Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Study - Children From Same Sex Homes Have Lower Income And Poorer Mental/physical Health


calfoxwc

Recommended Posts

Being gay is normal in the same sense being really tall, having red hair, or being really really smart. It's just uncommon genetics. Sure, it may not be even close to the majority, but it's not some abomination

 

It's not just genetics, there are other influencing factors. For example, I know twins, one of them is gay, one of them isn't. They're genetically identical; their neuronal wiring isn't.

 

I don't think that the answer is 100% environmental though, and I think it'll be decades before we actually do get a decent understanding of why someone is attracted to the same sex.

 

But I think pedophilia is more natural then homo sexuality just because we have placed moral boundaries and legal limits upon it.

 

I know what you are trying to say, but just to make things more clear...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

No big deal.

There probably are a lot of studies I guess.

But I think pedophilia is more natural then homo sexuality just because we have placed moral boundaries and legal limits upon it .

I won't ask anyone to post any insincere denials but just ask yourselves: is it likely that you could be aroused by a hot 13 year old girls?

How a bout an attractive 23 year old man?

WSS

 

Well yeah, but we're not gay.

 

You could ask someone if they'd have more fun watching baseball or women's soccer and I'd be in the minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yeah, but we're not gay.

We?

 

But we are pedophiles?

At any rate there are lots of pedophiles out there. It occurs in nature. It's a preference.

All I'm saying is that if you want to pronounce homo sexuality as perfectly normal the exact same criteria should apply to pedophilia.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we are pedophiles?

At any rate there are lots of pedophiles out there. It occurs in nature. It's a preference.

All I'm saying is that if you want to pronounce homo sexuality as perfectly normal the exact same criteria should apply to pedophilia.

WSS

 

You keep making this point in every single thread about gay marriage, but without understanding why it's so ridiculous. It's lost on you, the Man Who Couldn't Make Distinctions.

 

So while it seems terribly difficult for you to regard a homosexual's sexual orientation as normal, while finding the sexual abuse of the pre-pubescent to be not normal and abhorrent, it's not that difficult for some of us. Nor is accepting the premise that societies make distinctions based on the characteristics of unlike things.

 

Perhaps we can move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before we get onto where this is going let's please realize the difference between two consenting adults that happen to be the same sex and an adult with a child that can't consent.

Sorry woody that's just an excuse.

Equal emotional capability has nothing to do with it.

You just admitted as most of us would if we were being honest that you could certainly be attracted to someone illegal. Perfectly normal and natural?

So if that's perfectly normal and natural what's wrong with coach sandusky?

Because he's gay and you aren't?

Come on woody a lot of you guys want to kill this man for doing something you'd like to do?

And if you believe you cannot give consent at 14 should a 15 year old having sex with a 14 year old go to prison for life? Or if it's impossible to give consent until you are 18 shouldn't all sexual activity be strictly forbidden?

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep making this point in every single thread about gay marriage, but without understanding why it's so ridiculous. It's lost on you, the Man Who Couldn't Make Distinctions.

 

So while it seems terribly difficult for you to regard a homosexual's sexual orientation as normal, while finding the sexual abuse of the pre-pubescent to be not normal and abhorrent, it's not that difficult for some of us. Nor is accepting the premise that societies make distinctions based on the characteristics of unlike things.

 

Perhaps we can move on.

I didn't ask you because I have absolutely no expectation that you would be honest.

You have an agenda, I understand that.

Maybe you think you can't serve that agenda by admitting that homosexuality is abnormal but it doesn't bother us.

feel free to move on.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, I'm going to let you in on a little something: some of your opinions are laughable, and pointing them out doesn't require an agenda, or dishonesty.

 

I believe that homosexuality is a normal, legitimate sexual orientation. That's what I believe. It's also what all the major psychiatric associations believe. It's what millions of people believe. The fact that you can't imagine someone differs from you on this, and that they'd only be dishonest and serving an agenda if they did, is too way, way too proud and egotistical a position to hold for a man of such marginal intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you describe for us what is wrong with Jerry Sandusky raping a kid in the shower, or in his basement, as the now 18-year-old boy described in detail yesterday in court? What would be abnormal about that?

 

And how is that different from, say, a 30-year-old man who might think certain women are beautiful, but isn't sexual attracted to them, but is sexually attracted to men?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, why don't you name me one time when you think I've argued something I didn't believe in order to serve some agenda. I don't think you actually believe this, and that this is how you lash out.

 

Also, what do you imagine my agenda is, getting Cal to vote for Obama? What possible agenda could I have in here, other than wasting time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just admitted as most of us would if we were being honest that you could certainly be attracted to someone illegal. Perfectly normal and natural?

So if that's perfectly normal and natural what's wrong with coach sandusky?

 

Steve, this is the conclusion you came to? wtfuck? How many times do we have to spell out for you that it's about consent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a sec.... I never said I wanted to have sex with a 14 year old, lol. You are making some crazy conclusions. You asked if I had a better chance to be aroused by a 15 year old girl or a dude. Obviously that answer isn't a dude, lol.

 

Of course I probably would have to not know her age and she's have to look old for her age.

 

But if you want to bone 15 year olds then that would explain your stance here. You're not anti gay, you're just pro pedo

 

But I think Heck and Vapor already did a good job telling you how ridiculous you're being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just took the title from the page and used it.

 

It is just one study - it's more of an indicator...

 

Vapor's appraisal is very fair - when I have the time,

 

I'd like to go find a few of the reports I've read in the past,

 

about the importance of both female and male figures

 

being in childrens's lives.

 

It had to do with self-actualization.

 

well, if I had the time to go re-read Joseph Campbell's

 

"Hero of a Thousand Faces" I would enjoy that.

 

BTW, I don't think that the two sexes figures in a child's life..

 

is necessarily excluded by a gay couple who adopt....

 

but then again... ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is necessarily excluded by a gay couple who adopt....

 

but then again... ? Woody

********************************

geez. Seriously? "but then again", refers to the inverse of what I surmised about gay couples who adopt, not having other sexes

 

in their lives as opposite sex mentors/influences in the child's life. It isn't necessarity excuded... but may be a dominant trend anyways?

 

Honestly - do you think before you ask questions like this?

 

Wait - you're a lib. sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys take such an arrogant stance on arguing just to argue, and now look at you lot. This thread has degenerated into name calling.

 

Like you're one to talk? Really dude, you were name calling on the first page in another thread! And now you're going to take the moral high ground?

 

This forum was never anything but name calling. If you don't believe me, look at how Woody got welcomed. I remember it being the same for me when I first came here, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you start the name calling,

 

the response name calling is self defense.

 

The latter is justified.

 

the former negates any legitimate claim to victimhood.B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like you're one to talk? Really dude, you were name calling on the first page in another thread! And now you're going to take the moral high ground?

 

This forum was never anything but name calling. If you don't believe me, look at how Woody got welcomed. I remember it being the same for me when I first came here, too.

 

Please try and comprehend what you read. I never said I was against name calling, that was you guys. I merely point out that now you're all engaging in it. I seem to remember a consenses that it was serious discussion or nothing. Now look at you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please try and comprehend what you read. I never said I was against name calling, that was you guys. I merely point out that now you're all engaging in it. I seem to remember a consenses that it was serious discussion or nothing. Now look at you.

 

The name calling doesn't piss me off. Your hypocritical attitude toward it does.

 

For example, here:

Your name calling derailed this thread.

 

In the other thread:

Hurrr, hurr, Woody, leave the talking to the adults, you 4-F, Hippie faggot. You contributed next to nothing of value and spoke out of your ass.

 

I mean, it's one thing if your attitude changes over the course of months, but these are simultaneous threads. Practicing one thing while preaching another. And while we're on the topic of name calling, go eat a shit sandwich, hypocrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't expect anything out of Bunker or Cal. Hell, I'm not even sure how Bunker functions on a day to day basis.

 

As for Cysko, he admitted in another thread he talks out of his ass and shouldn't be taken seriously, so I won't listen to or take anything seriously that he says

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't expect anything out of Bunker or Cal. Hell, I'm not even sure how Bunker functions on a day to day basis.

 

As for Cysko, he admitted in another thread he talks out of his ass and shouldn't be taken seriously, so I won't listen to or take anything seriously that he says

 

Well woody as your opinions are among the most follower-y and asinine in this board, anything I say for the purpose of debate should be considered more serious than anything you say ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...