There's No England Now...

[Carrikature]

I don't really understand how you can be so stupid as to have discussed these topics with liberals on this site for years and yet still not understand those basic liberal ideas.

Because the underlying assumption is immorality for its own sake. Heaven forbid there be an actual reason behind things.

ETA: Witness post #25 for proof positive. No surprise that mossy amen'd it.

[Mountain Man]

Gay couples and childless couples are happier on average that heterosexual couples and parents.

Getting married has been found to increase gay couples happiness and well-being the same as it does for straight couples.

Gay couples appear to be slightly better at raising children than straight couples.

There is a good article here discussing the scientific findings as to why it is that same-sex relationships tend to work better than straight relationships.
(Summary: Since 'men are from Mars and women are from Venus', same sex couples tend to have a better understanding of the other person and are more empathetic, and so during fights they are more open and frank and less defensive and manipulative. They tend to divide up housework more evenly, and since housework is often one of the main sources of conflict in relationships, that cuts down on conflict. They tend to be more frank and forthright in their discussions with each other about sex, which cuts down on suppressed-dissatisfaction as a source of conflict. Straight couples appear to build up stress and anger the longer a discussion of conflicts lasts, while gay couples do not seem to get angry and stressed when discussing relationship issues.)

Scientists studying relationship success have generally observed for heterosexual relationships that one of the most important things for relationship success was having more in common with the other person because there meant there was more empathy during fights and prevented fights from escalating. Naturally people of the same sex tend to have more in common with each other on average than people of the opposite sex, so they do even better on this metric.

A scientific study that measures "happiness"? Seriously? And what is the objective, scientific definition of "happiness"? And how do you scientifically and objectively measure it? Take their word for it? And how does that gel with scientific studies showing that homosexual couples are significantly more likely to be victims of domestic violence?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...919-story.html

http://www.advocate.com/crime/2014/0...nce-lgbt-issue

https://winteryknight.com/2013/11/18...exual-couples/

As for that infamous University of Melbourne study claiming that homosexuals are better parents, well, let's just say it's a little flawed, including a self-selected non-random sample of participants who knew what the study was attempting to "prove", and a tendency by the study authors to attribute success stories to the awesomeness of homosexual parents while blaming negatives on the "stigma" of being raised by homosexuals (once again, problems are blamed on everybody else). It's like painting a target around where the arrow landed and calling it a bullseye

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...portrayed.html

http://www.christianpost.com/news/an...better-122966/

And, of course, you still have to deal with the numerous studies showing an increase in physical and psychological health problems and a lower life expectancy. Dismissing them as "homophobic" doesn't make the science go away.

[seer]

Because 'suddenly' is in your imagination. It's not 'suddenly'. It's been the road block all along. It's why all the "when will bestiality be allowed" conservative outrage nonsense is just that. Consent is the baseline. That's not news.

There is no base line in your morally relative world Carrikature. Stop pretending that there is. Bestiality (which is being implicitly accepted by academics like Peter Singer) or child-adult sex may take longer to fall, but given the left's track record it is only a matter of time.

[Mountain Man]

No the right answer is that Jacob's fathers are morally perverse and practicing what is wicked. See that was simple.

Exactly. It's the same answer you would give if your kid asked why Jacob's dad has multiple girlfriends, or why Jacob's dad gets drunk every night, or why Jacob's dad cusses like a sailor, or embezzles money from work, and so on.

"He's living in sin."

An answer so simple and truthful that even a child can understand.

[seer]

An answer so simple and truthful that even a child can understand.

But a leftist can't...

[Mountain Man]

There is no base line in your morally relative world Carrikature. Stop pretending that there is. Bestiality (which is being implicitly accepted by academics like Peter Singer) or child-adult sex may take longer to fall, but given the left's track record it is only a matter of time.

Like the homosexual movement, pedophiles don't see a moral hurdle, merely a legal one. To them, it's a simple matter of lowering or eliminating the age of consent. Homosexuals blazed the trail. Pedophiles have merely to follow it.

[stfoskey15]

Nah, England's Muslim population will take care of the homosexuals real quick once they gain some real power.

In your eyes would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

Since you are in favor of teaching facts, I assume you would not object to any school curriculum that included the numerous studies on the physical, emotional, and psychological problems that are an inherent part of the homosexual lifestyle, such as a significant increase in health problems and a significantly decreased life expectancy, and a significantly increased likelihood of associated mental health problems including "depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence".

Of course homosexuals blame their generally miserable lives on "homophobes" and try to convince themselves that they would finally be happy if only everybody else would change, but it hasn't worked.

"We'll be happy once homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder!"

Yet they're still miserable.

"We'll be happy once homosexuality is more broadly accepted by society!"

Yet they're still miserable.

"We'll be happy once homosexuals are allowed to marry!"

Yet they're still miserable.

You know what will be the saddest day for the "homosexual revolution"? When they finally get everything they want, only to discover that they're just as miserable as ever.

I read your first source. All of the sources they mentioned were dead links or taken out of context. I read your second source. It mentions the possibility of discrimination playing a role in mental health issues, and it appears that the number of gay people suffering from mental health issues is still a minority.

[Jedidiah]

Exactly? You agree this is about sexual predators?

I agree that it is very amusing that Starlight uses the term in ways that do not even remotely compute. And Starlight does seem to think that conservatives should not be concerned about sexual predators. So . . .

[Darth Executor]

You don't appear to understand, at all, that liberal morality has its own system of guiding principles. Liberals have acted according to the guiding principles as they see them. One of the core liberal guiding principles is free-will aka consent: Things done with consent are 'okay', things done without consent are 'bad'. The liberal principle has never been "we hate sexual mores, let's have anarchy!", it's always been "freedom" which means free-will which means things done with consent of all parties involved are okay. As a result, in recent years, liberal countries have consistently increased the penalties for pedophilia, because of the liberal view that kids cannot give informed consent, and therefore sexual acts with them are unacceptable.

There's nothing inherently liberal about the idea that kids cannot give informed consent, nor is it uniformly applied because liberals don't make sure that adults can give informed consent when they have sex (let's face it, it often is not informed at all). Liberals want to liberalise degeneracy, and because pedophilia is (for now) still unpalatable to the public they made up some stupid crap about "informed consent" (since kids can certainly say yes to sex, the common definition of consent) that will disappear as soon as liberals think it's safe to make it disappear. And there certainly has been a push to normalize pedophilia from leftist outlets like Salon.

[Darth Executor]

Because 'suddenly' is in your imagination. It's not 'suddenly'. It's been the road block all along. It's why all the "when will bestiality be allowed" conservative outrage nonsense is just that. Consent is the baseline. That's not news.

Liberals don't ask animals for consent before eating them, why is a lesser harm (sex) with animals an issue?

Consent is not the baseline. It's the cover. But it's just a cover, which is why liberal positions on related issues are completely incoherent.

[Darth Executor]

You can explain to them that when two people love each other they get married.

The idea that gays are just like straights, except they love people of the same sex isn't true though so why would I want my kids to be taught lies (not that there's any reason to teach 2 year olds about it in the first place).

[Darth Executor]

Though I don't doubt they're against it being discussed in general- see MMs post about deviants.

We are very much for it being discussed as a mental disorder that leads to all sorts of destructive behaviors, both for the individual and those around them, including but not limited to child molestation, STDs/superbug creation, drug abuse, other mental issues, etc.

[Darth Executor]

Everything about the liberal agenda when it comes to sexuality is about CONSENT. A child is not capable of giving this, under any definition.

Any definition?

Literally the first definition in the dictionary:

verb (used without object)
1.
to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often followed by to or an infinitive):

A child is most certainly capable of giving consent ie: permit, approve, agree, complete or yield.

The other 4 don't really make your case either. That's because the liberal agenda, as you outline it, permits molesting children. I could simply take you at your word that liberals build their sexual morality around consent and then conclude that liberals want to enable pedophilia and be 100% accurate.

[Mountain Man]

In your eyes would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

A bad thing. I mention it only to point out the insanity of liberals bending over backwards to cater to groups with such wildly opposing ideologies.

I read your first source. All of the sources they mentioned were dead links or taken out of context. I read your second source. It mentions the possibility of discrimination playing a role in mental health issues, and it appears that the number of gay people suffering from mental health issues is still a minority.

There are plenty of other articles. Here's a look at a 2015 CDC study:

Source: CNS News

“During 2000-2014, the rise in the P&S [or primary and secondary] syphilis rate was primarily attributable to increased cases among men and, specifically, among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (collectively referred to as MSM),” reported the CDC.

In 2014, reported the health agency, “men accounted for 91% of all cases of P&S syphilis. And, of those male cases for whom sex of sex partner was known, 83% were MSM.”

83% of 91% equals 75.53%, which means that 75.53% of syphilis cases in 2014 were among homosexual men.

Further, “reported cases of P&S syphilis continued to be characterized by a high rate of HIV co-infection, particularly among MSM,” said the CDC. In fact, 51% of the homosexual men diagnosed with syphilis in 2014 were also HIV-positive.

“Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are at increased risk for STDs … when compared to women and exclusively heterosexual men,” reported the CDC. “[I]ndividual-level risk behaviors, such as number of lifetime sex partners, rate of partner exchange and frequency of unprotected sex, may contribute to rates of STDs.”

On its website, the CDC reported, “Syphilis continues to increase among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. Recent outbreaks among MSM have been marked by high rates of HIV coinfection and high-risk sexual behaviors (such as sex without a condom, new or multiple partners, and substance abuse). Cases of ocular syphilishave also been reported among MSM. Ocular syphilis occurs when syphilis affects the eye and can lead to permanent blindness. While the health problems caused by syphilis in adults are serious, it is also known that the genital sores caused by syphilis in adults also make it easier to get and give HIV infection sexually.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...ex-partner-was

© Copyright Original Source

Here's a more recent one citing a 2016 study of teenagers done by the CDC:

Source: American Thinker

In almost every instance, the risky behavior measured – especially behaviors that are often linked to a moral decision – was much more prevalent among teenagers engaging in homosexual activity. In addition, and unsurprisingly, those students with the healthiest outcomes were those who refrained from sexual activity. In most of the risky behaviors measured, the outcomes are not even close.

For example, students engaging in homosexual activity were about three times more likely to feel "sad or hopeless" than students who had no sexual contact. In addition, students engaging in homosexual activity were nearly four times more likely to have seriously considered attempting suicide than students who had no sexual contact, and they were six and a half times more likely to have actually attempted suicide.

Comparing the same two groups (students engaging in homosexual activity vs. students with no sexual contact), students engaging in homosexual activity were:

• Eight times more likely to smoke
• 47 times more likely to smoke frequently (20 or more cigarettes in the month prior to the survey)
• Nearly three times as likely to have tried alcohol prior to age 13
• Three and a half times as likely to be currently using alcohol
• More than 11 times as likely to binge drink (10 or more drinks in a row)
• Nearly six times as likely to be currently using marijuana
• More than 16 times as likely ever to have used hallucinogenic drugs
• More than 18 times as likely ever to have used cocaine
• 30 times as likely ever to have used heroin
• 23 times as likely ever to have used methamphetamines

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...ual_teens.html

© Copyright Original Source

A 2016 Reuters article about a health survey conducted by Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville:

Source: Reuters

Gilbert Gonzales of the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville and colleagues found that compared to heterosexual women, lesbians were 91 percent more likely to report poor or fair health. Lesbians were 51 percent more likely, and bisexual women were more than twice as likely, to report multiple chronic conditions, compared to straight women.

Gay, lesbian and bisexual people were also more likely than heterosexuals to report heavy drinking and smoking.

While gays and lesbians reported worse psychological distress than heterosexuals, bisexual people suffered the most, the survey showed.

For example, about 17 percent of heterosexual men had at least moderate psychological distress, compared to about 26 percent of gay men and about 40 percent of bisexual men.

Similarly, about 22 percent of heterosexual women had at least moderate psychological distress, compared to about 28 percent of lesbian women and about 46 percent of bisexual women.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-he...-idUSKCN0ZE2XE

© Copyright Original Source

WebMD states very simply in a 2016 article that "gay and bisexual men are at greatest risk for STDs".

The following website catalogs a number of studies over the years -- as far back as the 1990's to more recent works -- and shows how they all have consistently reached the same conclusions about homosexuality:

http://www.trevorgrantthomas.com/p/d...sexuality.html

[demi-conservative]

You don't appear to understand, at all, that liberal morality has its own system of bullcrap to justify whatever libs want

^Fixed!

Consent is the baseline. That's not news.

Consent is hasty cobbled together ideas by libs to justify new sexual mores, easily changed to satisfy base ('"drunk" consent not true legal consent because I say so!!') or enemies ('consent by kids below age X not true legal consent because I say so!!!').

So many ways to see that this is full of bullcrap, one good way is that when people buy it they say stupid things like:

Everything about the liberal agenda when it comes to sexuality is about CONSENT. A child is not capable of giving this, under any definition.