• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What is the ideal family?

It is normal. It doesn't make it right.
And some would say that homosexuality is not normal and that makes it wrong, or homosexuality is normal and that doesn't make it right.

People are free to say and believe what they want. However, we wouldn't allow a child to walk through the halls saying things like, "That is so black" or "You are such a Ni**er!" but those kinds of comments are fine when they are, "That is so gay" and "You are such a Faggot." Bullying will never be completely solved because it is part of human nature, but it can be monitored and reduced.
Umm. Kids do say that stuff in school, in public, etc. Kids nowadays have some filthy mouths. I would argue that it is turning the other way around. Nowadays, kids are saying more racial comments rather than homosexual ones.


Your point is that you believe you know how other people think and what they are and are not capable of choosing. Nobody possesses that abiilty.
No. I answered for myself and said that that doesn't mean someone else can't make a choice. It is you who are insistent on speaking for others in saying that none of them can make a choice and that it is all genetic, when it isn't. It's combination of environment and genes. Temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges.
 
Exactly. And unmarried heterosexuals demonstrate marked increases in STDs, substance abuse, etc. and lowered life expectancy. So why would you expect unmarried homosexuals to be any different?
Allow me to repeat another key point you ignored:
Homosexual relationships typically last an average of one and one-half years, according to a study published in the journal AIDS. The findings, which were highlighted in an article in The Washington Times, were based on research by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Services, who studied Dutch homosexual men and the transmission of HIV in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage.
The study also found that homosexual men in "long-term" relationships have an average of eight sexual partners each year in addition to their relationship.
These findings are similar to earlier research that shows that most homosexuals are not monogamous. For example, a 1997 survey found that 91 percent of homosexual men reported having an average of 43 male sexual partners in their lifetime. The Washington Times article compared these findings to heterosexual relationships, where 67 percent of first marriages last at least 10 years and 50 percent last 20 years, while 75 percent of married couples say they have been faithful to their spouses.

You are also ignoring the fact that gays are discouraged from having relationships because it outs them. If I have a relationship with someone, then it is pretty evident to everyone that I am gay, and then I have to worry about things like housing and job discrimination. Do heterosexual people have to worry about that?
I see you are now more supportive of my statement that homosexual behavior is more stressful. Even if somehow magically, no one discriminates against gays, they still have to worry about their high risk of contracting AIDS.
 
Last edited:
And some would say that homosexuality is not normal and that makes it wrong, or homosexuality is normal and that doesn't make it right.

And that would be dumb. Just becasue something is not normal does not make it right or wrong. Normalcy has nothing to do with morality and I don't try to equate the two.

Umm. Kids do say that stuff in school, in public, etc. Kids nowadays have some filthy mouths. I would argue that it is turning the other way around. Nowadays, kids are saying more racial comments rather than homosexual ones.

I would love to see the evidence you have to support that notion.

It is you who are insistent on speaking for others in saying that none of them can make a choice and that it is all genetic, when it isn't.

When did I make this argument? I have never argued in this thread that homosexuality is "all genetic" or that some people don't possess the ability to choose to what sex the are attracted. I simply argued that people who can't choose, do exist. You happen to be one.

It's combination of environment and genes. Temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges.

Good hypothesis. That is the American Psychological Association's position as well.
 
Allow me to repeat another key point you ignored:
Homosexual relationships typically last an average of one and one-half years, according to a study published in the journal AIDS. The findings, which were highlighted in an article in The Washington Times, were based on research by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Services, who studied Dutch homosexual men and the transmission of HIV in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage.
The study also found that homosexual men in "long-term" relationships have an average of eight sexual partners each year in addition to their relationship.
These findings are similar to earlier research that shows that most homosexuals are not monogamous. For example, a 1997 survey found that 91 percent of homosexual men reported having an average of 43 male sexual partners in their lifetime. The Washington Times article compared these findings to heterosexual relationships, where 67 percent of first marriages last at least 10 years and 50 percent last 20 years, while 75 percent of married couples say they have been faithful to their spouses.

Gay marriage has been legal in the Netherlands for only 9 years. It takes a full generation to change a culture.

I see you are now more supportive of my statement that homosexual behavior is more stressful. Even if somehow magically, no one discriminates against gays, they still have to worry about their high risk of contracting AIDS.

Homosexual behavior stressful? No. I could have anonymous sex all day long and nobody would be the wiser. Homosexual relationships stressful? Yes. Because society would then know who I am and could judge me accordingly.
 
And that would be dumb. Just becasue something is not normal does not make it right or wrong. Normalcy has nothing to do with morality and I don't try to equate the two.
You did equate the two in your comment about bullying being normal but not right.

I would love to see the evidence you have to support that notion.
LOL. You have never been in a public place with a bunch of teenagers?

When did I make this argument? I have never argued in this thread that homosexuality is "all genetic" or that some people don't possess the ability to choose to what sex the are attracted. I simply argued that people who can't choose, do exist. You happen to be one.
Exactly. I said the same thing. I don't know why we are arguing about this then. Maybe because you still aren't reading what I type?
 
You did equate the two in your comment about bullying being normal but not right.

I said just because it is normal, does not make it right. I never equated morality and normalcy, you did.

LOL. You have never been in a public place with a bunch of teenagers?

I only ask, because if that is the case, then we probably should not allow racial minorities to adopt children. We wouldn't want kids to be bullied because their parents have a different skin color.

Exactly. I said the same thing. I don't know why we are arguing about this then. Maybe because you still aren't reading what I type?

No, you are making assumptions about my position.
 
I said just because it is normal, does not make it right. I never equated morality and normalcy, you did.
LOL. When you say something isn't right, then you are saying it is wrong. So you are saying that bullying is wrong and are using your morality by doing so.

I only ask, because if that is the case, then we probably should not allow racial minorities to adopt children. We wouldn't want kids to be bullied because their parents have a different skin color.
No, you are making assumptions about my position.
I never said that is was racial minorities that were doing this. I said it was kids and teenagers. Now you are making assumptions about my position and are reverting back to your inability to thoroughly read posts before replying. I'm done.
 
TaskmasterX said:
Allow me to repeat another key point you ignored:
Homosexual relationships typically last an average of one and one-half years, according to a study published in the journal AIDS. The findings, which were highlighted in an article in The Washington Times, were based on research by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Services, who studied Dutch homosexual men and the transmission of HIV in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage.
The study also found that homosexual men in "long-term" relationships have an average of eight sexual partners each year in addition to their relationship.
These findings are similar to earlier research that shows that most homosexuals are not monogamous. For example, a 1997 survey found that 91 percent of homosexual men reported having an average of 43 male sexual partners in their lifetime. The Washington Times article compared these findings to heterosexual relationships, where 67 percent of first marriages last at least 10 years and 50 percent last 20 years, while 75 percent of married couples say they have been faithful to their spouses.

Another point about this topic. I went and read up on this study. I found it funny that you didn't include the study's title. Now I know why. It was called, "The contribution of steady and casual partnerships in the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam."

Some other interesting facts about this study...

These studies began in 1984, and had several different protocols in their lifetime:

* Oct 1984-1985: Gay men aged 18-65 with at least two sexual partners in the previous six months. In other words, monogamous partners were explicitly excluded.

* April 1985-Feb 1988: Study enrollment was continued, except HIV-negative men were now excluded. Only HIV-positive men were added.

* Feb 1988 – Dec 1988: The study was re-opened to HIV-negative men.

* Various additional enrollments continued from through 1998. Especially notable was a special recruitment campaign for men under the age of thirty beginning in 1995. After 1996, all HIV-negative men above the age of thirty were dropped from the study. Their data was excluded from subsequent analyses.

* Nobody outside of Amsterdam was accepted into the study except for AIDS patients who attended clinics in Amsterdam for treatment. This makes the study almost exclusively an urban one.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,003.htm

So what does this tell us?

1. The study was not even conducted on married gay men. In fact, the study ended when gay marriage had been legal in the Netherlands for only a few months.
2. The sample was specifically chosen to study HIV positive men. It is not even close to being representative of gay men in Amsterdam, let alone the world.


This study cannot be used to determine how monogamous gay men are.

Yeah, I would say you either got hood winked by the anti gay propaganda machine or you are being intellectually dishonest. Which is it?
 
Last edited:
So you are saying that bullying is wrong and are using your morality by doing so.

Yes, I'm using my morality to say that bullying is wrong. I never suggested otherwise. How else would I have said it isn't right?

I never said that is was racial minorities that were doing this. I said it was kids and teenagers. Now you are making assumptions about my position and are reverting back to your inability to thoroughly read posts before replying. I'm done.

You made the argument earlier that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt because their kids would be bullied for their parents being gay. It only follows that same reasoning that ethnic minorities shouldn't be allowed to adopt so that their kids don't get bullied for their parents being an ethnic minority.
 
I take the lack of any response to this question from either of you supports my argument that the homosexual lifestyle is more stressful than a heterosexual one.

Then you'd be wrong. My answer was the part where I am less likely to get AIDS by being in a homosexual relationship than a heterosexual one, therefore, by being in a heterosexual relationship, as a woman, I actually have extra stress from the increased chance of getting AIDS and the added chance of getting pregnant before I want.

There are ways for even homosexual men to greatly reduce their chances of getting AIDS. They are pretty much the same ways for heterosexuals to reduce their chances. 1)Make sure that your sexual partners are tested prior to sleeping with them 2)Monogamy 3) Protection, and as an extra safeguard 4) Have yourself checked for AIDS at least every year or 2 or whenever you think there might be a problem


If the mother knows she has AIDS, she can use formula. The key is to know that you have it and then take the necessary precautions. Also, when you account for the fact that a certain percentage of heterosexual sex, shared needle use, and contaminated breast milk, originated from homosexual behavior (i.e, bisexuals with AIDS, homosexuals with AIDS sharing needles), then the 61% of AIDS cases caused by homosexual behavior is actually higher (at least two-thirds to three-quarters). I can never support an argument that basically says "Sure, everyone has problems or stress, so it couldn't hurt to add a little more".

I disagree. While I agree that the number of bullying instances are more for heterosexuals than homosexuals, this is because homosexuals make up a vast majority of the population. If you want to talk about percentages or frequency, then I would argue that it is homosexuals that experience it more frequently compared to heterosexuals. A higher percentage of homosexuals experience bullying more often than heterosexuals.

We were talking about the added stress and bullying that comes from having parents who are gay, not from actually being gay. Many younger kids would be a lot less likely to even notice that much different about another kid with 2 mommies or 2 daddies rather than just 1 mommy and 1 daddy or a child who only had a mommy or a daddy (or like my best friend, who only had her grandmother). To younger children, this would most likely not cause near as much bullying as many, many other things, including a funny last/first name, a parent who is overweight, or even a parent who is not the same race/color as the child.

Now, older children, around teenage years, may notice the difference, and it could certainly be a problem but it is not likely to be an issue if the peer group is already used to the knowledge. And it still would be no more of an issue than many of the other things that I have already mentioned (unless the teenager has some strong biases toward gays, which would indicate they very likely got such bias from their parents or religion).

If you are so worried about it as a problem, maybe you can show some research or studies that could show where children of gay parents face anymore stress or teasing than other children due to their parents' sexuality, instead of just assumptions? Afterall, you are the one who started this with children of gay parents would face extra teasing and/or stress from their peers due to their parents' sexuality, but you have yet to post any proof.
 
You ignored the rest of my post. Go back, read it, and respond in full or get the hell out of my thread. I'm not going to respond to people who take my posts out of context.

Hint: The nuclear family is structurally inferior to extended and/or tribal families.

Hint: I didn't argue structure is not important, only that the social conservative structural definition (nuclear family) is stupid.

well first off, your own claimed definition leaves you incapable of making the claim that a family structure is superior or inferior. by your own standard (or at least, that which you claim), you are unable to make the statement that the nuclear family is superior or inferior to any model.

which of course, is stupid. if the notion that the extended family is superior to the nuclear family, which is superior to the single-parent family holds water, then the Conservative argument for structure equally holds water.

you are proposing mutually contraditing ideas; the only constant is that you think it's "stupid" not to support homosexual unions :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom