@BigD

Just googled Jeffrey Satinover since I've not read his work. Lot of stuff coming up about him, most of it involves the word "controversial". It seems he's not as universally respected as you seem to think. But enough about him for a second. You keep bringing up a chap called Christopher Biggins.

Turns out Mr Biggins not only was married to a Beatrice Norbury in the early 70's before "coming out", but also had a very close relationship with his father. Here is a story about him paying his late father great tribute.

So this is a chap that tried to play being straight (due to the persecution he suffered from at the time), "came out" when societies tolerance allowed him to be true to himself and got a divorce, then established a long term gay relationship with a Neil Sinclair (Over 20 years thus far). So that's a strong father figure, and a failed straight marriage followed by a lengthy gay relationship.

He doesn't fit in with Jeffrey Satinovers theory does he? Perhaps he is unique? In fact, if you take the time to look into the family histories of the people listed on the Wikipedia pages "List of gay, lesbian or bisexual_people" you'll find hundreds of famous or infamous people that didn't come from broken homes or lack a strong father figure (I'm sticking with famous people as the gay friends that I have that don't come from broken homes won't have any meaning to you).

And further more, it turns out that there are quite a few famous "straight" people that had gay parents and they turned out just fine. Joe Valentine (famous baseball player), Natasha Richardson (actor), Vanessa Redgrave (actor & Dame), Malcolm Stevenson Forbes Jr (business magazine Forbes), even rapper 50 Cent.

And what about all the people that grew up without a father figure that didn't become gay?


Now back to this Jeffrey Satinovers chap. The book he wrote that you quoted from was not a scientific journal, it was a paperback book published by "Baker Books" This is the Mission Statement from them as written on their website.

"Baker Publishing Group publishes high-quality writings that represent historic Christianity and serve the diverse interests and concerns of evangelical readers."

Quote:

This paper seems quite honest about the development of homosexual tendencies. At least the author is looking at it from a scientific stance rather than a rabid 'gay agenda' one.

I'm not sure that qualifies as "a scientific stance" as you claimed. Nor is it free from having an agenda of it's own, rabid or not. Also it is not a scientific paper, it is a book. It's not open to scrutiny in the same way a scientific paper is as it was not subjected to review by his peers prior to publication.

Given that fact, it is not with a great deal of surprise to find that quite a lot of scientists who do respect the scientific process, don't agree with his writing. In fact, I'm not able to find any that do. Perhaps you can provide them for me? You are the one putting so much stock in his claims after all.

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation"

That's a quote from The American Psychological Assocation which acording to it's website is "the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States."

So basically, the general consensus is that we don't know. Anyone that says differently is not a consensus.

Don't you realise that there is a pattern to your posts? First you make a statement claiming it as fact. We call you out on it and then you respond with an unreliable source. That you want things to be true, doesn't make them so. You come up with your conclusion first, then try to find the facts to back you up. You are the complete opposite of what the scientific process is.


Edit: Forgot to address "NARTH" in my reply. To save on an already lengthy post, on the wikipedia page read the section "Criticism" You'll find they are hardly what can be reasonably described as scientific.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 16-Apr-2012 at 11:14 PM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@BigD

Quote:

This paper seems quite honest about the development of homosexual tendencies. At least the author is looking at it from a scientific stance rather than a rabid 'gay agenda' one.

I can think of 3 friends that are gay and appear to have good relationships with their father. I don't see the question as easy as he does.

Also, what's with the 'we all must be birthers' agenda here? I've been around long enough to know that certain people shouldn't have children. Raising them isn't a skill they appear to contain and they don't have an interest in improving. And yes these are straight parents whose fathers were abusive and rejective of the child and family.. Oh and the kid came out straight, too.

@BigD

Quote:

especially considering the downward trajectory of the content of some other posts on this thread, some no more than brainless abuse. Just to clarify for you haters out there, NARTH's mission statement is as follows;

The only brainless abuse that I have seen in this thread are the baseless allegations and comments you have made against one particular minority group in the UK. Likewise the only evidence of hate is your perpetual rant against this aforementioned minority group.

You still haven't explained how spreading the benefits of marriage is either unfair, or a threat to the stability of my own marriage. Could you tell me why you keep ducking this question.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BigD

Quote:

especially considering the downward trajectory of the content of some other posts on this thread, some no more than brainless abuse.

I missed this dig earlier. To put it plainly, I treat people the way they treat others.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@Nimrod

Quote:

You still haven't explained how spreading the benefits of marriage is either unfair, or a threat to the stability of my own marriage. Could you tell me why you keep ducking this question.

If marriage is redefined, the status of marriage in society as a whole is eroded. The change will obscure the true meaning of marriage in the mind of individuals. Changing how people think about marriage will end up changing how they treat it.

Consider this, when the state supports 'marriage', it sends out the message that children need a mother and a father. Same sex marriage sends out the message that they don't - mothers or fathers are dispensable.

Creating homosexual marriage would rewrite are laws to eliminate common terms like husband, wife, mother or father. The Equalities Office has already suggested that the government cease using 'husband' and 'wife' should marriage be redefined.

History teaches us that devaluing marriage will end with undesirable consequences;

Early communist Russia aggressively promoted cohabitation and equated it with marriage. The 1918 Family Code "severed the concept of marriage from that of the family". Then in 1926 Family Code recognised couples living together without any sort of registration. Only three days were needed to get a divorce. Between 1926 and 1927 an already high divorce rate rose by nearly 70 per cent. The ensuing destruction of family life began to destroy Russian society itself. Immense problems were posed by divorce, alimony, family instability and homelessness. The Russian leaders eventually had to do something and in 1936 the Deputy Chairman said, "it is necessary to put an end to the anarchist view of marriage and childbirth as an exclusively private affair". By 1944 Stalin's Edict had returned divorce proceedings to the courts and 'de facto' marriage was abolished. In 1959 'solemn ceremonies' had been created to establish secular marriage ceremonies.

The State's rejection of marriage as an absolute resulted in social harm to such an extent that the Russian revolutionary practice in creating 'new' families' had to be completely reversed.

During the French Revolution similar policies tried to equate marriage and cohabitation. In the first years after the French Revolution, cohabitation - free union - was widely accepted and practised. In 1792 France passed a law establishing divorce by mutual consent.

Social disorder followed rapidly. Significant numbers of women and children were abandoned. As early as 1793 the National Convention began to reign in divorce and in 1794 the leaders of France set out "to reaffirm... the family as the bedrock of society". Napoleon's Civil Code of 1804 completed the reversal and made divorce much harder to obtain. Divorce was outlawed altogether in 1816, after the restoration of the monarchy.

Creating same-sex marriage will fundamentally dismantle the Western legal tradition whereby marriage is accorded special respect and protection It will undoubtedly weaken the institution of marriage. Redefining marriage in law would contribute to the further erosion of marriage in society - exacerbating family breakdown which is already estimated to cost the UK at least £100 billion per year.

Although cohabitation and liberal divorce laws cause serious problems for adults and for children, they do not change the nature of marriage itself. The institution of marriage is already under pressure. In 2010 there were over 132,000 divorces in the UK. Now is not the time to kick away what structural props remain for marriage. Marriage is already in danger of of death by a thousand cuts, already losing structural support after structural support, and in turn holding fewer incentives.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@Thread

The Coalition4Marriage petition now has 455,879 signatures! When will Cameron take notice and stop this mad attack on marriage?

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

The Coalition4Marriage petition now has 455,879 signatures! When will Cameron take notice and stop this mad attack on marriage..

Or will he make the correct decision?

Fixed

@Everybody

Perhaps this can give some perspective on things.


Let them get married, like the rest of us

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

@tomazkid

Where does this assumption that homosexuals want monogamy come from? Many lesbians and gay men do not want to be 'restricted' by having to conform to what they see as traditional heterosexual standards.

The SIGMA project, the leading research project into homosexual lifestyles in the UK, was conducted by researchers sympathetic to gay rights. Their main study was funded by the Department of Health and published by the then government. This study found that most homosexual men had casual partners, on average seven per year, and claimed that:

"There is widespread expectation among gay men that relationships will not be monogamous since this is widely seen as a means of combining the security of a long term commitment with the excitement of new encounters."

The SIGMA researchers used the term "closed" to describe "monogamy". Their definition is extremely weak: "A relationship was considered closed if the respondant had not had sex with a third party in the preceding month. Ever since this main study was published in 1992, subsequent SIGMA research has underlined the non-monogamous character of homosexual relationships.

National stats show that less than 0.2 per cent of households are headed by a cohabiting same-sex couple, and the figures from homosexual academics already referred to would suggest that many of these relationships are not sexually exclusive.

Even those at the forefront of the campaign for redefining marriage admit that, although they believe creating same-sex marriage may lesson the extent of homosexual promiscuity, we cannot expect this to disappear altogether. BBC presenter Evan Davis stated: "Even if you regard an open relationship as imperfect, it is surely not worthless." Andrew Sullivan is one of the leading gay intellectuals in the West. In his book Virtually Normal he argues that homosexual partnerships are superior to heterosexual monogamous marriages since,

"... there is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman... Their failures entail fewer consequences for others."

Last edited by BigD on 20-Apr-2012 at 10:39 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

The Coalition4Marriage petition now has 455,879 signatures! When will Cameron take notice and stop this mad attack on marriage?

Your pressure group has still failed to attract signatures (real or otherwise) from 1% of the UK population despite your vocal and active campaigning. When will your pressure group take notice and stop this mad attack on the equal rights of a minority group.

Quote:

Where does this assumption that homosexuals want monogamy come from? Many lesbians and gay men do not want to be 'restricted' by having to conform to what they see as traditional heterosexual standards.

]Where does this assumption that heterosexuals want monogamy come from? Many people do not want to be "restricted" by having to conform to standards. As a result there is an active trade takes place in a section of most towns and cities known as the "red light district". This trade is called prostitution and is even referred to in a book that you may have read. Add to that the number of people who regularly have a "bit on the side"., and you will see how rare true monogamy really is. Living close to my home there is a respected member of the anglican community who has four ex wives, has cheated on all of his partners, and has children by more women than he has bothered to marry. I compare his "christian virtue" with the track record of people like Elton John and wonder why you still strive to interfere with peoples right to enjoy the benefits of a stable marriage. Jealousy perhaps?

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Living close to my home there is a respected member of the anglican community who has four ex wives, has cheated on all of his partners, and has children by more women than he has bothered to marry.

The gentleman you mention is just as much as sinner as Elton John, people that use prostitutes or even those that use internet pornography and he has obviously undermined and disrespected the institution of marriage. This does not detract from the inherant value marriage has. If anything it points to the fact divorce laws should be stricter. Most marriages are monogamous, most homosexual relationships aren't. Almost two thirds of children grow up in a household led by a married couple. Most cohabiting heterosexual couples go onto marry.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

, people that use prostitutes or even those that use internet pornography and he has obviously undermined and disrespected the institution of marriage.

This is not a recent thing and certainly predates the invention of the internet as a distribution network for stuff that you disapprove of. A quote from your favourite book will illustrate the nature of the problem.
"I will not punish your daughters when they turn to prostitution, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery, because the men themselves consort with harlots"

Quote:

This does not detract from the inherant value marriage has.

Quite right, but neither does it explain your "dog in a manger" attempts to exclude a section of the population from these benefits simply because of your personal prejudices.

Quote:

If anything it points to the fact divorce laws should be stricter.

How will this stop people cheating on their partners, or visiting prostitutes? Do you remember my post pointing out that the duration of marriages now, is the same as that of marriages in the 12th century? Back then they ended in the death of one partner, now they end in divorce. Considering the levels of domestic violence, perhaps my tongue-in cheek comment in that post, about increased lifespan as a result of availability of divorce, was not quite so ridiculous.

Quote:

Almost two thirds of children grow up in a household led by a married couple.

True again, but it would help if the married couple were both of the childs parents. I have more respect for a person being willing to help raise somebody elses offspring than I have for somebody who brings children into the world and then abandon them. However it has to be accepted that sometimes the absent parent is not absent through choice. Unlike some, I do not condemn others for simply being different.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: The gentleman you mention is just as much as sinner as Elton John, people that use prostitutes or even those that use internet pornography.

What's wrong with being a sinner !!!

The word "sinner" is simply nothing more than a derogatory religious term used by certain people to show their religious disapproval of other peoples actions when the person they are calling a sinner may in fact not be religious at all and therefore they aren't a "sinner"l...

I look at internet pornography but just because you're religious that doesn't make me a "sinner", just makes me a perfectly normal healthy red blooded human male...

Why do you religious fanatics have to stick your absurd religious labels on everyone & everything that you disapprove of ???

_________________

@BigD

So was Jesus married to the prostitute Mary Magdalene, or was he banging her out of wedlock? Then there is the matter of his parents..

Was Joseph his dad, or was God his dad? If the former, then he isn't the son of God. If the latter, then God/Mary committed adultery. If Mary didn't consent, then God is a rapist.

Christian values are the worst possible example to base marriage values on.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@BigD

Overly strict parents ans same sex urges lead to homophobia
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/study-of-the-day-strict-parenting-and-same-sex-urges-lead-to-homophobia/256019/

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

Christian values are the worst possible example to base marriage values on.

How do you figure that? What people fail to grasp is the Biblical truth that it is not 'the love that sustains marriage' but 'the marriage that sustains love'. Although this goes against the grain of modern 'enlightened' thinking where the emphasis is on romantic love or physical attraction. It is these 'romantic love' centred unions which can sometimes be the most tyrannical as they depend on the the partners keeping emotionally all the time up to scratch.

Marriage involves 'one flesh' conjugal union of one man and one woman which is intrinsically fulfilling. Sexual relationships in any other context can never create the objective reality of a marriage.

Same-sex marriage would not in reality be marriage at all. It would enshrine a massive lie in law, which would be enforced with all the persuasive power of the state. The implication to our society would be immense.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

Same-sex marriage would not in reality be marriage at all. It would enshrine a massive lie in law, which would be enforced with all the persuasive power of the state. The implication to our society would be immense.

... in your opinion.

I think it's great that you have the opportunity to put your opinion across in this forum. But that's all it is. An opinion. And as we all know, opinions are like ####holes - everybody has one

Marriage is whatever two people want it to be. It is the state that defines it, not the church. The church is merely one facilitator out of many with the permission to carry out the union of two people in law.

The people, and the state, define the law. Not the churches. Herein lies your problem.

Irrespective of your opinion (which I respect by the way) the definition of marriage is free to be redefined at the will of the people.

It is clearly the unspoken will of the people that the benefits of marriage be extended to all parties. No amount of signatures added to a petition created by a well organised pressure group will change that (because you'll never get a majority of the voting UK public to sign it).

The UK, along with much of the "enlightened" world, is rapidly moving to secularisation. Formerly dominant religions (i.e. Christianity in the west) are being marginalised due to the reletless march of science, understanding and reason.

In the last UK census, the number of people without a stated religion is only just outweighed by those with one. But only a very small fraction of those with a religion are practising, and still only some of them are devout (NB, I marked myself as Christian, but clearly don't agree with you, and I suspect there are many just like me).

You are by definition a vociferous minority - and this forum is as good a place as any to see that, based on the complete lack of support from any of the members in this forum (save for TPod, who is now noticable by his absence).

The rest of the AW.net community (those in the UK anyway) are likely indifferent and therefore have already established that this would have no detrimental impact on them and their situation.

Time to admit that you've lost the argument I think...

AndyC

@AndyC

Quote:

Marriage is whatever two people want it to be. It is the state that defines it, not the church. The church is merely one facilitator out of many with the permission to carry out the union of two people in law.

The question I see here is what does the individual see first. Seems to me that BigD puts religion as the dictating force to the government and thereby society.

In the United States it's a nation 'of by and for the people'. God doesn't get to trump the government. Which I'm sure many are upset about but it does help minimize which 'God' gets that right and which 'God' does not.

The important thing is that in a society that's trying to melt diverse ethic and religious backgrounds together is to translates morality into a universal truth. One people can agree upon as a good idea and still gives those religious people the flexiblity to live the way they want.

For example - most of these societies murder and stealing is wrong. It's not wrong because Allah or Jehovah said so. They are universally derived principles that 'we the people' agree to define our society around.

--Sorry for the USA persepctive but I hope the thread respects coming from the USA I focus more on my system and society and a bit less on others. But, our government is not God derived. (No matter if some of the Christian Taliban would like us to think otherwise.)

@BrianK

Biblical Marriage: http://i.imgur.com/9IZWu.jpg

@BrianK

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (King James Version (KJV))

28 - If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 - Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Funny that you only have to pay the "fifty shekels of silver" if you get caught.

Now, that is a wonderful example of the merits of good, clean living...

Who writes this nonsense?

AndyC