Janna Darnelle is a mother whose ex-husband destroyed their marriage because he became homosexual. Rivka Edelman grew up as the the daughter of a lesbian couple. Edleman describes how Darnelle was viciously harassed for criticizing the gay agenda:
Janna Darnelle’s recent Public Discourse essay, “Breaking the Silence: Redefining Marriage Hurts Women Like Me—and Our Children,” reveals what is behind the heartwarming pictures of gay families from a mother’s point of view. As someone who was raised by a lesbian mother, I would like to weigh in. I will comment not only as a former child who was once all smiles in those pictures, but also as an academic, a woman, a mother, and a feminist.
Darnelle’s essay struck a nerve and went viral. It is not surprising that, within a few hours, LGBT activists had taken up arms against her. Keyboard warriors manned the ramparts. Soon, the usual thugs took up their clubs and pitchforks.
For those of you who avoid the subterranean landscape of online same-sex parenting debates, it is useful to be introduced to Scott “Rose” Rosenzweig, a virulently misogynistic LGBT activist. As soon as Darnelle’s essay was published, Rose went into action, darting from the blog Good As You to other sites in an effort to destroy her personally. . . . Darnelle’s ex-husband even weighed in. A helpful fellow, he left her personal information in the comments section of several activists’ blogs, including her full legal name. . . .
Many families headed by gay male couples are built upon exploitation of women. Practically speaking, Scott Rose and his compatriots have formed a men’s rights group that seeks to use women as breeders. These egg donors and surrogate mothers supply infants for a bustling market full of same-sex couples, for whom reproduction is naturally and biologically impossible.
In the name of equality, groups such as GLAAD (which employs Jeremy Hooper as a consultant) have pushed through gender identity laws that have legally erased women. The term “woman” now legally can refer to the way that a man chooses to identify himself. Once women have been erased legally as a group and as individuals, it is not hard to erase “mothers.” This lends support to the practice of using one woman’s eggs and another woman’s womb to supply children for gay male couples, obscuring the concept of motherhood and making it seem dispensable.
Having spent months researching radical feminism, permit me to say that this idea of “erasure” will resonate very strongly with radical feminists like Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffreys who have spent decades criticizing both surrogate motherhood (women as babymakers for hire) and transgenderism (whereby men appropriate the female identity for their own perverse purposes). Raymond and Jeffreys (and other radical lesbians like Julie Bindel and Cathy Brennan) are certainly no friends of the traditional family. However, they also refuse to be pushed around by men, including gay men hiring rent-a-wombs to provide themselves with trophy babies and perverted heterosexual men who want to be “translesbians.”
All of which is to say that Rivka Edelman and Janna Darnelle should have support from hard-core feminists in taking on gay hatemongers like Scott Rosenzweig. Whether they’ll get that support or not remains to be seen. Rivka Edelman has been targeted now:
Since my essay was published, there have been hundreds, maybe thousands, of posts calling me a liar or trying to shame, discredit, intimidate, and threaten me. . . . People I do not know have gone directly after my family and my job. They have posted information, mis-information, accusations, and threats against me. . . .
As with other adults who have come forward to criticize their childhood with gay parents, I am framed as a bigot or a liar or in some other way “unreliable.” In this flip-flop, a children’s rights activist and feminist is called “anti-gay” and a “bigot.”
Jeremy Hooper, Mr. Rose, and a gang of the allies who congregate and exchange information on Hooper’s blog, “Good As You,” are concerned about an amicus curiae brief I wrote in the Texas case regarding same-sex marriage (Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals). Along with three other adults who were raised by same-sex couples, I came forward to push back against the assertion that children have no disadvantages when raised by same-sex couples. . . .
Once “activists” connected my Public Discourse piece of October 2, to the Texas brief, they went full throttle. Jeremy Hooper, the blogger at Good as You, uses his blog as a platform to harass, bully, and silence with impunity. Hooper published comments from his readers and thereby shared our home address and my daughter’s private information. They contacted other family members looking for information. They are not picky; true or made up assertions work for them equally. . . .
This cautionary tale should travel far and wide: a family threatened, people’s privacy invaded, harassment, threats, bullying, unwanted contact, abusive mischaracterization, incurred financial hardship.
These men may have revealed much more about themselves and the movement than they realize and damaged their credibility.
That reminds me of a joke, but alas, decorum prohibits me from posting it here…
Idiot in spades.
Hardly. He took vows, then threw them over and broke his word. Anyone that won’t keep their wedding vows isn’t worth the powder it would take to blow them to hell. They can’t be trusted on anything.
Her ex-husband is a slug.
It is an act of depravity, just as homosexuality is. You simply toss in the normal desire for children in as a throw away.
Your entire comment history on this thread demonstrates a level of depravity that is as breath taking as it is ignorant.
“It is an act of depravity, just as homosexuality is.”
There is no proof of this matter, just your own personal opinion
“Your entire comment history on this thread demonstrates a level of depravity that is as breath taking as it is ignorant.”
And your entire comment history demonstrates your biased blindness towards what you don’t understand.
“Hardly. He took vows, then threw them over and broke his word.”
Yea, thats what a divorce is. Straight people know all about it since their version of “marriage” has a probability of over 50% of ending up as a divorce. Surprise.
“Homosexuality is not normal”
By the very definition of “normal” homosexuality is normal. It is usual and it is a set standard.
“children are being raised in an unnatural situation.”
I won’t even argue this point. Men much smarter than you or I have tried this argument in court, it’s never succeeded. There is no proof to this claim.
Not all divorces take place because of infidelity. This one did. Because of his infidelity to his vows. Right? Will you admit this? The honorable thing for him to have done was to continue to live according to his vows, whether he liked it or not. Stop looking for equivalencies. He didn’t act honorably in this case.
“Not all divorces take place because of infidelity. This one did. Because of his infidelity to his vows. Right? Will you admit this?”
Yes I admit that, but that is ALL divorces. Infidelity to your vows is what causes divorces in the first place.
“The honorable thing for him to have done was to continue to live according to his vows, whether he liked it or not.”
So it’s honorable to live a lie? He’s gay, no longer attracted to his wife, and wants to leave…but he should just power through that and endure?
Heres another part. The emotional connection between them both. Her writing style directly shows that the split was not amicable, and that she is aggressive in how she is determine to paint him the villain, yet not say anything bad about herself. So clearly there is lack of emotional connection between both of them in that he was able to leave so flippantly (if we believe her account) and how she is attacking gay people as a whole based on her one divorce.
“Stop looking for equivalencies. He didn’t act honorably in this case.”
You and I both do not know how he acted in this case, because this is not his story. This is HER story. And we don’t know whether or not she has integrity, can be unbiased, or if she is even self-aware. This is one part to a two part story
Thank god for the court systems and not the prejudice public. ““The amicus brief reflects the ASA’s ongoing commitment to ensuring that U.S. courts considering lawsuits to legalize gay marriage know that social science research shows parents’ sexual orientation has no bearing on their children’s well-being,” said ASA Executive Officer Sally T. Hillsman. “The claim that same-sex parents produce less positive child outcomes than heterosexual parents is contrary to the scientific data, and the ASA will continue to publicize the facts”
This is the fourth time in the past 14 months that the ASA has backed challenges to same-sex marriage bans through amicus briefs. In March 2014, the ASA filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that addressed gay marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma. In October 2013, the ASA submitted a brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding same-sex marriage bans in Nevada and Hawaii. Similarly, in February 2013, the ASA weighed in with the U.S. Supreme Court on Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California, and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which banned among other things federal recognition of valid same-sex marriages.
“For as long as is necessary, we will continue to provide the courts with the clear social science research consensus that children raised by same-sex parents fare just as well as children raised by heterosexual parents,” Hillsman said. “We will also continue to correct the record when gay marriage opponents misinterpret or misrepresent social science research to support their position, which unfortunately happens all too frequently.””
Funny people use to same the same thing about women and African Americans when they were fighting for their civil rights. We can now look back on history and know those people were simply immoral.
And your point is? I made no difference between straight and the depraved. The difference was attempted by you to cover your own depravity.
It’s honorable to make your word good. When he suddenly “discovered” he was queer and left, he began living a lie.
By the definition of normal? You have a warped view of “normal.” It certainly is anything but normal.
The depravity part is well recognized by the normal segment of society. It’s a morality based judgment that is shared by a large segment of the population, unless you are depraved yourself. That has been the judgment of human society for millennia.
I understand quite well the evil you are pushing. As I said before, and repeat for emphasis, your level of depravity is as breathtaking as it is ignorant.
Your appeals to science simply show you are willing to grind axes by including discredited nonsense in place of science. The data shows something that is utterly opposed to the idiocy you are pushing here.
You are simply here trolling and pushing hate for the normal and moral.
[…] The Gay Hate Machine. […]
I am not sure I follow your point. What people used to [say?] the same thing?
Which people were immoral?
My point is that the intellectually honest ADVOCATES of SSM admit they (the advocates) are trying to radically restructure society. I think you are trying to say that the OPPONENTS of de jure equality for blacks and women said that to provide de jure equality to blacks and women would radically restructure society. You are comparing apples and oranges, if that’s what you mean — Advocates vs. Opponents.
Furthermore, there is no similarity whatsoever between the struggle for de jure equality for blacks and women and the attempt to make marriage legal between two or more people of the same sex. Let’s not overlook that either.
Sorry Kalcen, but under a nontheistic worldview, homosexuality is a failed path, because it does not propogate the species. Therefore, by definition homosexuality is aberrant, not normal.
Homosexuality is proscribed by the three main religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) and therefore is not normal under those worldviews either. By definition, aberrant.
“homosexuality is a failed path, because it does not propagate the species”
Thats not a failed path, it’s just a different path.
“Therefore, by definition homosexuality is aberrant, not normal.”
Factually incorrect. Per very definition of the word “normal”, it does not mention anything about propagating a species. It does mention “usual” and “serving to establish a standard” which homosexuality does do.
“Homosexuality is proscribed by the three main religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam)”
Your fairy tales have no place in this argument. Keep your god to yourself.
” It’s a morality based judgment that is shared by a large segment of the population”
There is no global consensus on morality. Your morals are your own.
“Your appeals to science simply show you are willing to grind axes by including discredited nonsense in place of science.”
I haven’t even cited any scientific research yet, so what hell are you talking about? And let me guess your science that you use comes from NOM, or NARTH, or AFA right?
Your ignorance about reality is astounding. You know absolutely nothing about homosexuality but you choose to have the biggest opinion about it and assert that opinion as if it is knowledge. Thats the very definition of ignorance and arrogance
Dictionary(.com’s) definition of the word “normal”
adjective
1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal;regular; natural.
2. serving to establish a standard.
Homosexuality achieves “usual”, “regular”, “natural”, and “establishing a standard”. Homosexuality, by definition, is normal.
“he was queer and left, he began living a lie.”
He was also living a lie before as well.
I engage in lots of homosexual behavior, and I support Rivka’s right to free speech. http://genderidentitywatch.com/?s=rivka&submit=Search
Kalcen, the defintion of aberrant includes “different from the usual or natural type”, if you want to argue from this definitional logic. Homosexuality is different from the usual or natural type, unless you are now arguing that the predominant sexual practice is homosexuality.
From a nontheistic viewpoint, the usual or natural type of path is what propagates the species. “Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection takes place.” (From wikipedia’s “Evolution” entry). Homosexuality cannot create progeny. Thus it is a failed path, under evolution.
The usual or natural type of sexuality under a theistic view is heterosexuality, doctrinally.
By the way, the only fairy tales that exist are from abiogenesis, which apparently you believe in. Science can not explain the development and joining of homochiral amino acids into self replicating protein chains, which is essential to abiogenesis. Every attempt to recreate the atheistic creation myth has ended in failure.
The famous Miller-Urey spark experiment always creates a racemic mixture of amino acids, which is fatal to the development of protein chains, because one wrong-handed molecule kills the whole chain. It is statistically impossible to keep that from happening unless you have an enantiomerically pure environment.
“”Yes I admit that, but that is ALL divorces. Infidelity to your vows is what causes divorces in the first place.””
Having practiced divorce law for 18 years, I can say with confidence that seeking to carry on an adulterous affair is not the cause of all divorces. That was the cause in this case.
“”So it’s honorable to live a lie? He’s gay, no longer attracted to his wife, and wants to leave…but he should just power through that and endure?””
Yep. That’s called keeping a vow.
“”You and I both do not know how he acted in this case, because this is not his story. This is HER story. And we don’t know whether or not she has integrity, can be unbiased, or if she is even self-aware. This is one part to a two part story””
Well if that is your approach, then you have no business judging her side of the story until you have heard his side. But you did judge her side of the story. This is a quote from one of your posts: “I read her Public Discourse Essay, this is all nothing more than a bitter woman who is pissed about being divorced and left behind”. A person taking your alleged approach would say “I’m not going to pass judgment on her until I hear both sides. She may well have had every right to say what she did.” You are judging her then based upon your own biases against her, with no knowledge whatsoever that her ex-husband may or may not have conducted himself with integrity .
If homosexuality is normal behavior and not deviancy, then whether you are born homosexual or choose to commit homosexual acts makes no difference. If that is the case, then there would be nothing wrong with taking a straight child and encouraging them to engage in homosexuality. Right?
And before you try to argue otherwise, you cannot assert that all homosexuals are born. If so, then there must be some correlation to crime because there is a disproportionate number of homosexuals incarcerated.
I’m an attorney, and if you believe that judges aren’t prejudiced, then you are out of your damned mind.
So sexual orientation should be a protected class, like race and gender, even though it’s not immutable? Then I guess we have to protect all sexual orientations like pedo, beastiality, etc. Can’t be seen discriminating.
They’re Bolsheviks….of course they are rabid about their degenerate cause…..or ANY commie cause.
Nope. He was keeping his word before. He’s living a lie now because he proved his word is utterly worthless.
Translation: It’s normal, just because I say so and can cite a dictionary definition that says nothing of the sort. There is a good reason the word “queer” has long meant homosexual. There is nothing normal about it.
If you get more, you might be shocked just how uniform the moral opinion on homosexuality is.
Your “science” is from places that have long been telling us about the “gay gene” among other things. It’s funny that “Gay Science” is not widely published. Every time some idiot tries to tell us “it’s proven” it gets shot down in flames. The only reason APA quit listing homosexuality as the mental illness it is was politics pure and simple.
But, then, APA is not about science but political correctness.
Your ignorance is defined by the fact you are consistently evading reality. Trolling at places like this, and spewing your ignorance will gain you nothing. People at places like this are already too well informed to buy your spew and will simply ridicule you for your willful ignorance.
“Every time some idiot tries to tell us “it’s proven” it gets shot down in flames. “
It is proven though. You and I are direct proof that sexual arousal is an inherent trait.
“The only reason APA quit listing homosexuality as the mental illness it is was politics pure and simple”
There is no proof of this matter
“Your ignorance is defined by the fact you are consistently evading reality”
You haven’t shown my any “reality”. You keep showing me your personal opinion about how you feel about homosexuality.
Face it. You don’t like homosexuality but there is no proof of the matter that it is either a choice or abhorrent. You claim to know what you are talking about yet you know nothing about homosexuality; arrogance and ignorance.
“Translation: It’s normal, just because I say so and can cite a dictionary definition that says nothing of the sort”
Factually incorrect. It’s not normal because I, Kalcen, say so. It is normal because it achieves several of the definitions of what defines “normal”. And you can’t prove otherwise.
“There is a good reason the word “queer” has long meant homosexual.”
And what is that reason?
“There is nothing normal about it.”
I’ve already proven you wrong in this claim.
“Nope. He was keeping his word before”
He was keeping his VOWS, not his word. His word was a lie since he was pretending to be straight.
“He’s living a lie now because he proved his word is utterly worthless.”
He is living HIS truth now. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it a lie, it just means its none of your business
“If homosexuality is normal behavior and not deviancy, then whether you are born homosexual or choose to commit homosexual acts makes no difference”
Agreed
“If that is the case, then there would be nothing wrong with taking a straight child and encouraging them to engage in homosexuality.”
Yes there is something wrong with that. You are encouraging a straight child to go against their own nature. And I can’t tell if you are leading to encouragement of being homosexual or pedophilia. I hope its the former, I would hope you aren’t too dim witted to understand why pedophilia is wrong.
“you cannot assert that all homosexuals are born”
Every single homosexual and heterosexual in this world has been born; birthed.
“If so, then there must be some correlation to crime because there is a disproportionate number of homosexuals incarcerated”
Now you are getting into sociological and anthropological areas. I am a gay man myself and I can atleast tell you, from the inside looking out, gay people are not violent or criminals for a large part. Yes we are very judgmental “bitchy” if you will, but the reason there are so few of us incarcerated is because it is not a proclivity of the homosexual community to be criminals.
1. Your first “response” is a nonsequitor. But that’s not surprising for you as much of what you have posted falls into that category. Sexual arousal is not even relevant to the discussion you think you are having.
2. Sorry, but there is. I personally know people that were members when that was considered. They left when it was dropped because it was entirely political, with no grounding in science for it being dropped.
3. Homosexuality has been adjudged immoral since time immemorial. My opinion pro or con is irrelevant in the face of human society’s judgment over the ages.
Sorry, but it has been shown repeatedly to be a preference. It is a mental illness. Nothing has changed that one fact. You have simply chosen to deny reality. That’s a personal problem on your part.
You have come here shown both your arrogance and ignorance. Your preening idiocy does not change that fact. You are here talking about things you have utterly no knowledge of, and it’s long past time for you to give it up.
Go away little boy. Grow up and learn something, then come back among the adults when you’re able to display some learning. All you’re showing now is your indoctrination in preening idiocy.
There is no personal truth. That’;s simply an attempt to dodge reality. He’s living a lie because his word is no good. Such things are the business of everyone in a society. No one is an island and there are no “victimless crimes” because the outcome affects all of society.
“Having practiced divorce law for 18 years, I can say with confidence that seeking to carry on an adulterous affair is not the cause of all divorces. That was the cause in this case.”
I wasn’t saying infidelity is the cause of all divorces, I was agreeing with you that the “infidelities of the vows” is the cause for all divorces.
“Yep. That’s called keeping a vow.”
Then this applies to ALL divorces everywhere. That everyone ever married should just power through. Whether you are depressed, you’ve lost your love for one another, you can’t stand one another, you’ve grown apart….just power through it and be miserable, instead of taking control of your own life and being happy. Thats really good advice.
“Well if that is your approach, then you have no business judging her side of the story until you have heard his side”
This logic is absurd. I don’t need his story inorder to judge her own words. Thats like saying if Kalcen ever wanted to judge the character of Andy Fox, he would need to speak to anybody other than Andy Fox himself.
“But you did judge her side of the story.”
Her writing is one huge biased smear campaign. All she does is finger point her husband, no acknowledgement from herself of anything wrong she’s done.
Not to mention one very big detail. Just cause her husband is gay, does not mean this has anything to do with the basic whole of homosexuals altogether. “The Gay Hate Machine” yet the last I checked, it wasn’t a whole community of gay people that left her…it was her one individual husband.
“You are judging her then based upon your own biases against he”
I don’t have biases against her because I don’t even know who this woman is. I have created a judgement based off of her writing. And in her writing all she writes is insults, accusation, and trying desperately to villanize homosexuality as a whole.
You’ve proven nothing except that you are a narcissitic idiot.
Every dictionary used to carry the definition of queer. One of meanings was “homosexual.” IT was so because homosexuality is not normal. You have as yet to disprove anything as yet, because you are unable to. There is nothing normal about homosexuality. And it is normal to you because you, and other like you, simply make the claim that it is.
“Kalcen, the defintion of aberrant includes “different from the usual or natural type”,”
And as per the definition of “normal” homosexuality achieves “usual” since it is a reoccuring thing that happens at a constant rate. And it also achieves “natural” since it is a thing that naturally occurs in nature.
“Homosexuality cannot create progeny”
I can assure you very much, that homosexuals can procreate. Just cause you are gay does not mean you magically become infertile or impotent.
“abiogenesis”
I didn’t even know what that was, had to look it up. Um, no I don’t believe life developed from non-living matter. I believe that life developed from the evolution of single celled organisms into all the life we have today.
“It is statistically impossible to keep that from happening unless you have an enantiomerically pure environment”
Thank you for the science lesson?
“You’ve proven nothing except that you are a narcissitic idiot”
I have proven that homosexuality is normal and that your personal opinion is that it is aberrant
“Every dictionary used to carry the definition of queer. One of meanings was “homosexual.” IT was so because homosexuality is not normal”
And now they don’t. SURPRISE, the human race can grow. Books also used to say the world was flat, look how that turned out.
“There is no personal truth”
Yes there is, we all know what is best and true for ourselves. If there is no such thing as “personal truth” then why are you even here existing and living if you aren’t living your life to live truthfully to yourself?
” He’s living a lie because his word is no good”
So that makes his word no good on both realities then. If he stayed married to her then he was lying to herself and himself, if he divorces her then he is lying about his vows. Both sides he is living a lie.
“and there are no “victimless crimes” because the outcome affects all of society”
Are you talking about divorce? Because divorce does not effect society.
“Sexual arousal is not even relevant to the discussion you think you are having.”
The discussion is about gay people. You made the completely moronic claim that science hasn’t proven it blah blah blah. Then I gave undeniable proof; yourself and myself. We both have been attracted to one gender ever since we started puberty and its never changed for either of us.
” I personally know people that were members when that was considered. They left when it was dropped because it was entirely political”
Again there is no proof of this matter, just your personal claim.
“Homosexuality has been adjudged immoral since time immemorial”
By religion, which is a fictional story.
“Sorry, but it has been shown repeatedly to be a preference”
Its as much of a preference as heterosexuality is.
“It is a mental illness”
Factually incorrect. There is no proof of this matter.
“You have come here shown both your arrogance and ignorance”
Yes, I have come here and show you your own arrogance and ignorance. You know nothing about homosexuality yet you claim to have all the knowledge about it. You are the true definition of the words “arrogance” and “ignorance”
I can’t help you not be stupid but the least you can do is move on. I’m tired of proving you wrong, only to have you come back with personal claims about what homosexuality is or isn’t…but with no proof to back up your word. You’re rambling at this point and its tiring.
I have tried to stay out of this, but that is one of the weirdest claims that I have ever read. If divorce does not affect society, then neither does marriage, in which case society has no interest in marriage and should ignore it completely, outside of adjudicating private property contracts in civil court.
Your response intentionally tap dances around the implications of your own answers, which thereby prove my points. Your attempt at clever avoidance accomplishes nothing.
First principles – what causes homosexuality? Are all homosexuals born that way, or are some created via nurture? Your not-so-smart ass answer that all gays are born, i.e given birth to, is intentional avoidance of the point, because you fear the implications of the answer.
If homosexuality, the “condition” or the “act”, is not deviant, not maladjusted, not wrong, and is in fact healthy, then there is nothing wrong with committing homosexual acts, for whatever reason.
If that is so, then whether you are born gay or choose to become gay makes no difference.
So, if that’s the case, then a straight child can be encouraged to experiment with homosexuality, no different than having them try out for football v. hockey. To argue otherwise implies irrational discrimination, bigotry.
That doesn’t mean pedophilia, that means raising your child to be open about sexual activity, for example, with kids their own age. Lot of that going around now, huh?
Your protests that we would be “changing their orientation” “and “going against their nature” are laughable. It flies in the face of your admission that some gays are born gay, others choose to be gay, and that isn’t a bad thing. After all, how do you know the kid is straight, right? How do you know he isn’t a closet case? How many guys get married and have kids and then “poof” decide their gay? How many women? You can claim they “always were gay” til you are pink in the face, so why not the 5 year old kid you adopted? Who’s to say, right?
A race can’t choose to be another race. A biological gender can’t choose to be another gender. No amount of surgery or hormones or self-delusion makes that so. That’s why race and gender are legally protected classes – because they are immutable, they can’t be changed. At least it was back when the legal community lost its f’ing collective mind in the mad rush for political correctness.
But sexual orientation can be changed, for any number of reasons. There are numerous cases of straight becoming gay, and vice versa, through choice. It is not an immutable trait. The fact that there are as many homosexuals in prison as there are has nothing to do with their predisposition to crime – it has to do with the fact that you take a person and put them in a situation of sexual frustration and exclusivity and it changes their orientation. Thus, not all homosexuals are born homosexual, and should not be “protected” as if they are.
That’s why all sexual activity outside of heterosexual sex is a deviancy (a deviation from the norm), and some are “disorientations”, because heterosexual sex is unique in that it creates life, it has a purpose beyond pleasure – the continuation of your genetic lineage in particular and the human race in general. Pleasure is the trick, an added incentive to encourage life. The deviancies all share pleasure as the only outcome. To say you only have a penis for the pleasure of rubbing it is akin to saying you only have feet because you get pleasure from a massage.
And as for pedo being wrong, or course it is. It’s a criminal act, a mental disorder. But then again, so was homosexuality not that long ago. Homosexuals argued that it wasn’t their act that was wrong, only society’s view of it. Then they argued they were “born that way” and thus WHAT they are couldn’t be criminalized/.They argued that “no one got hurt” by it. Only a fool would think that pedos won’t use the same basis to argue that their sexual orientation, what they are born as, shouldn’t be considered a protected sexual orientation. They will deny it is an act and instead insist it is a born trait, regardless of any effect on kids. They will argue that kids aren’t harmed by it, that it is society’s stigma that harms the kids. And if you expose kids to sexuality at younger and younger ages (thank you sex ed), then you can’t argue that kids are sexuality illiterate or immature and thus at a disadvantage in an adult/child relationship. Hell, they’ll argue that they are sexual mentors, stewarding kids into adulthood. All it takes is the elimination of statutory sexual assault laws. If a 12 year old girl can get an abortion w/o parental knowledge or consent, why not allow her to engage in the act that caused the pregnancy, right? How is ANY of that surprising or unexpected? Unless you, as a gay person, are blinding yourself to the LEGAL and SOCIAL consequences of your mad rush for benefits and protections.
You see, all of the arguments gays made to legitimize their deviancy are legal/social bread crumbs for the other deviancies to follow out of the forest of illegality that homosexuality once occupied.
“”I can assure you very much, that homosexuals can procreate. Just cause you are gay does not mean you magically become infertile or impotent.””
OK, let me be really specific then (because you are playing word games a little bit) . .. homosexuals cannot procreate through homosexual acts.
“”I believe that life developed from the evolution of single celled organisms into all the life we have today.””
And where did those single celled organisms come from? Either a creator, or through abiogenesis. But abiogenesis is a failed theory.
“”Thank you for the science lesson?””
It’s not a science lesson, it’s a reply to your irrational statement about God being a fairy tale. There is no purely materialistic explanation for how we all got here, but you reject the other explanation — that we were created by a transcendant God. You reject faith, but you exercise it yourself, by putting your faith in a nontheistic origin.
“homosexuals cannot procreate through homosexual acts.”
That is a fact but that is also not a point towards anything.
” Either a creator, or through abiogenesis”
Or science. Evolution and abiogenesis are two separate things.
“It’s not a science lesson, it’s a reply to your irrational statement about God being a fairy tale.”
God is a fairy tale though, there is no proof of his existence.
“You reject faith, but you exercise it yourself, by putting your faith in a nontheistic origin.”
Faith, by it’s very nature, is belief in something that cannot be proven. The nontheistic origin you cite me for acknowleding is called science, or more specifically, evolution. Evolution is a scientifically proven thing that exists.
“Your response intentionally tap dances around the implications of your own answers”
I didn’t tap dance around anything you said. You said things, I acknowledged them directly, and then I gave a direct answer.
“First principles – what causes homosexuality? Are all homosexuals born that way, or are some created via nurture? Your not-so-smart ass answer that all gays are born”
Then you presume to much about what you think I think. I believe it is a combination of the two. I believe some people are out right gay from birth, I think some end up sort of on a biological “fence” about it and then something during their adolescence tips it, and i think that some kids who are sexually abused just think that that is their reality since that is all they’ve know.
So it’s biological and its nurtured to an extent. But also I’m not a geneticist and neither are you.
“If homosexuality, the “condition” or the “act”, is not deviant, not maladjusted, not wrong, and is in fact healthy, then there is nothing wrong with committing homosexual acts, for whatever reason”
This is correct, unless of course you are going to start alluding that raping someone, to then committ a homosexual act is then something that is right. I hope you are smart enough to understand that consent is a necessary factor here.
Also I just want to point out that you are actually engaging this dialogue with me in a manner that makes them think you aren’t being biased or a troll, but that this is a real dialogue for you. If that is the case, are you really incapable of understanding that using words like “deviant, maladjusted, wrong” are all words based on opinion and not fact, right? There is no Codex of Human Life that then would prove that any act in life is inherently deviant, maladjusted, or wrong.
“So, if that’s the case, then a straight child can be encouraged to experiment with homosexuality”
You just got done postulating that performing homosexual acts is not bad. But then you jump into “well encouraging others”…thats the problem right there. Encouraging others to act against their character/demeanor. Encouraging a straight kid to try homosexuality is wrong because they are not gay. Just like encouraging a gay kid to be straight is wrong, because they are not straight.
“That doesn’t mean pedophilia, that means raising your child to be open about sexual activity, for example, with kids their own age. Lot of that going around now, huh?”
Um..not really. When you say being open about sexual activity, to my mind that means via dialogue with your parents and maybe friends about the aspect of your growing up and having a sexuality. But to your mind it sounds like you are saying “open about sexual activity” meaning be open to all types of sexual preference: gay, straight, transgender, whatever.
“There are numerous cases of straight becoming gay, and vice versa, through choice.”
Its not a choice, it’s just a very confusing matter. Of which, any gay person who “becomes straight” there is no credited situations of that happening. Every claim of that happening centers around institutions that are focused on conversion therapy, which is a discredited practice by the APA.
Okay. I’m going to stop here. You clearly have alot of ideas, and I’m happy to engage all of them…but damn, this doesn’t have to be an open flood of a conversation. Learn to pick a figure point and argue those. In one breath of your response you don’t need to bring up 50 different points.
“If divorce does not affect society, then neither does marriage”
This is very accurate statement. Society is collection of the consciousness of the humans in our society. It’s not a tangible thing, it’s more similar to a school of fish. It moves and flows how it does and changes and reshapes as it needs to. Ever moving.
If you think your own marriage or my own marriage effect an entire society, then you are delusional.
“in which case society has no interest in marriage and should ignore it completely”
Another accurate statement. For what “marriage” is today, it’s not something that needs to exist. It’s a vow and a tax break, thats it. Tax break aside, the commitment you give to someone else can happen outside of the official act of being married. Marriage does not need to exist at all.
“marriage manifests manifold benefits for society.”
There is no benefit that marriage provides to society. The only thing you could possibly list is procreation and I can assure you that procreation happens because of sex, not marriage.