New leader of Focus on the Family: 'We've probably lost on gay marriage'

The statistical percentage of gays who are biological fathers is what counts.

Actually, it doesn't (and I'd wager that you have NO IDEA what that percentage is, anyhow).

Homosexuality lessens your chance of reproductive success, as numbers show in comparisons with heterosexuals.

This is what I'm talking about. You are PRETENDING that homosexuals can't reproduce just because they don't reproduce with members of their own gender. There are JUST AS ABLE to reproduce as heterosexuals... and JUST AS LIKELY TO DO SO if that is what they WANT TO DO. The only difference, really, is that (unlike heterosexuals), homosexuals don't get pregnant by MISTAKE. They do it ON PURPOSE.
Their children are WANTED.

And if some choose to do so, wouldn't that make gayness a choice?

Absolutely not. The decision to reproduce has no bearing whatsoever on orientation.

Meaning "all the empirical evidence" sufficient to show that homosexuality is a disorder.

So, basically everything up until the 1960s.

They demand that an institution ought be revised to suit whims of a minor group

Nope. Marriage was not defined as being only between a man and a woman (in this country) until YOU people, all scared of the big mean gays, REDEFINED IT YOURSELVES in order to keep the homosexuals away from it. We just want that nonsense struck down. We didn't change the definition of marriage, you did.

It wouldn't harm me on a personal level, but it harms the society: it harms the nuclear family; it harms child rights; it harms freedom of religious expression; it harms marriage.

Prove it. These are the same claims you people ALWAYS make. Unfortunately for you, there are places in the world where gay marriage has been legal for some time, and reality demonstrates that all these claims are unfounded. Since every single one of your myths has been debunked, you'll have to come up with something better than these.



I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Actually, it doesn't

Actually it does. If you have two groups with different sexual behaviors ceterus paribus, you can easily measure their reproductive success.

and I'd wager that you have NO IDEA what that percentage is, anyhow

According to the USA Census Bureau, in 2000 there were 594,391 homosexual households. Of them 301,026 were gay households, 293,365 lesbian households. 22% of gay households and 33% of lesbians households had children in them. One must also have in mind that in most cases those children had been the result of heterosexual relationships homosexuals had prior entering same-sex unions; hence by all statistics, homosexuality is a catastrophic reproductive strategy.

This is what I'm talking about. You are PRETENDING that homosexuals can't reproduce just because they don't reproduce with members of their own gender. There are JUST AS ABLE to reproduce as heterosexuals...

First of all, you're confusing gender with sex. Second, I'm not saying homosexuals can't reproduce only because their physiology barres them from having coitus with each other. It's their sexual inclination towards the same sex that lowers their ability to reproduce.

and JUST AS LIKELY TO DO SO if that is what they WANT TO DO

This is by all relevant facts false. Parents of homosexuals must accept they'll probably won't have grandchildren (isn't this what accepting your gay child is all about?).

The only difference, really, is that (unlike heterosexuals), homosexuals don't get pregnant by MISTAKE. They do it ON PURPOSE.
Their children are WANTED.

Sex education and widely available contraception and abortion make this remark also false. Most of children of heterosexual couples are wanted and loved. What truly unwanted here is that those children become homosexuals (no grandchildren). Even homosexual couples admit they want their children not to be homosexuals because they think it will be easier so AND they want grandchildren.

My biggest fear as a pro-lifer is that if a gay gene is discovered (a politically correct hypothesis for strange reasons, luckily, probably false), we can expect an increase in eugenics abortions.

So, basically everything up until the 1960s.

Either you're truly ignorant, or you're simply dishonest. Until mid-seventies homosexuality was considered a mental illness. The origin had been searched in family situations (overbearing mother, absent father). Biological etiologies of homosexuality weren't suggested until much later on, when scientific advances in biology and medicine had made it possible to think in this direction. Another decade or two of research is still necessary to bring complete light to the issue, though we're already on solid ground.

Nope. Marriage was not defined as being only between a man and a woman (in this country) until YOU people, all scared of the big mean gays, REDEFINED IT YOURSELVES in order to keep the homosexuals away from it. We just want that nonsense struck down. We didn't change the definition of marriage, you did.

People only made explicit what was implicit. In those state where there's no explicit definition of marriage, the marriage documents have "husband" and "wife" on them. In those state where gay marriage had been introduced, these documents were altered. This isn't only in USA, but almost in any country.

Prove it. These are the same claims you people ALWAYS make. Unfortunately for you, there are places in the world where gay marriage has been legal for some time, and reality demonstrates that all these claims are unfounded. Since every single one of your myths has been debunked, you'll have to come up with something better than these.

Argument by assertion and nothing more.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Actually it does. If you have two groups with different sexual behaviors ceterus paribus, you can easily measure their reproductive success.

Only if they are TRYING TO REPRODUCE.

Second, I'm not saying homosexuals can't reproduce only because their physiology barres them from having coitus with each other. It's their sexual inclination towards the same sex that lowers their ability to reproduce.

Then your definition of the word "ability" does not actually define the word "ability".

This is by all relevant facts false. Parents of homosexuals must accept they'll probably won't have grandchildren (isn't this what accepting your gay child is all about?).

No.

Sex education and widely available contraception and abortion make this remark also false.

Wow, really? Guess you've never set foot in a CITY, eh? And exactly how does the wide availability of abortion invalidate the fact of people getting pregnant BY MISTAKE?

Most of children of heterosexual couples are wanted and loved. What truly unwanted here is that those children become homosexuals (no grandchildren). Even homosexual couples admit they want their children not to be homosexuals because they think it will be easier so AND they want grandchildren.

Yes, I am sure that there are some people who say that. And it does not by any stretch make it a general truth.

Biological etiologies of homosexuality weren't suggested until much later on, when scientific advances in biology and medicine had made it possible to think in this direction.

You're hilarious. You should totally take this show on the road.

People only made explicit what was implicit.

You can spin that however you want, but you've just admitted that I'm right.

Argument by assertion and nothing more.

Then gosh, I guess it must be really easy for you to disprove. Except... you can't.



I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Only if they are TRYING TO REPRODUCE.

Human will try to reproduce because THAT IS IN THEIR NATURE; hence you're also determining what is normal and what is abnormal.

Then your definition of the word "ability" does not actually define the word "ability".

This sentence is nonsensical.

No.

Yes.

Wow, really? Guess you've never set foot in a CITY, eh? And exactly how does the wide availability of abortion invalidate the fact of people getting pregnant BY MISTAKE?

Yes, there are unwanted pregnancies; however, they still don't represent the majority of all pregnancies. And in the case of homosexuals that their child is always wanted is false: when they were in a heterosexual relationship there must be a case of unwanted pregnancy because the statistical laws says so.

Yes, I am sure that there are some people who say that. And it does not by any stretch make it a general truth.

It IS the general truth.

You're hilarious. You should totally take this show on the road.

Can you make a response that is at least somehow grounded in fact?

You can spin that however you want, but you've just admitted that I'm right.

Sorry, you're wrong.

Then gosh, I guess it must be really easy for you to disprove. Except... you can't.

You can only point out a fallacy, not disprove it.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Human will try to reproduce because THAT IS IN THEIR NATURE

So all those thousands and thousands of people who actually DON'T want children, they're what? Mutants? A new species?

...or is it just that your insistence that reproduction is the only normal drive is, in fact, erroneous, just like most of your other assertions?

This sentence is nonsensical.

No, it isn't. You are insisting that reproductive ABILITY is only determined by ACTUAL REPRODUCTION. There are plenty of people who CHOOSE NOT TO REPRODUCE, but that in no way implies that they don't have the ABILITY to do so.

Yes.

You made the assertion. Prove it.

And in the case of homosexuals that their child is always wanted is false: when they were in a heterosexual relationship there must be a case of unwanted pregnancy because the statistical laws says so.

So you are denying the obvious truth of my statement by asserting the statistically insignificant fact that SOME homosexuals were, at some point, involved in heterosexual relationships, that of those SOME of them resulted in pregnancies, and of THOSE PREGNANCIES some of them must have been unwanted. Wow. I'm sure you're quite correct. I'm also sure that you'll find the number of those unwanted pregnancies is NOTHING compared to all babies on the OTHER side of that equation.

It IS the general truth.

YOU made the assertion. Prove it. Or even, you know, SUPPORT IT with the TINIEST PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

Can you make a response that is at least somehow grounded in fact?

Maybe. Can you make an assertion that is at least somehow grounded in fact, and not archaic misunderstanding?

Sorry, you're wrong.

Saying it doesn't make it true. Marriage was NOT defined as an institution restricted to one man and one woman. NOW it is. YOU changed it, not us.

You can only point out a fallacy, not disprove it.

It wasn't a fallacy, liar. It was yet another ASSERTION by YOU. YOU made the claim. YOU said "it harms the society: it harms the nuclear family; it harms child rights; it harms freedom of religious expression; it harms marriage."

So prove it. If you're going to make this assertion, then you have to back it up. Otherwise you're just another right-wing windbag with nothing of substance to say.




I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

So all those thousands and thousands of people who actually DON'T want children, they're what? Mutants? A new species?

What "thousands and thousands"? Their number still isn't at least 51% of the population.

or is it just that your insistence that reproduction is the only normal drive is, in fact, erroneous, just like most of your other assertions?

I never said it's the only normal drive. But the opposite of it isn't normal.

You are insisting that reproductive ABILITY is only determined by ACTUAL REPRODUCTION. There are plenty of people who CHOOSE NOT TO REPRODUCE, but that in no way implies that they don't have the ABILITY to do so.

If the concept of ability confuses you so much, then let's talk about reproductive success. Possessing homosexuality lowers one reproductive success; therefore, it's evolutionary maladaptive. I hope you now get it.

You made the assertion. Prove it.

You too. Prove yours.

Can you make an assertion that is at least somehow grounded in fact, and not archaic misunderstanding?

Prove it's an archaic misunderstanding.

Marriage was NOT defined as an institution restricted to one man and one woman.

There is polygamy. But in both cases it has to do with heterosexuals.

So prove it.

Male heterosexuals don't want to be labeled as gays, so they go away from stereotypical gay activities. This is why Broadway is today a gay ghetto. When marriage become one of those "things gay men do", there will be a "straight flight" from marriage.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

What "thousands and thousands"? Their number still isn't at least 51% of the population.

False dichotomy. Nobody ever said it was. But there are 6 BILLION people in the world and LOTS OF THEM do not want children.

I never said it's the only normal drive. But the opposite of it isn't normal.

Then find my a medical journal where someone with some kind of education and understanding of biology supports the idea that it is abnormal to be uninterested in children.

You too. Prove yours.

I will take this as an admission that you just made up your information, which of course I already knew. I have personal experience to the contrary. Since you clearly know NOTHING of homosexuality or homosexual people, I'll take my experience over yours.

Prove it's an archaic misunderstanding.

All of your information is tragically out of date and your attitude is decades old. You believe homosexuality is a mental disorder. That position is, in itself, an archaic misunderstanding. You're a joke.

There is polygamy. But in both cases it has to do with heterosexuals.

That's just dandy, but it has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Male heterosexuals don't want to be labeled as gays, so they go away from stereotypical gay activities. This is why Broadway is today a gay ghetto. When marriage become one of those "things gay men do", there will be a "straight flight" from marriage.

So, your "proof" that "[Homosexuality] harms the society: it harms the nuclear family; it harms child rights; it harms freedom of religious expression; it harms marriage" is that you personally believe there will be a straight backlash against marriage once gay people are allowed to do it. Never mind that this HAS NOT HAPPENED so you have NO PROOF. This is YOUR fantasy. If you can't demonstrate a way in which homosexuality actually HAS HARMED those institutions, I'll consider this your resignation.



I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

But there are 6 BILLION people in the world and LOTS OF THEM do not want children.

The world population is rising. Many of them want children.

Then find my a medical journal where someone with some kind of education and understanding of biology supports the idea that it is abnormal to be uninterested in children.

I don't need to. The drive to procreate is one of basic human drives. This is how we give our gene into the gene pool. Anything that hinders this is by definition harmful and is removed by natural selection.

I will take this as an admission that you just made up your information, which of course I already knew.

Both are lies and self-deception.

I have personal experience to the contrary.

Anecdotal evidence is worthless.

Since you clearly know NOTHING of homosexuality or homosexual people

I do. I read works by experts on the field (Bailey, Blanchard, LeVay).

All of your information is tragically out of date and your attitude is decades old. You believe homosexuality is a mental disorder. That position is, in itself, an archaic misunderstanding. You're a joke.

But I didn't. I explicitly said homosexuality isn't a mental disorder. Why do you resort to lies? What I said is that homosexual is a development disorder onset during prenatal stage.

That's just dandy, but it has nothing to do with what I wrote.

What did you wrote?

So, your "proof" that "[Homosexuality] harms the society: it harms the nuclear family; it harms child rights; it harms freedom of religious expression; it harms marriage" is that you personally believe there will be a straight backlash against marriage once gay people are allowed to do it. Never mind that this HAS NOT HAPPENED so you have NO PROOF.

Homosexuality doesn't harm society. It harms the biological unit that possesses that feature fitness wise. Hey, don't blame me; blame Darwin. To be frank I wouldn't say that same-sex marriage harms marriage. It's more of a symptom of marriage decay. It's approved when marriage isn't taken seriously enough and only in countries with low marriage rates to begin with. That's the paradoxical thing about it. People who are pro same-sex marriage themselves detest or ignore marriage. Homosexuals, in places where they can do it, marry in low rates. Why do liberals suddenly want to be more conservative than conservatives? Isn't marriage an outdated, patriarchal, and oppressive institution that ought be abolished? Why bring people into something you hold as toxic?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

The world population is rising. Many of them want children.

So what? All this time and you still haven't come up with a decent point? You must realize that this does nothing to refute the fact that it is perfectly common for people to choose not to reproduce.

I don't need to. The drive to procreate is one of basic human drives. This is how we give our gene into the gene pool. Anything that hinders this is by definition harmful and is removed by natural selection.

And since evolution and natural selection are forces that operate on population scales, not individuals, your point is completely meaningless.

But I didn't. I explicitly said homosexuality isn't a mental disorder.

You're right, my bad. I just meant 'disorder'. My point stands, either way.

What did you wrote?

It's all still there, champ.

Homosexuality doesn't harm society.

So, were you lying when you stated explicitly that homosexuality harms society? Or were you just being an ass hole again?

It harms the biological unit that possesses that feature fitness wise.

Only from your personal POV. The rest of us are doing just fine, thanks.

To be frank I wouldn't say that same-sex marriage harms marriage.

Except that you DID say that same-sex marriage harms marriage.

It's more of a symptom of marriage decay. It's approved when marriage isn't taken seriously enough and only in countries with low marriage rates to begin with. That's the paradoxical thing about it.

And whose fault is marriage decay? The devout Christians who love it so much that they cheat on their spouses and then divorce them, all while stamping their feet and shouting that gay couples can't be married because it's so divine and sacred? You people are adorably hypocritical.

People who are pro same-sex marriage themselves detest or ignore marriage.

You just love to make those unsupported claims, don't you?

So gay people want the right to get married... because they don't want to get married? You are a freaking genius.

Why do liberals suddenly want to be more conservative than conservatives? Isn't marriage an outdated, patriarchal, and oppressive institution that ought be abolished? Why bring people into something you hold as toxic?

I have never made such a claim. You should keep track of your conversations. If you did that, you wouldn't have asked me (in the other thread) to prove to you that human beings reproduced sexually.






I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

So what? All this time and you still haven't come up with a decent point? You must realize that this does nothing to refute the fact that it is perfectly common for people to choose not to reproduce.

Common doesn't mean normal. It's perfectly common that some will be winners and other will be losers. This is how evolution works.

And since evolution and natural selection are forces that operate on population scales, not individuals, your point is completely meaningless.

Populations are groups of individuals. My point is correct.

You're right, my bad. I just meant 'disorder'. My point stands, either way.

It doesn't, since it has nothing substantial behind it.

So, were you lying when you stated explicitly that homosexuality harms society? Or were you just being an ass hole again?

I stated that homosexual marriage harms society. Does a day pass without you lying?

Only from your personal POV. The rest of us are doing just fine, thanks.

Only if gays developed uteruses and ovaries..

Except that you DID say that same-sex marriage harms marriage.

It doesn't contradict what I said. It harms marriage as a part of larger process of marriage decay.

And whose fault is marriage decay? The devout Christians who love it so much that they cheat on their spouses and then divorce them, all while stamping their feet and shouting that gay couples can't be married because it's so divine and sacred?

No-fault divorce, the media, and liberal indoctrination.

You just love to make those unsupported claims, don't you?

Pot calls the kettle black.

So gay people want the right to get married... because they don't want to get married? You are a freaking genius.

No, liar. It means that same-sex "marriage" is a charade. It's about deeper agendas than inheritance rights.

I have never made such a claim.

I'm commenting in general.

You should keep track of your conversations. If you did that, you wouldn't have asked me (in the other thread) to prove to you that human beings reproduced sexually.

Maybe you ought to follow your own advice.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Common doesn't mean normal.

Actually, yes, it does.

Populations are groups of individuals. My point is correct.

if you wish to concede that you do not understand how the study of evolution works, then yes, you're "correct".

It doesn't, since it has nothing substantial behind it.

It does, because your claim of 'disorder' has nothing but opinion behind it.

I stated that homosexual marriage harms society. Does a day pass without you lying?

To-may-to, to-mah-to. How's all that evidence coming along, you know, the evidence that homosexual marriage harms society?

It doesn't contradict what I said. It harms marriage as a part of larger process of marriage decay.

So, it is your position that 'same-sex marriage does not harm marriage' is a statement which doesn't contradict the position 'same-sex marriage harms marriage'. Gotcha.

No-fault divorce, the media, and liberal indoctrination.

You're hilarious. What harms marriage is divorce and infidelity, which were not created by the media or liberal indoctrination, genius.

No, liar. It means that same-sex "marriage" is a charade. It's about deeper agendas than inheritance rights.

Prove it.

Maybe you ought to follow your own advice.

I'm not the one contradicting myself at every turn, smart guy.




I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

These kinds of internet arguments never go anywhere.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

That's why it's been an entire year and he still has not been able to refute anything I said.


I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]