Indiana AG: LGBT Parents should be stripped of Rights

[Atheris]

dude holy shit snip this

Anyways, you've been disproven in your own article.

"adding the random sampling only found two out of the 175 children who said they lived in a home with both same-sex parents throughout all 18 years. "I would have been happy to compare them but they did not exist in large enough numbers.""

"What the study shows, then, is that kids from broken homes headed by gay people develop the same problems as kids from broken homes headed by straight people."

""Because of the serious flaws, this so-called study doesn't match 30 years of scientific research that shows overwhelmingly that children raised by parents who are LGBT do equally as well as their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents,"

Read articles before posting them.

I literally imagined you being in Ace Attorney style taking apart an argument in court.

Hee hee. So did I! I love imagining myself arguing like that. It gets me in the zone, man!

[Turelisa-]

-snip snip snip HOOOOLY SHIT-

dude holy shit snip this

Anyways, you've been disproven in your own article.

"adding the random sampling only found two out of the 175 children who said they lived in a home with both same-sex parents throughout all 18 years. "I would have been happy to compare them but they did not exist in large enough numbers.""

"What the study shows, then, is that kids from broken homes headed by gay people develop the same problems as kids from broken homes headed by straight people."

""Because of the serious flaws, this so-called study doesn't match 30 years of scientific research that shows overwhelmingly that children raised by parents who are LGBT do equally as well as their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents,"

Read articles before posting them.

You either didn't read this part or else you wilfully ignored it, the relevant part about female homosexual parenting

Regnerus' analysis identified 175 now-adult children who said they were raised by a lesbian mother, along with 73 who said their father was in a same-sex relationship. Focusing on the larger sample, the study found respondents whose mother had a same-sex relationship fared worse on 24 of the 40 tested outcomes, compared with children of an intact heterosexual couple.

Sixty-nine percent of children of lesbian mothers reported that their family received public assistance, such as welfare at some point, compared with 17 percent from intact biological families. About half of children of an intact biological family said they were employed full-time, compared with 26 percent of those born to a lesbian mother. Fourteen percent of kids of a lesbian mom spent time in foster care at some point, compared with 2 percent of the rest of the children studied. Overall, less than 2 percent of all respondents who said their mother had a same-sex relationship reported living with their mom and her partner for all 18 years of their childhood.


Also, my great-aunt was bisexual, and she and several women brought up a son she conceived with a casual acquaintance. He grew up a troubled, delinquent youth; he loathed his mother's sexuality, and bitterly resented having had no father, which he attributed to the emotional tumult in his life.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

dude holy shit snip this

Anyways, you've been disproven in your own article.

"adding the random sampling only found two out of the 175 children who said they lived in a home with both same-sex parents throughout all 18 years. "I would have been happy to compare them but they did not exist in large enough numbers.""

"What the study shows, then, is that kids from broken homes headed by gay people develop the same problems as kids from broken homes headed by straight people."

""Because of the serious flaws, this so-called study doesn't match 30 years of scientific research that shows overwhelmingly that children raised by parents who are LGBT do equally as well as their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents,"

Read articles before posting them.

You either didn't read this part or else you wilfully ignored it, the relevant part about female homosexual parenting

Regnerus' analysis identified 175 now-adult children who said they were raised by a lesbian mother, along with 73 who said their father was in a same-sex relationship. Focusing on the larger sample, the study found respondents whose mother had a same-sex relationship fared worse on 24 of the 40 tested outcomes, compared with children of an intact heterosexual couple.

Sixty-nine percent of children of lesbian mothers reported that their family received public assistance, such as welfare at some point, compared with 17 percent from intact biological families. About half of children of an intact biological family said they were employed full-time, compared with 26 percent of those born to a lesbian mother. Fourteen percent of kids of a lesbian mom spent time in foster care at some point, compared with 2 percent of the rest of the children studied. Overall, less than 2 percent of all respondents who said their mother had a same-sex relationship reported living with their mom and her partner for all 18 years of their childhood.

Not surprised. I'm sure being bullied all the time cause "haha your dad's a gaywad" leaves a lasting effect on kids.

[Atheris]

dude holy shit snip this

Anyways, you've been disproven in your own article.

"adding the random sampling only found two out of the 175 children who said they lived in a home with both same-sex parents throughout all 18 years. "I would have been happy to compare them but they did not exist in large enough numbers.""

"What the study shows, then, is that kids from broken homes headed by gay people develop the same problems as kids from broken homes headed by straight people."

""Because of the serious flaws, this so-called study doesn't match 30 years of scientific research that shows overwhelmingly that children raised by parents who are LGBT do equally as well as their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents,"

Read articles before posting them.

You either didn't read this part or else you wilfully ignored it, the relevant part about female homosexual parenting

Regnerus' analysis identified 175 now-adult children who said they were raised by a lesbian mother, along with 73 who said their father was in a same-sex relationship. Focusing on the larger sample, the study found respondents whose mother had a same-sex relationship fared worse on 24 of the 40 tested outcomes, compared with children of an intact heterosexual couple.

Sixty-nine percent of children of lesbian mothers reported that their family received public assistance, such as welfare at some point, compared with 17 percent from intact biological families. About half of children of an intact biological family said they were employed full-time, compared with 26 percent of those born to a lesbian mother. Fourteen percent of kids of a lesbian mom spent time in foster care at some point, compared with 2 percent of the rest of the children studied. Overall, less than 2 percent of all respondents who said their mother had a same-sex relationship reported living with their mom and her partner for all 18 years of their childhood.

Yet again, another glaring issue in your own evidence.

"Overall, less than 2 percent of all respondents who said their mother had a same-sex relationship reported living with their mom and her partner for all 18 years of their childhood."

If the study wants to get a fair and unbiased view, then make sure the people you interview have a control. That's scientific method 101. The interviewed people have had no control except "I lived with my mother". Get people that have lived in an LGBT household for 18 years and people who have lived in a straight household for 18 years. It's that easy. This study is invalid because it has no control and therefore no way to prove or disprove anything.

[Celritannia]

Because Stalin and Lenin were authoritarians, not fascists.



See the bold part?
You want to forcefully supress LGBTQ+ and unmarried peoples into celibacy, in other words, having their freedoms removed in order to create this regimented society of a Roman Catholic Opus Dei society.
Forcing one group of people in society to do something against their will is fascist.

You have advocated this several times in this thread.

I don't know if this conversation is over, so please correct me if it is.

If I may weigh in with the definition of fascism I've found over my readings of fascist ideology and examining Mussolini and Hitler's policies;

Just the suppression of something and general authoritarianism is not even close to fascism. Stalinism, Maoism, Leninism, and crony capitalism have all done the same thing, and all four of those ideologies are directly opposed by fascism.

What Sundiata is proposing is authoritarian theocracy. Terrible? Yes. Fascist? Not remotely close. Fascism is inherently anti-religious, which is one of the reasons I don't believe that austrofascism and Francoism fit NEATLY into the definition of fascism (but still, debatably, in it), so that's already a huge peg off of defining Sundiata's plan as fascist. Fascism is inherently anti-LGBT+, as seen in the reign of Hitler and the heavily masculine and misogynistic theories proposed by Mussolini and other fascist and proto-fascist thinkers, but it takes a lot more than one or two traits to make something fascist.

Sundiata would have to flesh out his ideology a lot more than just "authoritarianism" and "fuck the LGBT+" to accurately define it as something.

Also, I disagree with the classification of fascism as far-right, as I think the farthest right something can be is hypermilitarist reactionary anarcho-capitalism, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Overall, it's just semantics, though. And as much as I enjoy talking political semantics, I'll try and leave the definition stuff out in the future.

Targeting a specific group of people, in this case LGBTQ+ people, and denying them rights because of an ideology you wish to establish as the only law and order is fascist.

[The Free Joy State]

-snip snip snip HOOOOLY SHIT-

dude holy shit snip this

Anyways, you've been disproven in your own article.

"adding the random sampling only found two out of the 175 children who said they lived in a home with both same-sex parents throughout all 18 years. "I would have been happy to compare them but they did not exist in large enough numbers.""

"What the study shows, then, is that kids from broken homes headed by gay people develop the same problems as kids from broken homes headed by straight people."

""Because of the serious flaws, this so-called study doesn't match 30 years of scientific research that shows overwhelmingly that children raised by parents who are LGBT do equally as well as their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents,"

Read articles before posting them.

The researcher used some of the most terrible methodology I've ever seen. He "asked if a parent had ever been in a same-sex couple during their childhood" and used that to say "Yep, she's a lesbian", without even asking the mother (which is so over-simplistic, it's not even worth going into). It didn't matter if the person was already divorced (and from the biological father) at the time, that would count towards their "Lesbian parenting broken home" statistic

It's a risible study. And any scientist who would sell their reputation by accepting money for this dreadful "research" is no better than Andrew Wakefield.

It doesn't compare to a 32 year longitudinal study that actually followed lesbian couples.

[Sundiata]

I don't know if this conversation is over, so please correct me if it is.

If I may weigh in with the definition of fascism I've found over my readings of fascist ideology and examining Mussolini and Hitler's policies;

Just the suppression of something and general authoritarianism is not even close to fascism. Stalinism, Maoism, Leninism, and crony capitalism have all done the same thing, and all four of those ideologies are directly opposed by fascism.

What Sundiata is proposing is authoritarian theocracy. Terrible? Yes. Fascist? Not remotely close. Fascism is inherently anti-religious, which is one of the reasons I don't believe that austrofascism and Francoism fit NEATLY into the definition of fascism (but still, debatably, in it), so that's already a huge peg off of defining Sundiata's plan as fascist. Fascism is inherently anti-LGBT+, as seen in the reign of Hitler and the heavily masculine and misogynistic theories proposed by Mussolini and other fascist and proto-fascist thinkers, but it takes a lot more than one or two traits to make something fascist.

Sundiata would have to flesh out his ideology a lot more than just "authoritarianism" and "fuck the LGBT+" to accurately define it as something.

Also, I disagree with the classification of fascism as far-right, as I think the farthest right something can be is hypermilitarist reactionary anarcho-capitalism, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Overall, it's just semantics, though. And as much as I enjoy talking political semantics, I'll try and leave the definition stuff out in the future.

Targeting a specific group of people, in this case LGBTQ+ people, and denying them rights because of an ideology you wish to establish as the only law and order is fascist.

While the Attorney General surely intends to target homosexuals with his intended policy proposals, I do not. Does the attorney general subscribe to a fascist ideology? It's possible. I on the other hand, do not.

[Turelisa-]

[quote="Celritannia";p="38024834"][
Targeting a specific group of people, in this case LGBTQ+ people, and denying them rights because of an ideology you wish to establish as the only law and order is fascist.[/quote


No, it isn't. A protected group, a minority, is protected by society from discrimination based on immutable conditions of being - race, sex, disability and age. It's not immoral to be black, to be infirm or aged or disabled, whereas homosexuality is defined by conduct, engaged in voluntarily. Therefore homosexuals ought not be treated as a protected class whose sexual behaviour, which is best kept unseen in privacy and left unspoken of in social discourse, is promoted, equalised, and kept beyond criticism, censure or moral discrimination according to conscience, by the same laws which were fought for and won by true minorities to empower themselves as human beings.

[Esalia]

In a family raised by two lesbians, a child is getting an odd and deprived childhood. To be raised in such circumstances is to deny the childthe parental love, influence and responsibilities of a ever present father, and not as an unfortunate circumstance due to death or divorce, but by design. If a boy, he misses the chance to develop his personality under the influence of a manly role model.

k.

The circumstances of the child's raising are going to expose themto inevitable hostility from some peers and the emotional impact of that may make them grow up to be extremely resentful toward their 'parents' and mutinous and rebellious.

And of course, the solution to "you will be bullied" is the always successful "stop doing what will get you bullied" instead of dealing with the actual problem of bullying.

Of course, on the other hand, these circumstances may effectively be an indoctrinatimg influence upon their own opinions on homosexuality, the morality of which really should approach as an open minded adult who can think and evaluate the evidence for oneself wthout emotional bias one way or the other.

Indoctrinating kids to not hate people for reasons that are complete and utter bullshit? Cool, I'm down for that.

[Celritannia]

Targeting a specific group of people, in this case LGBTQ+ people, and denying them rights because of an ideology you wish to establish as the only law and order is fascist.

No, it isn't. A protected group, a minority, is protected by society from discrimination based on immutable conditions of being - race, sex, disability and age. It's not immoral to be black, to be infirm or aged, disabled, whereas homosexuality is defined by conduct, engaged in voluntarily. Therefore homosexuals ought not be treated as a protected class whose sexual behaviour, which is best kept unseen in privacy and left unspoken of in social discourse, is kept beyond criticism, censure or discrimination by the same laws which enable true minorities to fulfil themselves.

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[4]

Making LGBTQ+ be celibate is forced suppression of an opposition to a catholic theocratic authoritarian world that is attempting to establish regimentation based on beliefs.
Ergo, fascism.

And no, homosexuality is not voluntary.

[Atheris]

Targeting a specific group of people, in this case LGBTQ+ people, and denying them rights because of an ideology you wish to establish as the only law and order is fascist.

No, it isn't. A protected group, a minority, is protected by society from discrimination based on immutable conditions of being - race, sex, disability and age. It's not immoral to be black, to be infirm or aged or disabled, whereas homosexuality is defined by conduct, engaged in voluntarily. Therefore homosexuals ought not be treated as a protected class whose sexual behaviour, which is best kept unseen in privacy and left unspoken of in social discourse, is kept beyond criticism, censure or discrimination by the same laws which enable true minorities to fulfil themselves.

Are you for real?

Homosexuality isn't a choice. It isn't sexual behavior. It is sexual orientation.

I didn't choose to be asexual and aromantic. I was born this way. Do you think I have seriously wanted to be asexual and aromantic my entire life? Do you know what that's like? I have gone through serious periods of self-doubt and borderline self-hatred because of not only my orientation in the LGBT community but because of the stigma around it.

Homophobia is not just external. Internal homophobia, transphobia, acephobia, all of that - I've gone through the latter myself - is real and exists because of the stigma around the LGBT+ community. The LGBT+ is a minority just as much as blacks or muslims are.

Do some research, realize that sexual orientation isn't a choice, and please try to understand why your viewpoint is FACTUALLY FUCKING WRONG.

[Esalia]

Targeting a specific group of people, in this case LGBTQ+ people, and denying them rights because of an ideology you wish to establish as the only law and order is fascist.

No, it isn't. A protected group, a minority, is protected by society from discrimination based on immutable conditions of being - race, sex, disability and age. It's not immoral to be black, to be infirm or aged or disabled, whereas homosexuality is defined by conduct, engaged in voluntarily.

Homosexuality isn't defined by conduct, it's defined by attraction.

Therefore homosexuals ought not be treated as a protected class whose sexual behaviour, which is best kept unseen in privacy and left unspoken of in social discourse, is promoted, equalised, and kept beyond criticism, censure or discrimination by the same laws which enable true minorities to promote themselves.

I see zero problems with this.

[Sundiata]

I don't know if this conversation is over, so please correct me if it is.

If I may weigh in with the definition of fascism I've found over my readings of fascist ideology and examining Mussolini and Hitler's policies;

Just the suppression of something and general authoritarianism is not even close to fascism. Stalinism, Maoism, Leninism, and crony capitalism have all done the same thing, and all four of those ideologies are directly opposed by fascism.

What Sundiata is proposing is authoritarian theocracy. Terrible? Yes. Fascist? Not remotely close. Fascism is inherently anti-religious, which is one of the reasons I don't believe that austrofascism and Francoism fit NEATLY into the definition of fascism (but still, debatably, in it), so that's already a huge peg off of defining Sundiata's plan as fascist. Fascism is inherently anti-LGBT+, as seen in the reign of Hitler and the heavily masculine and misogynistic theories proposed by Mussolini and other fascist and proto-fascist thinkers, but it takes a lot more than one or two traits to make something fascist.

Sundiata would have to flesh out his ideology a lot more than just "authoritarianism" and "fuck the LGBT+" to accurately define it as something.

Also, I disagree with the classification of fascism as far-right, as I think the farthest right something can be is hypermilitarist reactionary anarcho-capitalism, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Overall, it's just semantics, though. And as much as I enjoy talking political semantics, I'll try and leave the definition stuff out in the future.

You never heard of clerical fascism?

No, what does that mean with respect to abrogating same-sex marriage and adoption?

[Celritannia]

Targeting a specific group of people, in this case LGBTQ+ people, and denying them rights because of an ideology you wish to establish as the only law and order is fascist.

While the Attorney General surely intends to target homosexuals with his intended policy proposals, I do not. Does the attorney general subscribe to a fascist ideology? It's possible. I on the other hand, do not.

You want to force LGBTQ+ individuals to be celibate.

[Sundiata]

While the Attorney General surely intends to target homosexuals with his intended policy proposals, I do not. Does the attorney general subscribe to a fascist ideology? It's possible. I on the other hand, do not.

You want to force LGBTQ+ individuals to be celibate.

Celrit, I do not. Celibacy is one of two conceivable options. There are also multiple options with respect to celibacy.

[Turelisa-]

No, it isn't. A protected group, a minority, is protected by society from discrimination based on immutable conditions of being - race, sex, disability and age. It's not immoral to be black, to be infirm or aged or disabled, whereas homosexuality is defined by conduct, engaged in voluntarily.

Homosexuality isn't defined by conduct, it's defined by attraction.

Therefore homosexuals ought not be treated as a protected class whose sexual behaviour, which is best kept unseen in privacy and left unspoken of in social discourse, is promoted, equalised, and kept beyond criticism, censure or discrimination by the same laws which enable true minorities to promote themselves.

I see zero problems with this.

LGBT rights are not motivated by making sexual attraction possible or acceptable. The aim of the agenda is at making homosexual conduct not only legalised but as acceptably open and as valid as heterosexual copulation, which is the glue that binds the relationship between man and woman, whence human life springs, and is the fundamental basic unit of society.

[Celritannia]

You want to force LGBTQ+ individuals to be celibate.

Celrit, I do not. Celibacy is one of two conceivable options. There are also multiple options with respect to celibacy.

So are you changing the answer you gave previously:

No, you have clearly stated you would want LGBTQ+ and unmarried people to be celibate.
Is that allowing them freedom, yes or no?

Yes.

[Nakena]

LGBT rights are not motivated by making sexual attraction possible or acceptable. The aim of the agenda is at making homosexual conduct not only legalised but as acceptably open and as valid as heterosexual copulation, upon which the relationship between man and woman, whence human life springs, and is the fundamental basic unit of society.

And who would be behind this agenda?

[Celritannia]

Homosexuality isn't defined by conduct, it's defined by attraction.



I see zero problems with this.

LGBT rights are not motivated by making sexual attraction possible or acceptable. The aim of the agenda is at making homosexual conduct not only legalised but as acceptably open and as valid as heterosexual copulation, upon which the relationship between man and woman, whence human life springs, and is the fundamental basic unit of society.

Oh the horror /s

[Atheris]

Homosexuality isn't defined by conduct, it's defined by attraction.



I see zero problems with this.

LGBT rights are not motivated by making sexual attraction possible or acceptable. The aim of the agenda is at making homosexual conduct not only legalised but as acceptably open and as valid as heterosexual copulation, upon which the relationship between man and woman, whence human life springs, and is the fundamental basic unit of society.

What's the problem?

[The Holy Therns]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems to me Sundiata's saying they would like LGBTQ+ people to be celibate, but would not want to legally enforce this.

Which does not mean Sundiata wants to force LGBTQ+ people to be celibate.

[The Free Joy State]

LGBT rights are not motivated by making sexual attraction possible or acceptable. The aim of the agenda is at making homosexual conduct not only legalised but as acceptably open and as valid as heterosexual copulation, upon which the relationship between man and woman, whence human life springs, and is the fundamental basic unit of society.

Oh the horror /s

Wanting equal rights and acceptance.

How dare any human being want that! How very dare they! /s

[Esalia]

Homosexuality isn't defined by conduct, it's defined by attraction.



I see zero problems with this.

LGBT rights are not motivated by making sexual attraction possible or acceptable.

They don't need to make it possible, it already exists and will forever exist (barring eugenics) no matter how much the homophobes want them not to.

They're motivated by making them acceptable to have and not something to be ashamed of and shunned.

The aim of the agenda is at making homosexual conduct not only legalised but as acceptably open and as valid as heterosexual copulation, upon which the relationship between man and woman, whence human life springs, and is the fundamental basic unit of society.

k.

[Celritannia]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems to me Sundiata's saying they would like LGBTQ+ people to be celibate, but would not want to legally enforce this.

Which does not mean Sundiata wants to force LGBTQ+ people to be celibate.

But he would force them not to be in a homosexual relationship, or allow them to have children, and deny them the basic rights and freedoms of heterosexuals.

[San Lumen]

Homosexuality isn't defined by conduct, it's defined by attraction.



I see zero problems with this.

LGBT rights are not motivated by making sexual attraction possible or acceptable. The aim of the agenda is at making homosexual conduct not only legalised but as acceptably open and as valid as heterosexual copulation, which is the glue that binds the relationship between man and woman, whence human life springs, and is the fundamental basic unit of society.

How the heck does same marriage and adoption affect your relationship?