UFC : I guess some people don't like civil debates. Some people really think that calling an argument stupid and wacky sudenly makes their argument right.  Amusing, isn't it? I guess I should take  a class on ''How to Debate 101'' .  

Oh btw, what is right and wrong ? According to whose beliefs can we define what is right and wrong? 

redeemedgirl : Certainly not your beliefs, certainly not hitler's or stalin's. Face it you were just talking out of your behind like you were brought up to so everyone would be christian and straight and believe in creationism like you all want. The fact is humans have urges because believe it or not we are animals that's a fact. And the only urge to really ignore is any instinct you have to murder or harm another person unprovoked.   

Do I think homosexuality is family friendly?, well no, but then again heterosexuality isn't family friendly either. What I mean by that is public displays of affection (kissing,making out other sexual acts etc.) in public aren't family friendly no matter if you are homosexual or heterosexual especially if your around kids. I think its obvious which one out of the two might be more disturbing and in my opinion "appalling" for a young child to see considering most children have 1 male and 1 female parent  but it's something you as a parent has to discuss with your child so that way it wouldn't be such a shock when a younger child see's members of the same sex kissing or doing other sexual acts.

redeemedgirl : I will be nicer than UFC has been. But you have misinterpreted the whole animals argument. The only reason the argument "did you know that homosexuality is seen in the wild animal kingdom" is ever made is when someone uses the argument "homosexuality is against nature". So the animal thing is just brought up to show that it has always existed in nature, so saying it is against nature is false. Not saying we should just do whatever wild animals do. I also use the term 'wild' animals because it really is inaccurate to say that humans are not animals. We are. We come from the same Earth. We reproduce the same way. The are all harmed and killed by the same things. We generally have the same anatomical makeup. We have the same emotional responses. We all can love, care, a mourn. We all try to survive. We all must be in the same food chain. The only thing that truly separates us from the wild animals is that we have higher intelligence that makes us care so much about status that we must find things to separate us from the other animals. Just because we are intelligent and therefore can have a more organized and intellectual civilization does not mean we are not animals too. We are just cursed with having to think of how our species is dominant.

As a matter of fact, heterosexuals are more prone to STDs than homosexuals. The thought otherwise is just leftover thinking from people called AIDS GRID. But if you think of this as an odds game, sex between heterosexuals is more likely to give you an STD. Taking oral sex out of the equation because both heterosexuals and homosexuals are capable of that, viruses and bacteria are able to infect a lot easier through vaginal penetration than anal. In virus and many bacteria, the only chance of getting an STD through anal sex is if any fluids get mixed in with blood through a tear in the anus. In vaginal sex, you have the perfect conditions for the bacteria and virus to thrive. There is a lot more open exposure to virus/bacterial STD between a man and a woman than 2 men or 2 women. Was there at one time a much higher spread of AIDS through homosexuals? Technically. But the majority of that spread was pinpointed to one man who was a flight attendant, who was a swinger. He managed to infect a lot of people all over the country. But you must take into consideration that this was during the 60's where the word gay was far more hated and ridiculed than it is today. You had to keep your homosexuality a secret. So that means that in most cases, you could not have a monogamous relationship because it would reveal that you were gay. The ones active in their sexuality were not ones who were looking for family and a lifetime partner, but the swingers. So it spread throughout the gays much quicker. But once enough non monogamous heterosexuals (or cheating heterosexuals in some cases) got the disease, it spread through them just as much. The point is, to say STDs are more prone to happen in homosexuals is absolutely false. On a biological standpoint, it is actually LESS likely because the methods for sex between homosexuals offers less open transmission between necessary fluids and body parts to that are ideal for catching an STD. But looking at STDs being more prone to homosexuals is based on using the non monogamous homosexuals as the focus group, and that is skewed information. Non monogamous homosexuals and non monogamous heterosexuals are no different from each other in the STD chances. A monogamous heterosexual and homosexual couple are no more likely than the other to get and STD.

Using monogamy as an argument in itself does not even really apply here. The question was specifically homosexuality. Whether a couple is monogamous or not has nothing to do with the couple being homosexual, so is not really a part of homosexuality. They are separate concepts that can exist within each other. You imply not being monogamous as being non family friendly, which is fine and all. I agree. But not being monogamous as a homosexual is no different than not being monogamous as a heterosexual. They are simply both not monogamous. So that really is not a valid argument to this question.

Lastly, I'll look at a quote from you. " If you really believe Darwin's theories, then homosexuals shouldn't exist by now since they obviously can't reproduce, hence the whole survival of the fittest thing is not something you wanna rely on". You misunderstand the survival of the fittest concept. Homosexuals would not exist according to Darwinian theory if homosexuality was something that was passed down from parent to offspring. This is not the case. If it was a purely heritable thing, then homosexuality would indeed not exist. But since it is not a triat you just inherit from your parents, it has absolutely nothing to do with Darwinism.

redeemedgirl :
First link, clearly christian authored. If you want to prove a point you need an unbiased source. A group aiming to promote christian views is obviously not going to put forward data that opposes their claims.
You asked for evidence of lower seperation, i could find hundreds.

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=201803
This one is rates of all people in states that allow same sex marriage, to show that clearly gay marriage doesent actually destroy the sanctity of marriage.

Heres one that indicates the more educate the populace, the less opposition to gay marriage, and the lower likelyhood of said people divorcing.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/07/06/divorce-rates-lower-in-states-with-same-sex-marriage

Heres a look at england and wales gay splits (although gays can now marry so its outdated)
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/09/23/same-sex-couples-less-likely-to-divorce_n_977370.html

Then there sht efact that there are health benefits for people being able to form the relationships they want
http://www.sgul.ac.uk/media/news-archive/2006/civil-unions-improve-health

I read an article ages ago that showed that since england and wales brought in civil partnerships there had been a drop in homosexuals visitng gp's for things such as depression, anxiety etc etc.

All couples write their own rules on what is ok, there is no rule book. Its not state enforced. There are straight couples in "open" relationships, and at the end of the day, thats their choice.
However if gays werent interested in one person why would they want marriage? And again, many same sex couples, especially the male half, are also only interested in sex.
Equally, whats with this constant argument from people opposed to gays, that they dont reproduce? Last time i checked the human growth rate is actually problematically high, why endorse making it higher. On top of that if two gays are together theyre more likely to adopt. There are so many kids that if not for gays, would spend their life in a care home. I beseech you to find any adopted kid that says he wishes he'd stayed at the orphanage. In many ways gays are a force of good because they are a hell of a lot more likely to adopt than hetrosexuals.

Your monogamy article, it doesent actually offer any evidence for the claim gays rarely form a tight commitment? It simply hypothesises why the author feels they are unfaithfull without actually establishing that they are.

One gay man, who is a sex columnist, openly denounced monogamy. Do you want me to find 50 straight guys that said that? Although again, that is irrelevant since its consensual.

Darwinism, If someone claims something is unnatural, it means it doesent occur in nature. Therefore to counter that with, animals can also be gay, is entirely valid, since that completely invalidates the claim. If you initialy say because animals do it is right then yes, that is a flawed argument, but I think the arguments against homosexuality are flawed logic anyway.

Huh, I actually didnt need to say half of that, since iv just noticed rcarter already said it. Oh well

rcarter2 :

Hey, thank you for your post, I appreciate your civility

Well, for starters, I have never claimed that homosexuality was unnatural in general,I know you can find it in the animal kingdom which is why I brought it up,  though I do think that it is against human nature. I do not agree that we are animals. Just because we are similar to some species doesn't mean we have the same origin. It's like saying Apple and Galaxy are the same just because they have similar features .But I do not want to derail the topic, I would be glad to expose why I think this way with more detail but I would like to stay on topic. But as you said, just because animals do it, or because it is found in ''wild nature'' as you said, doesn't mean it's right. And I don't think homosexual behavior is right. (Note that I say behavior, because though there are people who have homosexual tendencies, some choose not to act on them)

Going back to what you said about heterosexuals being more prone to STDS. I agree, but then I completely disagree. I agree because, as a matter of fact, there are more heterosexual than homosexual couples, which obviously makes heterosexual numbers to rise when it comes to STDS. But I disagree because, as far as I know, there isn't anything that backs up your argument. Anal intercourse is riskier than vaginal intercourse. About two thirds or more  (or about the 80% of homosexual couples) practice anal intercourse. Now, I'm not saying that heterosexual couples don't practice it, but the number is much lower.

Here are some sources so you can read the full info:  

http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns
''Anal sex has a number of health risks. Anal intercourse is the riskiest form of sexual activity for several reasons...''

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sexandrelationships/analsex.htm
''..there is no doubt that anal intercourse carries a greater risk of transmission of HIV ''

https://www.medinstitute.org/2012/06/anal-sex-a-dangerous-trend-3-2/
''Unprotected anal sex is one of the primary ways in which HIV is spread.''
''The fragile nature of the anal tissue makes it easier for STDs to enter into the bloodstream. ''

http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm
''In 2008, men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 63% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States''

There were other sources but they were very graphic  so I didn't post them. But it seems most doctors and studies agree that homosexuals are actually more prone to contract STDS. 

I think monogamy does have a part here. You cannot separete both when it seems it is a trend in most homosexual couples. I'm not denying homosexuals don't have monogamous relationships are at all, but statistics have proved that it is more likely for them to have casual sexual encounters even if they are in a commited relationships. Granted, heterosexual couples do it too....though most of the times secretly, but they do it. The difference is that it seems homosexuals are more prone to be okay with these open relationships, which ultimately, leads to more risk of contracting diseases. Contrary to thenumberone, I think my source providing the statistics of monogamy in gay relationships is completely trustworthy (See my past post). Just because someone has Christian principles  and you don't agree with them  doesn't mean the information is incorrect. I'm sure that is a logical fallacy, but I don't remember how to name it. 

Furthermore, this provides a little more insight about these different stats we find online. God knows we all can cite different sources and claim they are the truth, right?  http://www.jackmorin.com/userfiles/673622/file/GayMonogamyMiller.pdf

This is another website, which pretty much sums up why we can ignore this issue as being non-related to the nature of homosexual relationships. ''Yes, it definitely is a “redefinition” of marriage, as there is a redefinition of monogamy.''

This is source that says consensual- non monogamous relationships are more common in gay relationships(especifally men&men, btw it's secular so it's okay) http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201301/satisfied-jealous-deciding-not-be-monogamous

And another one: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0
[The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.
That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”]

Why do I bring up monogamy? My point of all these links and arguments (an I'm so sorry for the lenght!) is not to say that heterosexual couples are perfect or that they don't have issues. I know there are STDS and infidelity in heterosexual couples. The divorce rates are very very  high. What worries me is that nature of the homosexual lifestyle. Contrary to heterosexual relationships, many times is based solely on sexual interests and pleasure, and there is little emphasis on commitment and family values. Heterosexuals, for the most part, regard monogamy as a core value (even if they fail to keep it)  while homosexuals for the most part see it as an impossible standard so they just agree to disregard it. Are there homosexual monogamous couples? Of course there are, but it seems they are a minority. 

Oh and btw, where I was going with Darwinianism was that most people supported gay marriage used the argument that it was found in animal behavior, and also that some people even claim there is a gay gene, but as you said, if this was true this wouldn't exist in the future.

I know this is long, so I apologize!  

Who cares if their child sees a homosexual, everyone chooses their own path. That's like saying a straight guy isn't family friendly because he'll turn your child straight. The child as he grows will know and decide what he likes.

redeemedgirl : No need to apologize for long posts. I'll address mainly the points brought up in response to my post, not thenumberone's.

The safety of anal sex is one of those deals where the Internet is not a valid source of information, even medical .org sites. There are a lot of differences in observation based on where you live and the demographic makeup. Though I appreciate you posting medical sites, there are just as many legitimate sites that say the opposite. Since I can find pretty much an equal amount of doctors for both sides of the argument, I refer to my own education. I am a licensed biology teacher, human anatomy being part of my license. Based on what I have observed as far as ideal virus incubation environments and multiple methods of transmission, my personal findings found anal sex to be less likely in most conditions.

For the "against nature" thing I brought up, I know you never said that. But you brought up how a common argument was that it happens in the wild animal nature. I was just clearing up that the point of that argument is not to say that we should see things as okay for us just because wild animals do it. The point of that argument is just to show that people who say that it is "against nature" or "doesn't exist in the natural world" (which I have heard that argument) are not correct because it is in nature.

Humans being animals will definitely be something you and I will never agree with. But I do not think the Apple/Galaxy is a good argument against it. Yes, Apple and Galaxy are similar features, but there is a big difference. They have different origins. Humans and wild animals do not. You can say that God created both wild animals and humans. But that means they have the same origin. God. An evolutionist believes that all animals in the Animal Kingdom (humans included) are all related in some way, meaning they have the same origins. No matter how you you look at it, wild animals and people have the same origin. Now, you could make the argument that that is like saying iPhones and iPads are the same thing because they have similar features and the same origin. But that would not work. In that case, Apple represents Animals. You could say iPhones represent wild animals and iPads represent humans. Different products, similar features, same brand label. Wild animals and humans are both a part of nature. We all come from this earth. We are all creatures sprung from the Earth no matter if you look at it from a religious or scientific standpoint. I believe that to say we are not animals, thereby saying we are not a part of nature, is just an attempt at separation stemming from a sense of superiority to all other species. 

I agree about the gay gene thing. That was literally a media thing that was a twist of the truth. The study was to see if there were any common genetic coding throughout the human genome that is common in homosexuals. Is there a genetic coding that in homosexuals that is not present in heterosexuals that causes attraction to the same sex as it does for the opposite sex in heterosexuals. But that does not mean a 'gene'. As anytime the media tries to discuss complex scientific content, they got it wrong (like 99% of the time). The problem is that a lot of scientific study can't be explained in layman's terms in segments that the news is limited to in time/content. If they make it too long or to complicated, they won't have viewers. So they try to shorten it up and simplify it. Next thing you know, coding in the human genome is the same thing as a simple gene. So now you have a nation of people believing there is an inheritable gene that makes you gay. Just like we have a nation of people who believes that radiation can 'leak'. Or the media hears that cell phone waves are a form of radiation, so they tell people cell phones can cause brain tumors (because apparently all forms of radiation causes tumors and cancer). So we have a nation of people buying little rubbery foam to apply to their cell phones to absorb radiation and prevent brain tumors....... So yeah, NEVER trust that the media is getting the science concepts correct. They try to put it in layman's, which doesn't work.

Lastly, I still don't exactly see how monogamy works into the question still. In this question, it is specifically the act of homosexuality in question here. Not the culture. As you agreed, not all homosexuals are non monogamous. So to lump them in with the rest and deem them 'not family friendly' is unfair. There are different opinions and lifestyles in homosexuality as there is heterosexuality. So look at this scenario. Disney animated movies almost always have a man and a woman falling in love and having a passionate kiss (looking at classic Disney movies). That is considered family friendly. Now, would you consider it family friendly to have the exact same story, only between 2 women or 2 men? If The Little Mermaid replaced prince Eric with Princess Erika, kept pretty much the entire thing the same except for that one detail, does that make it no longer family friendly? Is the simple act of homosexuality something that you would say is not family friendly? 

I think that a homosexual family is largely better than many other alternatives. I do not believe it is "the perfect design", but many heterosexual families are worlds worse for a child to be raised in. I support homosexual adoption. Getting into politics, I'd like infertile women who wish to adopt a higher priority than all others, but include the homosexual couples on the list.

Note on politics: By "infertile women", I don't mean homosexual women. In a homosexual woman, the fact that she can't have a child comes because her partner can't fertilize her. I specifically mean that straight women who have difficulty in coming to term with/conceiving children with their spouse should be above both homosexual couples and fertile, straight couples. I have lots of empathy for these women.

Edit: need grammar

TrevorJ241 :  Psalm 5:5-6: “The foolish shall not stand in Thy sight: THOU HATEST ALL WORKERS OF INIQUITY.
 Psalm 7:11-13: “...God is ANGRY with the wicked every day.
 Psalm 11:5-7: “The Lord trieth the righteous: but THE WICKED AND HIM THAT LOVETH VIOLENCE HIS SOUL HATETH

JakandLufia : Your post had nothing to do with topic. If you are going to use quotations from other sources, please use them only to support your statements. Also, if you want to speak about the bible, see this thread.

I don’t think any of them is “Family Friendly” because no matter if it’s a guy with a girl or a guy with another guy, so in a way, it’s wrong to pressure a child’s sexual orientation and the parents making their child liking someone in a different gender rather than the same.

Yea my Aunt is gay and she has three kids only one of which is concieved via a surrogate seamen thing, they both come over here and hang out I mean my aunt and her partner; they operate just like a normal family bills sports family outings etc so yea its family friendly unless you yourself are gay and your family isn't open minded in that case get a therapist now cause some families don't always handle that information well

Light Knight: it was a reply to someone elses post

I think that it is technically family friendly. I mean, if heterosexuality is family friendly, then so should homosexuality. Neither are wrong. It's a lot like saying African-American love is not family friendly, or basically anything but Caucasian love. It's just who they are, it can't be helped.

For some people, yes. For me, no. It just feels wrong.

I think public affection, be it homosexual or heterosexual is family friendly enough, as annoying as it may be, as long as they have their clothes on of course. If a child sees a couple making out, it's not going to cause permanent damage, parents should be explaining things to their kids, and not just trying to shield their eyes from the world around them.

In any case, homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality. Though some cultures punish homosexuality with death, and some cultures don't seem to notice it. American culture seems to be on some sort of middle ground, as it is for a lot of controversies.

Overall, people are stupid. Most of human history involves cultures owning slaves, tribal warfare, and subjugating people they don't understand. Homophobia is just another relic from of an ancient mindset, and I'm pretty sick of the argument myself. I wish people would just grow up.   

all sexuality is family friendly. it is a natural part of life, and you should never hide this fact from your child. the choice of who to sex, is irrelevant. that should also be made clear. a child should always be aware that his parents love one another and should see them being affectionate. otherwise you attach shame to affection, and inadvertently tell the child to be ashamed of their love, and hide it. 

and for the record, youre FAR more likely to be molested/raped in a heterosexual household than a homosexual household. so by that respect alone, homosexuality is more family friendly than heterosexuality, until straight people stop raping their children so often(it happens CONSTANTLY).

I would still like to hear an answer to my question what kind of sexuality is family friendly then? Or what does something being family friendly even mean?