imacentristmoderate, "i don't hate GLBT people, have many gay friends, who also do NOT want either gay marriage or adoption of children."

I'll call you out, you are lying when you say that.

Runner you consistently show your hate for the rest of us not related to Fred Phelps by any chance?

Wearestardust:

“And if you are any of these things, for no good reason, then you're a bigot. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. So if the show fits ...”

That is if you can call it criticism. It is not criticism but an attempt to deride a person, to put them down to cast a slur upon them and ostracize them. By your criteria one disagreement about one point of view held by homosexuals and their supporters makes them homophobic. That person may agree with ninety-nine per cent of homosexuals’ analysis of their own behaviour but you label them homophobes on the basis of one per cent. A person may have one view about other races that you disagree with and you label them racist while they may have spent their entire life working for the race that they have one disagreement with. You simply cannot make such judgements based on a few opinions expressed in this forum.

Most telling of all there is simply no need to do it. What does it add to any discussion about any topic? If you disagree with someone then present your argument in response. Calling them names is a last resort. You call people names because you want to hurt them and you only want to hurt them if you are insecure in your own views.

It is not criticism when you aim to hurt. The only thing you need to be critical about is their argument anything else is about your need to try and hurt others.

Don't hide behind the word criticism.

AJ,


I believe that same-sex couples should not be able to adopt because a child should have a mother and a father; anything less is unnatural. Anything else is against natural law, and no scientfic blah will change that. That belief is inherent in me, but being the grandfather of three children, all with different fathers, who have spent most of their lives with the influence of their mother only, I have real-life proof.

My basis for thinking in no way discriminates against same sex 'parents'.

However, I must say that homosexuality gives me the creeps. But, what other people do is not my business; I rarely think about it; they don't hurt me etc. etc. But, when children are involved, when homosexuality and its problems are thrust in my face, I react in a way that is natural for me. And, the idea of two people of he same sex having children I think of in the same way as I do of my own daughter, with her lack of thought and pure self-indulgence and selfishness in regard to my grandchildren who could have much better lives than they do.

'Yes indeed, like the Catholic Church rewarding their paedophile priests by moving them to yet another parish so they get a new selection of young victims you mean?'

Yeah Susie by and large the priests practicing homosexuality, a fact you obviously ignore.

Phanto, I did not say that simply being opposed to homosexuality, ipso facto, makes one a bigot.

I was at pains not to say that.

You've even quoted me, being at pains not to say that.

Rational discussion on these topics is going to continue to be impossible while those who want to limit the participation of LGB people in society insist on not engaging in meaningful, honest, good-faith discussion. The focus on family composition where it is not relevant of one example of this tendency. Not reading what I said, even while quoting it, is another.

onthebeach,

There are weaknesses in every social science study and data-gathering method. But so what?

The studies I cited certainly beat Iamajoke’s “evidence” (which you conveniently overlooked the sheer lunacy of).

If you think you’re going to invalidate a study because it has a weakness, then you have a lot to learn. All studies have their weaknesses, which is why they need to be taken cumulatively.

Iamarightwingextremist,

<<...your sophistry debating tactics will get you nowhere with me.>>

Could you give me a specific example of what you are referring to here? Do you even understand what “sophistry” means? It doesn’t appear that you do.

<<GLBT commandment, "repeat the big lie, until it becomes the truth" Lenin.>>

No, that’s actually something Goebbels said (a member of a predominantly right-wing party). And even if it were Lenin, it would still not tie it to homosexuality in any way.

<<Christian commandment, "you shall not lie".>>

Here’s another wonderful cherry-picked Christian passage: "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!" (Psalm 137:9)

By the way, you still haven’t demonstrated that the science is “settled”. And how could you know if you refuse to read any of it?

ttbn,

So basically what you’re saying is that your reaction was an emotive reaction, and not a rational one. I figured that.

<<I believe that same-sex couples should not be able to adopt because a child should have a mother and a father; anything less is unnatural. Anything else is against natural law...>>

This is the Appeal to Nature fallacy, and is therefore invalid.

The fact that you are a parent and grandparent is proof of nothing unless you have observed your children and grandchildren living different lives with numerous different same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

<<...and no scientfic blah will change that.>>

Far from being “blah”, hundreds of studies have been done on this and they all point to the same conclusion: that only the quality of parenting matters, not the sexes of the parents. The fact that that doesn’t fit with your ignorant worldview does not render it mere “blah”.