Homosexuality Should Not be Permitted

Thank you for your response, Maikuru. ::Responses::. I will begin with clarifying my position, I believe that homosexuality should not be permitted. Maikuru says, "my opponent's resolution refers to the act of homosexuality, not gay marriage or adoption by homosexual couples." My resolution does not only refer to the act of homosexuality, but also everything that is a product of homosexuality, such as 'Marriage, Adoption, ect.' >>>"He has offered no evidence that homosexual acts themselves have any influence on the emotional well-being of adopted children."<<< I have never suggested that sexual, homosexual acts themselves, cause the psychological damage to a child. Those acts are not relevant to the up bringing of a child. But, I have claimed, along with many other certified doctors, that two men or two women raising a child, usually causes physical, mental and sociological problems within that child. Dr. Laura A. Haynes writes, "Nature is narrow; it sets up every child to have a mother and a father. Same sex marriages intentionally alter the natural situation and deprive a child of one of his or her parents. A child is left with a black hole where a mother or father should be. (Dr. Laura A. Haynes, Psychologist, Tustin, California; October 5, 2008, http://www.narth.com...). >>>"Instead, the founders saw fit to separate matters of church and state, making any argument against the legality of homosexuality based on Christian beliefs baseless."<<< The Founding Fathers never intended for 'God' to be taken out of the Constitution. Separation between church and state means that the government should have no established religion by which every American must fallow. It does 'not' mean that religion should have nothing to do with the fundamentals of the U.S. And since the founding father's based there ideals off Christian principals and 96% of there recorded quotes were pertaining to the Christian God or actually mentioned God within the quote, then one can still make the argument that the founding fathers did not intend for homosexuality to be part of American Society. Why? Because even 80 years ago, let alone 230, if someone asked, "should homosexuals be permitted in society?" Well, then the person being asked, would probably laugh at the person asking the question, because the whole aspect of homosexuality, at the time, was an obvious, 'of course not!!' So that argument is definitely not "baseless" like my opponent said. Here is an example of homosexuality being condemned illegal in the America: "Many of the early American colonies, for example, enacted stiff 'CRIMINAL' penalties for 'SODOMY,' ...In some places, such as the New Haven colony, male and female homosexual acts were punishable by death (e.g., Katz, 1976)." http://psychology.ucdavis.edu... ::How The APA Ended Up Deeming Homosexuality Rational:: The American Psychologist Association (APA) condemned homosexuality "normal" in 1793. This argument is widely used in pro homosexual arguments. But lets look closer to how this came about. What most people don't know is that this change of events was not based on a "new social science discovery," the sudden change was because of a relentless campaign between the APA and homosexual activists. Abram Kardiner, former Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, revealed that "A powerful lobby of "gay" organizations has brought pressure on the APA to remove homosexuality from the category of normalcy. This is only one facet of the tidal wave of egalitarianism and divisiveness that is sweeping the country...." During this time Paul Gebhard, second director of the Kinsey Institute, following Alfred Kinsey himself, systematically excluded psychiatrists that did not comply with the notion of homosexuals do not have a mental disorder, from being a member of the Task Force or from even being able to present his or her views/evidence to the Task Force, of why homosexuality should remain a mental disorder. Eventually in 1973 the Task Force was able to condemn homosexuality on the same level with normal sexuality. APA member Dr. Henry W. Reicken wrote, "Detailed Reservations Regarding the Task Force Recommendations on Social Policy: It is as if they 'the Task Force' said, Here is a phenomenon about which we know almost nothing and about which there is a great deal of anxiety and concern; therefore, let us suggest a major revision in public policy for dealing with this phenomenon. I cannot escape the belief that this is an utterly unreasonable conclusion to draw from the sea of ignorance and misinformation in which we find ourselves." The essential point to be made about this deception, is that the sudden complete reversal in the APA position on homosexuality was not brought about as a result of a careful regime of scholarly research and study; it was a blatantly political move, a 'vote', of all things, on the status of a mental illness. Furthermore, this vote was undertaken in a climate of deception and intimidation. The original "voting" letter distributed by the APA Homosexuality Task Force in 1973 was answered by only about one-quarter of the recipients, leading one to speculate that the "volunteer bias" ignored by Kinsey in his original studies led to pro-homosexual results. It is quite certain that, if 'all' of the APA members had returned their "ballots," homosexuality would have remained a mental disorder in the view of the organization. In 1977, four years after the APA 'switch,' the journal "Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality" revealed that it had polled 2,500 psychiatrists on their view of what "current thinking on homosexuality" was, and, by a lopsided margin of 69% to 18% (nearly four to one, with 13%undecided). the respondents answered that "Homosexuality was usually a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal variation." Now, why is this significant to the legality of homosexuality? The APA alone, has a huge impact on politics and how things are judged by the judiciary system in this country, thus the verdict of the APA's decision played a significant role in homosexual rights. ::Homosexual Marriage (a product of homosexuality):: A very important issue that must be made apparent is if homosexual marriage is made legal and Constitutional, then this will not only make a radical change in how society looks at marriage, but, it will deteriorate freedom of religion as Americans know it. Glen T. Stanton, Senior Analysts for marriage and Sexuality at Focus on the Family, also author of the book "Marriage on Trial," Dr. Erwin Lutzer, Author of "The Truth About Same Sex Marriage, and Dr. John Ankerberg, all affirm this. Now, examples of this have already happened in Sweden and Canada. In Sweden a pastor conducted a sermon on homosexuality , the pastor condemned homosexuality as sinful, thus him and his congregation did not approve of homosexuality. So a homosexual, not even a member of the church, became outraged and reported the pastor and his sermon to local authorities. There was a trial and the verdict found the pastor guilty for his sermon and he spent a month in jail. Now the point that is being derived here is that if homosexual marriage is condemned legal in the U.S. then these same cases will most likely occur in the U.S. explained Glen T. Stanton. Do to the amount of characters I have left able to type, I can not go into much more detail. Here is the source... http://www.youtube.com...