PDA

View Full Version : "Homosexuality is Beginning to Sound like an Infectious Disease !"



megimoo
06-09-2009, 04:18 PM
'Gay' family kids 7 times more likely to be homosexual
But report shows researchers concealing information
......................................
Eight percent of adult children reared by lesbians "had a homosexual relationship even though they weren't sexually attracted to same-sex partners," Hansen wrote
.......................................
"Concealing and/or downplaying research findings that suggest differences between children reared by homosexuals and those reared by heterosexuals, changes the way some citizens vote and judges rule on issues related to same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, etc. And many of those who conduct those studies know that," she continued.
.................................
"No one should be surprised that homosexual parents are more likely to raise homosexual children.

As one of the few forthright pro-homosexual advocates proclaimed, 'Of course our children are going to be different,'" Hansen said.

"No one knows for sure by what complex mechanisms homosexual parents disproportionately rear homosexual children
...............................
A licensed psychologist with both clinical and forensic practice outreaches is warning that it appears children of homosexual couples are seven times more likely to develop (Homosexual) "non-heterosexual preferences" than other children, but lawmakers establishing policy often don't know that because the researchers have concealed their discoveries.
.....................
"Research … although not definitive, suggests that children reared by openly homosexual parents are far more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than children raised by others," said the online report .
...........................
Studies she reviewed suggest children raised by homosexual or bisexual parents "are approximately seven times more likely than the general population to develop a non-heterosexual
(Homosexual) sexual preference."

The "studies thus far find that between 8 percent and 21 percent of homosexually parented children ultimately identify as (Homosexual) non-heterosexual ," the psychologist wrote. "For comparison purposes, approximately 2 percent of the general population are non-heterosexual. Therefore, if these percentages continue to hold true, children of homosexuals have a 4 to 10 times greater likelihood of developing a non-heterosexual (Homosexual) preference than other children."

However, those researchers who found such differences "nonetheless declared in their research summaries that no differences were found," the report said.

...............................
"Many believe they concealed their findings so as not to harm their own pro-homosexual, sociopolitical agendas," the report said.
......................
For example, Among the numerous studies Hansen reviewed was the 1996 work by Golombok and Tasker.

The authors of the study specifically looking at children of homosexual parents found "the large majority of children who grew up in lesbian families identified as heterosexual."
.........................
However, Hansen said in the study, in order for an adult child to be classified as (Homosexual) non-heterosexual, "the adult child had to currently identify as non-heterosexual and commit to a future identity as a (Homosexual) non-heterosexual – a very unusual method for coding (Homosexual) non-heterosexuality."

She continued, "The authors didn't mention this point or offer any explanations or comments about it. Nonetheless, 16 percent of those reared by lesbians had homosexual or bisexual levels of same-sex attraction, while 0 percent of the children of heterosexuals did. That's 16 percent compared to 0 percent. Additionally, 67 percent of the children from lesbian family backgrounds said that they had 'previously considered, or thought it a future possibility, that they might experience same-gender attraction or have a same-gender sexual relationship or both' compared to 14 percent of children from heterosexual families. That's 67 percent compared to 14 percent."
........................
Eight percent of adult children reared by lesbians "had a homosexual relationship even though they weren't sexually attracted to same-sex partners," Hansen wrote.
.........................
Hansen, who works with marriage, parenting, male-female difference issues, told WND that there is little scientific research on the long-term impact of homosexual parenting on children, and no definitive conclusions can be drawn.

However, she said what information is available suggests children raised by homosexuals have different sexual orientation, gender identity and gender role behaviors from those children raised by heterosexual couples.

The concealment of information is no surprise, either.

"Most of the researchers involved in the study of homosexually-parented children are self-proclaimed pro-homosexual parenting researchers," Hansen told WND. "Many of these researchers, as well as others, admit that acknowledging differences between homosexually- and heterosexually-parented children would be detrimental to their goals of wide-spread social acceptance of same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, homosexual foster parenting, etc.

"Concealing and/or downplaying research findings that suggest differences between children reared by homosexuals and those reared by heterosexuals, changes the way some citizens vote and judges rule on issues related to same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, etc. And many of those who conduct those studies know that," she continued.

Policymakers need that information to make reasonable policy, too.

"The circumstances under which children are reared are immensely important to a civilization. Earlier social experiments, such as no-fault divorce and the broad acceptance of single motherhood, resulted in disaster by increasing the number of fatherless children, many who now fill our prisons and welfare rolls. Policy makers, judges, and citizens need to know the truth: children need fathers and changing legal standards such as the definition of marriage will deliberately deprive even more children of them," her report said.

"Homosexuals, and others who support their cause, understandably desire social and legal acceptance of their lifestyles and partnerships. One of the methods for achieving that goal is to convince the public that homosexual parenting isn't detrimental to children. Concealing and/or downplaying research findings which reveal that children raised by homosexuals are different in fundamental ways from other children, is part of that socio-political agenda intended to sway voters and judges," she said.

Hansen suggested all scientists have biases – especially when such an "emotionally-charged" issue is at hand.

But if the authors of these studies want to be regarded as scientists, and not activists, "they must set aside their biases and straightforwardly present their findings," she wrote.

"No one should be surprised that homosexual parents are more likely to raise homosexual children. As one of the few forthright pro-homosexual advocates proclaimed, 'Of course our children are going to be different,'" Hansen said. "No one knows for sure by what complex mechanisms homosexual parents disproportionately rear homosexual children. But regardless of how, it appears they do.
...................................
The public needs to be made aware of the findings of these studies so that when courts adjudicate and citizens vote on issues related to homosexuality, they're fully informed as to the possible consequences of those decisions on children."

Hansen's review encompassed nine studies, virtually all of the documentation available on the subject for her selected class of children.


http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100593

wilbur
06-09-2009, 05:24 PM
Hey, maybe there is a 'gay gene' after all?

Gingersnap
06-09-2009, 05:57 PM
Hey, maybe there is a 'gay gene' after all?

Doubtful. A lot of these kids will be adopted. In any event, if a 'gay gene' was found, you can bet that the vast majority of pro-choice heterosexual women would elect to "try again".

FlaGator
06-09-2009, 06:07 PM
Hey, maybe there is a 'gay gene' after all?

More likely a gay Gene.

Rockntractor
06-09-2009, 07:14 PM
I wonder if they pick it up from what they see going on around them. You think?

Odysseus
06-09-2009, 07:56 PM
Eight percent of adult children reared by lesbians "had a homosexual relationship even though they weren't sexually attracted to same-sex partners," Hansen wrote

Clearly, the operative term is "reared." :D

Rockntractor
06-09-2009, 07:58 PM
Clearly, the operative term is "reared." :D
I wonder how old they are when they "send um packin".

PoliCon
06-09-2009, 08:03 PM
Hey, maybe there is a 'gay gene' after all? If there is - will the left finally find a reason to oppose abortions?

Odysseus
06-09-2009, 08:27 PM
I wonder how old they are when they "send um packin".
Depends on the age of consent?

If there is - will the left finally find a reason to oppose abortions?
Liberal moral dilemma: If there is a gay gene, and it is detectable in-utero, is it acceptable to abort a fetus because it will grow up to be gay? The funny thing is, the religious pro-lifers will say no, unequivocably, while liberal gays will berate the mother for homophobia while feminists will stand by abortion on demand at all times, under all circumstances. Meanwhile, if gay activists attempt to make the case that aborting a baby for being gay is like aborting a baby for being black, the whole civil rights argument will collapse. I can't wait to hear Wilbur's response to this one.

BadCat
06-09-2009, 08:44 PM
Depends on the age of consent?

Liberal moral dilemma: If there is a gay gene, and it is detectable in-utero, is it acceptable to abort a fetus because it will grow up to be gay? The funny thing is, the religious pro-lifers will say no, unequivocably, while liberal gays will berate the mother for homophobia while feminists will stand by abortion on demand at all times, under all circumstances. Meanwhile, if gay activists attempt to make the case that aborting a baby for being gay is like aborting a baby for being black, the whole civil rights argument will collapse. I can't wait to hear Wilbur's response to this one.

I've pointed this out before.

I'm really hoping that it IS genetic, so this scenario will come to pass. It will cut down on the number of fags considerably.

wilbur
06-09-2009, 08:53 PM
Depends on the age of consent?

Liberal moral dilemma: If there is a gay gene, and it is detectable in-utero, is it acceptable to abort a fetus because it will grow up to be gay? The funny thing is, the religious pro-lifers will say no, unequivocably, while liberal gays will berate the mother for homophobia while feminists will stand by abortion on demand at all times, under all circumstances. Meanwhile, if gay activists attempt to make the case that aborting a baby for being gay is like aborting a baby for being black, the whole civil rights argument will collapse. I can't wait to hear Wilbur's response to this one.

I can both recognize someone's legal right to abort for any reason they see fit, while maintaining the right to criticize them for aborting for certain reasons. Establishing the sexual orientation as a bad (and bigoted) reason to abort is a cultural battle... not a legislative one. There simply isn't anything contradictory here... its amusing so many here seem so giddy over this alleged "dilemma"... but there really isnt one.

I don't see where you think the whole 'civil rights argument' will collapse?

thinker
06-09-2009, 09:13 PM
I can both recognize someone's legal right to abort for any reason they see fit, while maintaining the right to criticize them for aborting for certain reasons.

Actually, no, you really can't. Recognizing some ridiculous "super-right" implies that all things are permitted; if you're prepared to grant that much license, you cannot then impose moral limitations, as laws are grounded in morality, among other things.

Or do you also believe that you maintain the option to recognize a "super-right" to freedom of speech but an ability to limit (hint, this is the real word you were looking for when you said criticize) whatever speech you don't like?

Hmm. Careful, wilbur, you're letting your inner hypocrit show.


Establishing the sexual orientation as a bad (and bigoted) reason to abort is a cultural battle... not a legislative one.

In case you haven't noticed, it's all a cultural battle. There hasn't been any serious legislation or legal proceedings regarding abortion (aside from late term, which the late Dr. Tiller showed us was at the least bendable) since Roe.


There simply isn't anything contradictory here... its amusing so many here seem so giddy over this alleged "dilemma"... but there really isnt one.

Dude, if you were a computer, you'd be speaking in .5s, as opposed to 1s and 0s. You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you want to. I hate to tell you that, but that's life.

wilbur
06-09-2009, 09:35 PM
Actually, no, you really can't. Recognizing some ridiculous "super-right" implies that all things are permitted; if you're prepared to grant that much license, you cannot then impose moral limitations, as laws are grounded in morality, among other things.


What on Earth are you talking about? There are any number of immoral things that are permitted under the law... simply because laws that reach so far are themselves the worse moral wrongs. We don't lose the right to call them immoral simply because the law permits them.



Or do you also believe that you maintain the option to recognize a "super-right" to freedom of speech but an ability to limit (hint, this is the real word you were looking for when you said criticize) whatever speech you don't like?


You really need to start reading what I say, instead of what you want me to say.

Notice how your even trying to claim I must have meant that we should use force to prevent abortions of homosexuals. I did not say that. I said a woman has the right to abort for any reason she sees fit. Those reasons could be any number of things... perhaps her embryo has homosexual genes... or mixed race genes... or genes of the wrong gender... its her choice. But I can criticize her for it... and perhaps even work to build a culture that would generally consider race or sexual orientation an immoral reason to abort. I don't agree with the ideologies that would cause a woman to make such a choice.

Your 'free speech' example should make this clear. I don't agree with the ideologies of a white supremacist. Yet I can criticize one, and work to build a culture that is generally disagreeable to him/her... and I can also say its a moral wrong to use the government to prevent the white supremacist from speaking his/her mind, even while I believe his/her views are immoral.

No hypocrisy in either case.

thinker
06-09-2009, 09:53 PM
What on Earth are you talking about? There are any number of immoral things that are permitted under the law... simply because laws that reach so far are themselves the worse moral wrongs.

The law does permit plenty of immoral things. The difference between you and I is that I don't recognize the morality of an abortion for any reason, and you do. If you accept said law as moral, then you lose any standing to criticize.

Ergo, if you support abortion in any circumstance, you cannot criticise someone for choosing to abort a gay baby.


You really need to start reading what I say, instead of what you want me to say.

That was an example couched in more concrete terms (free speech, volatile as it is, is far less tetchy than abortion) to try and highlight for you why you're straddling an impossible position.


Notice how your even trying to claim I must have meant that we should use force to prevent abortions of homosexuals.

Depends on what you mean by force - if you mean the law, then yes. Anything else, no.


I did not say that. I said a woman has the right to abort for any reason she sees fit. Those reasons could be any number of things... perhaps her embryo has homosexual genes... or mixed race genes... or genes of the wrong gender... its her choice.

You're correct. She can. The difference is you say she should if she feels like it.


But I can criticize her for it... and perhaps even work to build a culture that would generally consider race or sexual orientation an immoral reason to abort.

If you're willing to work towards building a culture that doesn't abort on the basis of race or orientation, why not basic humanity? If it's just a bag of cells, wilbur, then it can't be gay. Cells aren't sexually oriented! If you assign that zygote, fetus, or any other clinically detached nomer you care to name an orientation, guess what? You just made it a person. You have to internalize that in order to make that argument here, in this thread...which means you're actually okay with aborting babies.

That's not me putting words in your mouth, that's following a simple logic chain. Argue it all you want, but please, do your best to show me how cells are gay.


Your 'free speech' example should make this clear. I don't agree with the ideologies of a white supremacist. Yet I can criticize one, and work to build a culture that is generally disagreeable to him/her... and I can also say its a moral wrong to use the government to prevent the white supremacist from speaking his/her mind.

Let me put this in perfectly clear terms. If you allow completely unlimited free speech, that makes hate speech okay. Let's have a little consequential flowchart, shall we?

Consequence of unlimited free speech:

Hate speech.

If you allow all speech, you have to be okay with ALL SPEECH, this includes hate speech, which means you must be okay, on some level, with hate speech.

If you're okay with it, you can't criticize it.

Consequence of limited free speech:

No hate speech.

Criticism possible of hate speech.

In essence, you cannot say "all things are permissible" and then object to certain things you don't like when you assume that basic stance. You lose all moral standing.

Yes, we both live in a country where early abortions are permissible with any reason. The difference is that I don't agree with it, and you do. Until you rid yourself of that basic difference, you can't turn around and point the finger at someone else.


No hypocrisy in either case. :rolleyes:

Gingersnap
06-09-2009, 10:08 PM
I can both recognize someone's legal right to abort for any reason they see fit, while maintaining the right to criticize them for aborting for certain reasons. Establishing the sexual orientation as a bad (and bigoted) reason to abort is a cultural battle... not a legislative one. There simply isn't anything contradictory here... its amusing so many here seem so giddy over this alleged "dilemma"... but there really isnt one.

I don't see where you think the whole 'civil rights argument' will collapse?

What you don't see is that your non-contradictory worldview opens the door to eugenics in it's basest form. We've been down that road and it isn't desirable.

wilbur
06-09-2009, 10:30 PM
What you don't see is that your non-contradictory worldview opens the door to eugenics in it's basest form. We've been down that road and it isn't desirable.

All the horror stories of eugenics generally come from some sort of top down, totalitarian control.. not the free choice of an individual. The latter scenario certainly has concerns to think about, but its a completely different ballgame than the classical eugenics of our past. I don't think I'd really even call it eugenics... which in itself is a rhetorical ploy, most of the time.

But your concerns will most likely come, with or without abortion, assuming technology gets to the point of manipulating genes in utero... but it doesn't have to be a bad thing...

We will have many issues with which to keep the ethicists busy... when does curing some deficiency really become a vain genetic enhancement... and is there anything wrong with that? I don't think we can simply presuppose that there is.

PoliCon
06-09-2009, 10:43 PM
Welcome to Gattica.

megimoo
06-09-2009, 10:59 PM
More likely a gay Gene.FAIRY

Gingersnap
06-09-2009, 11:47 PM
All the horror stories of eugenics generally come from some sort of top down, totalitarian control.. not the free choice of an individual.

No, the horror comes from the individual choices made "for the good". Top-down policies affect people emotionally, not necessarily from the threat of physical violence.

Convince a woman that a male child, a smart child, a beautiful child, or a talented child is more worthy of time and attention than an average child and she will follow if following is easy enough. It's happened all over the world among secular women who have the choice and the money.

PoliCon
06-09-2009, 11:53 PM
No, the horror comes from the individual choices made "for the good". Top-down policies affect people emotionally, not necessarily from the threat of physical violence.

Convince a woman that a male child, a smart child, a beautiful child, or a talented child is more worthy of time and attention than an average child and she will follow if following is easy enough. It's happened all over the world among secular women who have the choice and the money.

China for example. Boy child good - girl child dead.

thinker
06-09-2009, 11:57 PM
China for example. Boy child good - girl child dead.

You ain't kiddin, mate.

CueSi
06-10-2009, 02:29 AM
And now they're feeling it. . .this surplus of males is NOT a good thing.

~QC

PoliCon
06-10-2009, 12:41 PM
And now they're feeling it. . .this surplus of males is NOT a good thing.

~QC

AH but it is if what you really want is an Army.

megimoo
06-10-2009, 01:01 PM
AH but it is if what you really want is an Army.The problem is all of those men without enough woman and you know where that leads ?

Two and a half men Theme
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLkZTJczirU

FlaGator
06-10-2009, 01:07 PM
All the horror stories of eugenics generally come from some sort of top down, totalitarian control.. not the free choice of an individual. The latter scenario certainly has concerns to think about, but its a completely different ballgame than the classical eugenics of our past. I don't think I'd really even call it eugenics... which in itself is a rhetorical ploy, most of the time.

But your concerns will most likely come, with or without abortion, assuming technology gets to the point of manipulating genes in utero... but it doesn't have to be a bad thing...

We will have many issues with which to keep the ethicists busy... when does curing some deficiency really become a vain genetic enhancement... and is there anything wrong with that? I don't think we can simply presuppose that there is.

Eugenics was a huge social concept in America supported by a wide range of individuals who would not be considered proponents of totalitarian control.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics)


The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[10] drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, William Keith Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling[11] and Sidney Webb.[12][13][14] Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was however Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated Eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf, and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States.[15] G. K. Chesterton was an early critic of the philosophy of eugenics, expressing this opinion in his book, Eugenics and Other Evils. Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities, and received funding from many sources.[16] Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York. Eugenic policies were first implemented in the early 1900s in the United States.[17] Later, in the 1920s and 30s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in a variety of other countries, including Belgium,[18] Brazil,[19] Canada,[20] and Sweden,[21] among others. The scientific reputation of eugenics started to decline in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin used eugenics as a justification for the racial policies of Nazi Germany, and when proponents of eugenics among scientists and thinkers prompted a backlash in the public. Nevertheless, the second largest known eugenics program, created by social democrats in Sweden, continued until 1975.[