Owning A Canadian | Page 3 | Vital Football

Owning A Canadian

Green Tea - 22/1/2014 19:42

As for society frowning on it, that will always happen too, its an endless cycle of hate and acceptance, hate, acceptance!
--------
No it isnt.....

Its a survival trait of our species..Its completely natural to frown upon homosexuality, especially when society tries to incorporate it to adopting children..Like I mention above read up on how a child is effected by who and how it is raised.

"varying attachment styles can influence the development of an offspring, impacting their future choices on their own mates and parenting skills"

So of course the strong will speak up and protect the continuance of their species. Its only natural to do so.

You knew where it was aimed lol, I love you GT!

If it's not an endless cycle why hasn't it ended?
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 22/1/2014 19:54

No problem facehead. I did wonder what was happening there for a moment. :14: :14:

Me too, I was like wtf lol, I didn't read the post properly :37:

But GT picked it up anyway lol.
 
Heath, you are so picky...Here is a wiki page without the wording at the top(which bothers you so greatly)...

"Males do spend time caring for their children but to a much smaller degree than mothers. This translates into a general observation that females’ parental investment is much greater than that of males, both before and after childbirth."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_investment
 
thefacehead - 22/1/2014 19:56

HeathfieldRoad1874 - 22/1/2014 19:54

No problem facehead. I did wonder what was happening there for a moment. :14: :14:

Me too, I was like wtf lol, I didn't read the post properly :37:

But GT picked it up anyway lol.

I do like it when GT tries to use Science.

Firstly, he has indicated a deep mistrust of it, yet is quite happy to use it when it agrees with him

Secondly, he is really bad at it, and always makes him look more stupid. I am quite happy that that is perpetuated, and I am quite happy to be the one that does it.
 
Green Tea - 22/1/2014 19:58

Heath, you are so picky...Here is a wiki page without the wording at the top(which bothers you so greatly)...

"Males do spend time caring for their children but to a much smaller degree than mothers. This translates into a general observation that females’ parental investment is much greater than that of males, both before and after childbirth."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_investment

You do know Wiki isn't a Scientific Journal?
 
Proper studies show their data and are open to assessment by their Peers (I'm sure we've mentioned this before). For example, Regerus' conclusions that Same sex parents did disadvantage their children can be analysed here.

http://www.terpconnect.umd.edu/~pnc/GLMH2013.pdf


CONCLUSION
Regnerus (2012a) spurred large amounts of political, academic, and scientific controversy following its publication. The article claims that “sexual orientation or parent sexual behavior . . . may affect the reality of family experiences among a significant number” and that “the empirical claim that no notable differences exist” for children in “lesbian and gay families . . . must go.” The article claims sufficient evidence, that is, to confirm hypothesis H2. In fact,
due to major deficiencies of the data, significant untested assumptions, poor data analysis, unmeasurable recall and selection bias, and lack of consideration of appropriate alternative hypotheses, there is insufficient evidence to confirm this hypothesis. Regnerus (2012a) fails to demonstrate that children from same-sex families display disadvantages. Thus the state of the science
remains as it was prior to publication of Rengerus (2012a): there is no systematic evidence demonstrating that children from same-sex households suffer disadvantages relative to appropriate comparison groups from opposite-sex households.
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 22/1/2014 19:30

Villan Of The North - 22/1/2014 18:11

And.......here we go again.

It's all Fears fault. Can we ban him?

Seriously, did anyone expect anything else? I know I didn't.

Well I do have the power to ban him but sadly I think he'd be able to circumvent the ban. Worth a try though perhaps? Lol
 
Villan Of The North - 22/1/2014 20:38

HeathfieldRoad1874 - 22/1/2014 19:30

Villan Of The North - 22/1/2014 18:11

And.......here we go again.

It's all Fears fault. Can we ban him?

Seriously, did anyone expect anything else? I know I didn't.

Well I do have the power to ban him but sadly I think he'd be able to circumvent the ban. Worth a try though perhaps? Lol

Shall we have a poll? See what the consensus is?

:113:
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 22/1/2014 19:08

Bikini Inspector - 22/1/2014 18:46

What would happen if everybody in the world turned gay? And you weren't allowed to just use women to get a baby?

We'd die out as a Species, or nature would evolve to procreate via same sex partners. The latter is a bit of a long shot, as the timescales needed to evolve are so long, we'd never get that far.

Yep. This is why i think homosexuality is a luxury of modern civilisation. There are simply so many people, the species is not in danger anymore so it doesn't matter if a minority do not procreate.

These are the same reasons i don't have a problem with it. But if the poo hits the fan the gays and the lesbos need to go back to standard operating procedures.
 
erm Bikini - but that isnt how it works...

If you watch benefits street - you will see children, that most on here see are being brought up wrong. Many in one parent families and families with social problems etc..

Well opening the door to Gay marriage and then widespread Gay adoption will also have changes on a huge scale, long term, especially if it becomes a norm world wide.. The whole concept of what we have learned through our life's journey as a species changes and will have a major impact on humanity in the future. Not as in a reproduction issue - but a behaviour issue, psychological issue etc.

Everyone moans about kids being brought up in one parent families on benefits, the social services are over worked, tax payer paying out huge sums...Well this is what a shift in behaviour does in society, at one time it would have been frowned upon to have a one parent family, child out of wed lock etc..Over time we then get social issues and the cycle continues.

The shift in Gay attitudes(especially marriage/adoption) will also have a future effect..Its a shift, a change away from what we learned as a species over the time of creating our civilisations. We learned that male, female relationships and children brought up in stable homes was the way forward - not just in religion but in the majority of humanity(as its the norm worldwide in most developed cultures). Sure the odd few have more than one wife etc, but on the "whole" our species has learned family values.

Yet the shift away from what we have learned tend to have a negative impact socially - ie one parent families tend to struggle, step parents tend to not have the bond that biological parents have(see cinderella effect).

You dont make the shift, then 100 years time start moaning at the state of the world. Its up to the people making the decision to a shift in behaviours and attitudes to make the right decisions. At present we have one side saying Homosexual marriage is wrong - the other side saying it should be allowed = so one side are happy to make the shift without thinking of future consequences and the other side dont want to make the shift based on past knowledge our ancestors have learned.

Its our generations that have to pick the tab for our poor decision making!
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 22/1/2014 12:26

Leviticus 18:22 has been mistranslated anyway, so the Dr's views are incorrect to begin with. There is not one verse against homosexuality in the Jewish Bible.

From my understanding everything in the original bibles is horribly translated because the language is numeric as well as alphabetic so there are different meanings and such...

Iv never bothered to dig into it but from what Iv heard and read its mistranslated, got a little guesswork and doesnt paint a full picture...

And just for giggles the RC Church cherry picked their books...



GT we've far more things to worry about on this planet than whether or not two muffin munchers can raise a kid without a man and vice versa...
FFS man do you know how many dimwitted couples have kids and cant bring them up correctly? I dont think sexual orientation has as much of an influence as the other things that make up the parents psychology...
 
Bikini Inspector - 22/1/2014 23:27

HeathfieldRoad1874 - 22/1/2014 19:08

Bikini Inspector - 22/1/2014 18:46

What would happen if everybody in the world turned gay? And you weren't allowed to just use women to get a baby?

We'd die out as a Species, or nature would evolve to procreate via same sex partners. The latter is a bit of a long shot, as the timescales needed to evolve are so long, we'd never get that far.

Yep. This is why i think homosexuality is a luxury of modern civilisation. There are simply so many people, the species is not in danger anymore so it doesn't matter if a minority do not procreate.

These are the same reasons i don't have a problem with it. But if the poo hits the fan the gays and the lesbos need to go back to standard operating procedures.

Scientists have not found one single species that does not have any homosexual sex, apart from those that don't have sex at all. Nobody knows why, but there must be some reason that it persists in nature, so I don't think it is a modern luxury.
 
Green Tea - 23/1/2014 00:00

erm Bikini - but that isnt how it works...

If you watch benefits street - you will see children, that most on here see are being brought up wrong. Many in one parent families and families with social problems etc..

Well opening the door to Gay marriage and then widespread Gay adoption will also have changes on a huge scale, long term, especially if it becomes a norm world wide.. The whole concept of what we have learned through our life's journey as a species changes and will have a major impact on humanity in the future. Not as in a reproduction issue - but a behaviour issue, psychological issue etc.

Everyone moans about kids being brought up in one parent families on benefits, the social services are over worked, tax payer paying out huge sums...Well this is what a shift in behaviour does in society, at one time it would have been frowned upon to have a one parent family, child out of wed lock etc..Over time we then get social issues and the cycle continues.

The shift in Gay attitudes(especially marriage/adoption) will also have a future effect..Its a shift, a change away from what we learned as a species over the time of creating our civilisations. We learned that male, female relationships and children brought up in stable homes was the way forward - not just in religion but in the majority of humanity(as its the norm worldwide in most developed cultures). Sure the odd few have more than one wife etc, but on the "whole" our species has learned family values.

Yet the shift away from what we have learned tend to have a negative impact socially - ie one parent families tend to struggle, step parents tend to not have the bond that biological parents have(see cinderella effect).

You dont make the shift, then 100 years time start moaning at the state of the world. Its up to the people making the decision to a shift in behaviours and attitudes to make the right decisions. At present we have one side saying Homosexual marriage is wrong - the other side saying it should be allowed = so one side are happy to make the shift without thinking of future consequences and the other side dont want to make the shift based on past knowledge our ancestors have learned.

Its our generations that have to pick the tab for our poor decision making!

How man Gay families do you think there will be? Just because it is made legal, are you expecting a massive influx of recruits to the Gay ranks? People waking up every morning suddenly realising they are gay and always wanted a family with another person of the same sex?

You continue to insult every single gay person in the World every time you open your mouth.

There has not been one study performed that showed an disadvantage for children of same sex parents. Your very own "Bible" says this:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2336889/Gay-parents-healthier-children-better-self-esteem.html

 
For Bronze Age tribes where adult average lifespan was 30 years and child mortality amounted to a holocaust, and where economic productivity depended entirely on physical labour, it would make perfect sense for people to be encouraged to reproduce.

But with the Earth's population now 7 billion and predicted to reach as much as 10.5 billion, it would seem that reproduction was rather less important for the survival of the species and that any mechanism within the species which prevented reproduction must be classed as adaptive for the long-term survival of a species which looks likely to outstrip the Earth's resources very soon.

It seems no coincidence that the countries which use the most global resources have the lowest birthrates and the highest proportion of gay people.

It looks perfectly adaptive to me and anything which is adaptive has to be seen as good.

Christians can console themselves that their God thought of everything.