happens, it is likely part of their adolescent rebellion --like those who embraced being hippies. It's trendy to explore one's sexuality and have indiscriminate pre-marital sex today. It's also possible for any child to be molested or get into early sex experience and find himself addicted to abnormal and unhealthy sex. Especially today with educators promoting homosexuality. But the children who lack both a functional mother and father seem to be especially prone. And even good parents can err --as in babying a sensitive son as they might a daughter, to the point that he doesn't feel masculine. And his peers notice it.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible