SURVEY: Gay Marriage--Good for Thailand or not?

[jak2002003]

2 hours ago, Logosone said:

Unfortunately, studies have shown that being taken care of and loved by a gay couple is not enough, that children of gay marriages have greater problems later in life.

 

Again, even gay men who have children concede that the absence of a mother is a problem.

What studies? Done by some Christian foundation probably.  Can you reference any? 

 

 

[Logosone]

21 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

What studies? Done by some Christian foundation probably.  Can you reference any? 

 

 

I already have, in this thread, if you'd read it you'd have seen it.

 

But I can post it again, sure:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Family_Structures_Study

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X12000610

 

 

 

Mark Regnerus is a professor at the University of Austin. He has nothing to do with any Christian foundation and nor does the study.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Logosone

[jak2002003]

14 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I already have, in this thread, if you'd read it you'd have seen it.

 

But I can post it again, sure:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Family_Structures_Study

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X12000610

 

 

 

Mark Regnerus is a professor at the University of Austin. He has nothing to do with any Christian foundation and nor does the study.

That's interesting....his studies basically have been discredited ...and Texas us hardly a liberal thinking place....plus...this sounds rather religious...

 

The Sacred Project of American Sociology, 

 

 

Maybe his next study can be about the detrimental effect on children being brought up by old farangs with ex prostitute wives...mixed race marriages with massive age gaps? 

 

And, what is your interest in gay adoption that you have actually gone looking for evidence it's bad for the children? 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by jak2002003

[Logosone]

5 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

That's interesting. 

 

Maybe his next study can be about the detrimental effect on children being brought up by old farangs with ex prostitute wives...mixed race marriages with massive age gaps? 

 

And, what is your interest in gay adoption that you have actually gone looking for evidence it's bad for the children? 

 

 

I didn't actually, I just went on a pro and con website, to get a fair idea of the issue and it was mentioned there:

 

https://gaymarriage.procon.org/

 

Of course I double check my sources.

[RJRS1301]

5 hours ago, pineapple01 said:

Christian well adjusted folk,

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by RJRS1301

[RJRS1301]

5 hours ago, pineapple01 said:

Christian well adjusted folk,

Oxymoron or delusional ????

Edited July 14, 2020 by RJRS1301

[RJRS1301]

37 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Again, even gay men who have children concede that the absence of a mother is a problem.

I know some same attracted men with children and women in the their relationships, and have never heard one talk about "absence of mother " or father as an issue, let alone a problem'

How same sex couples with or without children do actually know?

 

[pineapple01]

I can now see why my Gay Friends have no interest in TV, they are quite normal !.

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

I know some same attracted men with children and women in the their relationships, and have never heard one talk about "absence of mother " or father as an issue, let alone a problem'

How same sex couples with or without children do actually know?

 

You don't need to know one. You just have to be able to read a newspaper.

 

Doug Mainwaring, himself a gay parent and the openly gay co-founder of National Capital Tea Party Patriots, stated that “it became increasingly apparent to me, even if I found somebody else exactly like me, who loved my kids as much as I do, there would still be a gaping hole in their lives because they need a mom… I don’t want to see children being engineered for same-sex couples where there is either a mom missing or a dad missing.”

 

So if even gay parents are honest enough to say a child misses a mom and a gay relationship is not ideal to raise a child, probably you can too.

 

Doug Mainwaring now raises his children with the help of his ex wife.

 

The real horror story Doug Mainwaring was alluding to is that gay couples are encouraging scientifically engineered children and indeed lesbians are already using invitro fertilisation to have children. The boys from Brazil beckon, but the parents are not whom we would have thought, it will be LGBT gay married couples who pervert science to have children when nature did not make them that way. 

 

Nothing good can come of this.

 

 

[RJRS1301]

21 minutes ago, Logosone said:

You don't need to know one. You just have to be able to read a newspaper.

 

Doug Mainwaring, himself a gay parent and the openly gay co-founder of National Capital Tea Party Patriots, stated that “it became increasingly apparent to me, even if I found somebody else exactly like me, who loved my kids as much as I do, there would still be a gaping hole in their lives because they need a mom… I don’t want to see children being engineered for same-sex couples where there is either a mom missing or a dad missing.”

 

So if even gay parents are honest enough to say a child misses a mom and a gay relationship is not ideal to raise a child, probably you can too.

 

Doug Mainwaring now raises his children with the help of his ex wife.

 

The real horror story Doug Mainwaring was alluding to is that gay couples are encouraging scientifically engineered children and indeed lesbians are already using invitro fertilisation to have children. The boys from Brazil beckon, but the parents are not whom we would have thought, it will be LGBT gay married couples who pervert science to have children when nature did not make them that way. 

 

Nothing good can come of this.

 

 

One man is not representative of the  the entire gay male population with children. 

You dug your cave an seem content to stay there, enjoy.

Your sources seem somewhat dubious, surrogacy in many parts of the world is strictly controlled, , your idea of "perverting science" is almost verging on hysterical .

[Logosone]

7 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Your sources seem somewhat dubious, surrogacy in many parts of the world is strictly controlled, , your idea of "perverting science" is almost verging on hysterical .

Is it now?

 

“I grieved that our child wouldn’t be genetically related to both of us,” Gormally says. “I longed for the biologically impossible.”

 

In October 2018, researchers overcame this impossibility in mice. By deleting imprinted regions, Wei Li and a team at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing produced healthy mice from two moms. The researchers also created mouse pups from two dads for the first time. However, the offspring died just a few days after birth.

 

To overcome the imprinting barrier, Li and his fellow researchers turned to CRISPR, a gene-editing technique that’s made altering genomes easier than ever. They used the tool to delete gene regions from embryonic stem cells from mice mothers. The researchers then injected these modified stem cells into the egg of a female mouse and then used a third surrogate female mouse to carry the fetus to term. 

 

The team had already seen some success two years earlier when they created mouse pups with two genetic mothers by deleting two imprinted regions. Although these bimaternal mice also grew to adulthood and produced pups of their own, they developed growth defects. 

 

 

But the scientists had to clear a few more hurdles to generate mice with two genetic fathers. They found, through a process of trial and error, that they needed to remove twice as many imprinted regions in the bipaternal mice as the bimaternal mice. In total, the team deleted seven imprinted regions to successfully create mice from two dads.

Still, the numbers were not in their favor. Only two and a half percent of embryos made it to term and less than half of one percent lived for two days. None made it to adulthood.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-slow-march-toward-the-first-same-sex-couple-to-have-a-baby

 

Welcome to the future, where genetically engineered children made especially for lesbian parents, but with a lower life expectancy, can be made in China for a few thousand Dollars.

 

There is no telling what other physical or mental defects such genetically engineered children will have.

 

 

 

[RJRS1301]

15 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Is it now?

 

“I grieved that our child wouldn’t be genetically related to both of us,” Gormally says. “I longed for the biologically impossible.”

 

In October 2018, researchers overcame this impossibility in mice. By deleting imprinted regions, Wei Li and a team at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing produced healthy mice from two moms. The researchers also created mouse pups from two dads for the first time. However, the offspring died just a few days after birth.

 

To overcome the imprinting barrier, Li and his fellow researchers turned to CRISPR, a gene-editing technique that’s made altering genomes easier than ever. They used the tool to delete gene regions from embryonic stem cells from mice mothers. The researchers then injected these modified stem cells into the egg of a female mouse and then used a third surrogate female mouse to carry the fetus to term. 

 

The team had already seen some success two years earlier when they created mouse pups with two genetic mothers by deleting two imprinted regions. Although these bimaternal mice also grew to adulthood and produced pups of their own, they developed growth defects. 

 

 

But the scientists had to clear a few more hurdles to generate mice with two genetic fathers. They found, through a process of trial and error, that they needed to remove twice as many imprinted regions in the bipaternal mice as the bimaternal mice. In total, the team deleted seven imprinted regions to successfully create mice from two dads.

Still, the numbers were not in their favor. Only two and a half percent of embryos made it to term and less than half of one percent lived for two days. None made it to adulthood.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-slow-march-toward-the-first-same-sex-couple-to-have-a-baby

 

Welcome to the future, where genetically engineered children made especially for lesbian parents, but with a lower life expectancy, can be made in China for a few thousand Dollars.

 

There is no telling what other physical or mental defects such genetically engineered children will have.

 

 

 

Yes they are coming for you .

 

[RJRS1301]

26 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Is it now?

 

“I grieved that our child wouldn’t be genetically related to both of us,” Gormally says. “I longed for the biologically impossible.”

 

In October 2018, researchers overcame this impossibility in mice. By deleting imprinted regions, Wei Li and a team at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing produced healthy mice from two moms. The researchers also created mouse pups from two dads for the first time. However, the offspring died just a few days after birth.

 

To overcome the imprinting barrier, Li and his fellow researchers turned to CRISPR, a gene-editing technique that’s made altering genomes easier than ever. They used the tool to delete gene regions from embryonic stem cells from mice mothers. The researchers then injected these modified stem cells into the egg of a female mouse and then used a third surrogate female mouse to carry the fetus to term. 

 

The team had already seen some success two years earlier when they created mouse pups with two genetic mothers by deleting two imprinted regions. Although these bimaternal mice also grew to adulthood and produced pups of their own, they developed growth defects. 

 

 

But the scientists had to clear a few more hurdles to generate mice with two genetic fathers. They found, through a process of trial and error, that they needed to remove twice as many imprinted regions in the bipaternal mice as the bimaternal mice. In total, the team deleted seven imprinted regions to successfully create mice from two dads.

Still, the numbers were not in their favor. Only two and a half percent of embryos made it to term and less than half of one percent lived for two days. None made it to adulthood.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-slow-march-toward-the-first-same-sex-couple-to-have-a-baby

 

Welcome to the future, where genetically engineered children made especially for lesbian parents, but with a lower life expectancy, can be made in China for a few thousand Dollars.

 

There is no telling what other physical or mental defects such genetically engineered children will have.

 

 

 

There is not even proof of concept yet. "In principle, it says

 

Only two and a half percent of embryos made it to term and less than half of one percent lived for two days  xxxxxxxxxx

 

The offspring grew up healthy and fertile. In principle, this approach could allow a woman’s skin cells to be engineered into sperm and used to fertilize her partner’s egg. https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-slow-march-toward-the-first-same-sex-couple-to-have-a-baby

Edited July 14, 2020 by RJRS1301

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

There is not even proof of concept yet. "In principle, it says

 

The offspring grew up healthy and fertile. In principle, this approach could allow a woman’s skin cells to be engineered into sperm and used to fertilize her partner’s egg. https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-slow-march-toward-the-first-same-sex-couple-to-have-a-baby

All it takes is one gay billionaire bankrolling the research. In China they're probably doing already anyway because there are no ethical constraints like in the West.

 

Can you imagine? Genetically engineered Frankenstein babies being commissioned by lesbians because they have the egomaniac demand that their children be genetically fully related to them. Having children is not enough.

 

This is not perversion science? Really?

[The Barmbeker]

5 hours ago, Logosone said:

I'm not sure it is. 

 

Whilst the gay rights movement has in the past worked with the movement to legalise paedophilia obviously in the current climate that won't happen any time soon.

 

However, if you allow marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, how could you argue that marriage between polygamous couples, man/woman/woman/ or woman/man/man is not right?

 

Legitimizing one fringe sexual preference opens the door to legitimizing others. It's a clear issue.

Okay, let me write it slowly, for you!

A) I personally don't care, if any man wants to live with 5 women or a woman wants to get married to 3 man and another woman. Doesn't bother me AT ALL none of my business!

...because...

b) the operative word is CONSENT!

That is why, these absurd constructs of "a man getting married to his toaster/ a donkey/ A CHILD" are nothing but absurd!

A toaster, a donkey or A CHILD can not give informed consent or any consent!

Therefore: no marriage!

[The Barmbeker]

5 hours ago, Pilotman said:

To turn your logic back on you: so in same sex couples there is never any  domestic abuse, or drugs, or excessive alcohol;  like their relationships don't fail ever ( they do and anecdotal evidence would suggest, more often than in mixed sex relationships)?  Love in a family can be provided by either sex, that is not my point.  My point is that the nuclear mixed sex, traditional family is the best environment for bringing up a child, as it providers both role models and shows the balance of 'traditional' relationships. There is a reason why nature restricts procreation to mixed sex relationships in mammals. 

Nature also allows a male lion to have a harem and kill offspring that is not fathered by himself!

I am sure, you don't want to go down that road!

[Pilotman]

1 minute ago, The Barmbeker said:

Nature also allows a male lion to have a harem and kill offspring that is not fathered by himself!

I am sure, you don't want to go down that road!

Hardly the same topic or logic. 

[The Barmbeker]

3 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

Hardly the same topic or logic. 

"There is a reason why nature restricts procreation to mixed sex relationships in mammals."

You brought in the :nature does thsi"- argument!

[teatime101]

4 hours ago, Pilotman said:

Your first paragraph is a good argument.  However, a same sex relationship does not have the balance  of views, emotions, opinion, world views, as that between male and female in a mixed sex family, it cannot possibly have.

This is basically an argument against homosexuality, because it lacks a male/female balance balance. We've moved on from this kind of gender specific role-play model. People are individuals first and foremost. While I accept that not having input from both male and female can be seen as a negative, it is replaced by a relationship between people of the same sex (sex=/=gender is a complicate topic, and I don't want to go there), which has its own value.

 

If you want to argue that the love of two men or two women for each other is less rich and enabling for a child as between male and female, that's fine, but, that's just your opinion. 

4 hours ago, Matzzon said:

Please tell me the name of your saviour.

My brain?

 

4 hours ago, Matzzon said:

Hasn´t nature set out that only a man and a woman can possibly be the two persons genetically related as mother and father to a baby?

It doesn't set anything out at all. My position has nothing to do with religion. Couples can 'have children' through IVF, adoption, surrogacy, sperm donor, and so on. Yes, obviously you need a sperm and an egg. But, there is nothing in nature that mandates how the sperm/egg union should proceed in terms of the kind of upbringing the child gets, and that is where you are trying to impose your POV.

 

What you're really objecting to do is homosexuality...

 

4 hours ago, Pilotman said:

why actively and in full knowledge of what will sometimes happen, produce another class of children that are discriminated against; by allowing same sex adoption?  

Another circulate argument. You're good at these.

Edited July 14, 2020 by teatime101

[Pilotman]

Just now, teatime101 said:

This is basically an argument against homosexuality, because it lacks a male/female balance balance. We've moved on from this kind of gender specific role-play model. People are individuals first and foremost. While I accept that not having input form both male and female can be seen as a negative, it is replaced by a relationship between people of the same sex (sex=/=gender is a complicate topic, and I don't want to go there).

 

If you want to argue that the love of two men or two women for each others is less rich and enabling for a child as between male and female, again that's your opinion. 

My brain told me.

 

It doesn't set anything out. My position has nothing to do with religion. Couples can 'have children' through IVF, adoption, surrogacy, sperm donor, and so on. Yes, obviously you need a sperm and an egg. There is nothing in nature that mandates how the sperm/egg union should proceed in terms of the kind of upbringing the child gets, and that is where you are trying to impose your POV.

 

What you're really objecting to do is homosexuality...

 

Another circulate argument. You're good at these.

Absolute  and utter nonsense.  It has nothing to do with homophobia and if you don't understand that, then maybe you don't understand English, or recognise a cogent argument,  without trying to find some discrimination bias in it. I said repeatedly that these were my opinions, did you not read that? I get quite exasperated when people like you can't be bothered to read the posts correctly. You, quote,  "don't want to go there"?  So why comment at all if you have nothing to add to the debate? 

 

"There is nothing in nature that mandates how the sperm/egg union should proceed "

 

Then why is sex a natural process in all mammals?

 

[CMNightRider]

In the beginning, God created man and woman.  It is very clear in the Bible, God doesn't want nor never intended for men to marry men or women to marry women.  

 

Why on earth would anyone feel the need for a survey on homosexual marriage?  

[DrTuner]

Marriage should simply be a pile of template laws between two legal entities. Marry your company for all I care. It's a business deal.

[Logosone]

37 minutes ago, The Barmbeker said:

Okay, let me write it slowly, for you!

A) I personally don't care, if any man wants to live with 5 women or a woman wants to get married to 3 man and another woman. Doesn't bother me AT ALL none of my business!

...because...

b) the operative word is CONSENT!

That is why, these absurd constructs of "a man getting married to his toaster/ a donkey/ A CHILD" are nothing but absurd!

A toaster, a donkey or A CHILD can not give informed consent or any consent!

Therefore: no marriage!

Well the gay rights movement in the 1980s disagreed with you, to them a teenager could have given consent, hence their calls to legalise paedophilia.

 

The mere issue of defining what a "child" is has defeated lawmakers across the world for centuries. 

 

And you can bet your bottom dollar some zoophile extremist living with his mare, or her dog, is feeling hard done by by not being able to marry their beloved animal/lover.

 

Now, we may not care about polygamy but it raises issues, such as for instance in the UK parliament they had to debate whether, on recognition of foreign marriages, spouses of one husband could all receive benefit payments. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Logosone

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Well the gay rights movement in the 1980s disagreed with you, to them a teenager could have given consent, hence their calls to legalise paedophilia.

 

The mere issue of defining what a "child" is has defeated lawmakers across the world for centuries. 

 

And you can bet your bottom dollar some zoophile extremist living with his mare, or her dog, is feeling hard done by by not being able to marry their beloved animal/lover.

 

Now, we may not care about polygamy but it raises issues, such as for instance in the UK parliament they had to debate whether, on recognition of foreign marriages, spouses of one husband could all receive benefit payments. 

You've got every anti gay civil rights trope at the ready. Its rare to encounter someone as obsessed with throwing dirt on gay people. 

[RJRS1301]

19 minutes ago, CMNightRider said:

In the beginning, God created man and woman.  It is very clear in the Bible, God doesn't want nor never intended for men to marry men or women to marry women.  

 

Why on earth would anyone feel the need for a survey on homosexual marriage?  

ah that is the first falsehood:""God created" Heard of evolution ?
 

Second: Bible, a collection of fables, tales and superstition, discrimination, sexism, misogyny. translated from ancient tongues over millennia (Accuracy very questionable)

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by RJRS1301

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You've got every anti gay civil rights trope at the ready. Its rare to encounter someone as obsessed with throwing dirt on gay people. 

Nobody's "throwing dirt". The gay rights movement did argue in favour of legalising paedophilia.

 

It's just reality. Hard to accept reality for some, but reality nonetheless.

 

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/gay-activists-in-germany-silent-on-alliance-with-pedophiles-in-1980s-a-919119.html

[bestie]

You need help

[Matzzon]

42 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

My position has nothing to do with religion.

I guess you are wrong there. It must have same much to do with your position as you so kindly implied that mine had. Or maybe you have some kind of single right to judge that. Related to Jesus in some kind of way? In case of, that´s not much to come with. He was my gardener.

[RJRS1301]

8 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

He was my gardener.

Built me a very nice farm shed and mangers

 

[Logosone]

13 minutes ago, bestie said:

You need help

Not at all. And lest anyone thinks it was just in Germany that the gay rights movements vociferously demanded the right to have sex with children this also happened in the UK.

 

Peter Tatchell published his notorious "Perverts' Charter in "Outrage!".

 

In 1996, Tatchell led an OutRage! campaign to reduce the age of consent in the UK to 14 years.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Tatchell#Age_of_consent_laws_and_Pedophile_Information_Exchange

 

Tatchell has written an obituary in The Independent for Paedophile Information Exchange founder Ian Dunn, as well as an essay for a pro-paedophile activist and Paedophile Information Exchange member Warren Middleton in the book "Betrayal of Youth (BOY)". The actor and Human Rights activist, John Connors described Tatchell as a "paedophile apologist".

 

In 1997 Tatchell wrote a letter to The Guardian, defending an academic book about "boy-love", calling the work "courageous", before writing:

 

"The positive nature of some child–adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful."

 

Peter Tatchell is the most prominent gay rights advocate in the UK.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Logosone