monolight discusses homosexuality

[DumpsterFire]

I don't know..
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_secular_view_of_homosexuality

"In the United States, secular views run from acceptance to the sort of hatred that's born of fear and ignorance."

I'm not even sure what your reply here means, but it certainly doesn't answer my question: Exactly how is your life negatively effected by what consenting adults do in private?

[Monolight]

Exactly how is your life negatively effected by what consenting adults do in private?

Many people feel the same kind of low level aversion to homosexuality as e.g. for incest. Such people may worry that e.g. their children will become homosexuals by having contact with gays.

A friend of mine (atheist) says he hates gays. He also says that one time in the past a gay tried to seduce him and since then he hates gays.

Homosexuals have demands for adopting and raising children. It is unknown what impact it would have on such children.

What i am trying to say is that "private" is an illusion.

[Azdgari]

Let's see...

Exactly how is your life negatively effected by what consenting adults do in private?

Many people feel the same kind of low level aversion to homosexuality as e.g. for incest. Such people may worry that e.g. their children will become homosexuals by having contact with gays.

...does not answer the question that was actually asked...

A friend of mine (atheist) says he hates gays. He also says that one time in the past a gay tried to seduce him and since then he hates gays.

...also does not answer the question that was actually asked...

Homosexuals have demands for adopting and raising children. It is unknown what impact it would have on such children.

...also does not answer the question that was actually asked.  What a shocker!

What i am trying to say is that "private" is an illusion.

You might try to explain what you mean when you say this, then.  Because your post here doesn't even attempt to do so.

[Monolight]

You might try to explain what you mean when you say this, then.  Because your post here doesn't even attempt to do so.

I don't care what gays do in private. But where homosexuality goes beyond private (and it does), my life could be affected negatively and I gave examples. It hasn't so far, though.

[Azdgari]

So your answer to the question that DumpsterFire actually asked you...

Exactly how is your life negatively effected by what consenting adults do in private?

...is that what consenting adults do in private doesn't affect you.

You could have just said that openly and honestly from the outset, without all the evasiveness.

[jaimehlers]

Okay, so you're concerned about the way gay people might act in public, rather than what they do in private.

Let me ask you this, then.  Should we then worry about what left-handed adults do in public?  Or adults with different skin colors, especially if they're dating someone with yet another skin color?  Because it's ultimately the same thing as worrying about what gay adults do in public.

Once upon a time, being left-handed was considered strange and weird.  Left-handed children were sometimes even forced by their parents to use the 'wrong' hand, in order to avoid the stigma, and while it was never quite as bad as it was for other physical differences, there was still a lot of distrust and dislike of left-handedness.  I don't think I need to touch on all the problems we've had because of people's 'feelings' about those with different skin colors.

It doesn't matter that many people have an aversion to homosexuality.  What matters is whether the actions of homosexual adults - public or private - cause them actual harm, not whether their feelings are hurt or offended.  The concern for the well-being of children is just another expression of their hurt and offended feelings, not based on actual or potential harm to those children.

[Monolight]

Should we then worry about what left-handed adults do in public?  Or adults with different skin colors, especially if they're dating someone with yet another skin color? Because it's ultimately the same thing as worrying about what gay adults do in public.

To the same degree as we should worry what right-handed people do in public. Although, homosexuality is sometimes infectious while being left or right handed is not - but we are talking about adults, so they should know what they are doing.

It doesn't matter that many people have an aversion to homosexuality.  What matters is whether the actions of homosexual adults - public or private - cause them actual harm, not whether their feelings are hurt or offended.  The concern for the well-being of children is just another expression of their hurt and offended feelings, not based on actual or potential harm to those children.

The potential harm done for children raised by homosexual couples is a subject of hot discussions. The actual harm is yet undocumented. So the concern is reasonable.

There is plenty of literature about the importance of traditional mother and father role in parenting. At the same time, there are articles on psychology portals saying that raising children by homosexual couples is OK. Does it depend on the lobby or is it a scientific contradiction? Or perhaps science has evolved to better suit the requirements of a modern society?

In my opinion, it's very unfair to a child to assign him for adoption by a homosexual couple. He will be exposed to deviant behavior and learn it. He will be laughed at by others at school. I am very sorry for such children.

[12 Monkeys]

 Homosexuality is infectious?,man you are just plain NUTS. I think you are confusing homosexual acts by straight people for actual homosexuality.
 
 Are you worried you may catch "GAY" walking around a part of your town where homosexuals hang out?

 As for a two parent home,should the church or state not allow divorce? Where is your fear of boys being raised without a father figure by a divorced mother? Where is your fear of abuse by an alcoholic father? Why would you only fear gay parents?

 Just because you can impregnate,or become pregnant does not make you a good parent Good parenting takes hard work,patience and understanding,all quality's EVERYBODY can have including homosexuals.

 Your statement is both ignorant and offensive.

 And BTW what exactly do you consider deviant behaviour,and why is it,in your opinion exclusive to homosexuals

[Aaron123]

In my opinion, it's very unfair to a child to assign him for adoption by a homosexual couple. He will be exposed to deviant behavior and learn it. He will be laughed at by others at school. I am very sorry for such children.

I'll bite; what "deviant behavior" are we talking about here?  Two people of the same sex kissing?  Sounds more like you're just grossed out at the thought.

[jaimehlers]

To the same degree as we should worry what right-handed people do in public. Although, homosexuality is sometimes infectious while being left or right handed is not - but we are talking about adults, so they should know what they are doing.

Infectious, huh?  Perhaps you'd care to explain how exactly you know that homosexuality is 'infectious', considering that we're not talking about a disease that gets passed on from person to person.

The potential harm done for children raised by homosexual couples is a subject of hot discussions. The actual harm is yet undocumented. So the concern is reasonable.

It's the subject of "hot discussions", yet no actual harm has been documented.  That begs the question, does it actually do any harm?  Is this supposed harm perhaps imaginary, instead of real?

There is plenty of literature about the importance of traditional mother and father role in parenting. At the same time, there are articles on psychology portals saying that raising children by homosexual couples is OK. Does it depend on the lobby or is it a scientific contradiction? Or perhaps science has evolved to better suit the requirements of a modern society?

So, how long ago were all those articles on the importance of a traditional nuclear family written?  I think you'd find that the vast majority were written before homosexuality started to be accepted.  And besides, for all that, there's surprisingly little concern over the children raised by single parents.  I would think that being raised by a single, overworked parent would be even more detrimental than being raised by homosexual parents.

In my opinion, it's very unfair to a child to assign him for adoption by a homosexual couple. He will be exposed to deviant behavior and learn it. He will be laughed at by others at school. I am very sorry for such children.

I wonder how much of the supposed 'deviance' of homosexuality exists only in the minds of those who are firmly convinced that it's somehow 'bad'.  By the way, many children already face pretty severe harassment and bullying in school, that they did nothing to deserve.  Where's your concern for them?  Or is it only because you think of homosexuality like a disease, a behavior that 'infects' people it comes into contact to, that leads to this concern?

[ParkingPlaces]

Monolight

Growing up, the kid my age living next door got beat up by his father on a regular basis. The last I knew he (my childhood friend) was in an out of prison numerous times. But at least his parents were heterosexual, so life must otherwise have been perfect for him, right? As long as a kid is getting abused by a heterosexual, it isn't a crime, I guess.

I used to be a welfare worker, and I encountered numerous situations where children were being mistreated by hetrosexual couples on a regular basis. Lets just say I wasn't automatically impressed just because their sexual orientation matched your ideal.

I'm pretty sure a persons sexuality isn't the variable here. Their humanity is.

You seem to think that kids raised by gay couples will be forced to watch them have sex daily or something. Parents of all sorts are generally a bit more discrete than that.

I'm sure gays can be horrid parents too, but I doubt that they are at any higher a rate than heterosexual parents.

Anecdotally, right now I only know three kids being raised by gay parents. They all seem perfectly normal to me. The one in high school is dating members of the opposite sex. And an honor student. And all the good things you like seeing teens be. The other two are a bit too young to date just yet, so I don't know what direction they will go. But they are great kids.

Can't use that as proof, but I'm pleased to see that those three are doing just fine.

Your prejudices are not all that impressive. When I was a kid fifty years ago people were saying equally hurtful things about blacks, as an excuse not to give them equality. The world isn't perfect yet for minorities, but it is a damn site better than it was in 1960. As for the current effort to recognize the legitimacy of being gay, you and others like you with backward beliefs are in the minority. The world is changing in good ways for the LGBT community. Live with it.

[shnozzola]

Monolight

   The homosexuality issue is tearing the Christian church pretty "neatly" in half.  Interesting how strongly christians feel on both sides of the issue.  Some feel as if gay and lesbian people are the lepers of our time.  Some feel based entirely on simple procreation, that homosexuality is wrong.  Some feel a person attracted to the same sex is only doing it as a "fun faze." Some think that homosexuality is simply a mixing of hormones and genes that make a person attracted to the same sex.  I cannot for the life of me understand why people need to judge a gay, lesbian, transgender or bisexual person at all.  If there is a god, which I doubt (said in Eeyore's voice) I'm hoping he pretty much gives a lesbian daughter or a gay son to a Dick Cheney every chance he gets.

   One web site has the homosexual rate at 10% of the population.  Another says 2%.  Some Americans think it is as high as 25%.  I wish current society would spend more time and money on real problems, instead of kicking the LGBT folks that are already ostracized.   There was an article I posted in another thread from the New Yorker about the homeless youth in New York City kicked out of their homes by parents because of these sexuality issues.  Amazing, sad, and dangerous in this day and age, the prejudices and conceited hatred that sticks with us, in so, so many areas.  Fundamentalist Christians have so much in common with the Taliban that they hate.

[Graybeard]

I have some sympathy for Monolight’s view, and I don’t think Adzgari was particularly helpful in his rhetoric.

Like it or not, (and many posts and threads would not be here, were it not so) there are people who don’t like the idea of homosexuality. I don’t like tomatoes – whether either is soundly based in logic is a different matter.

Monolight has made no real distinction between “in private” and “in public” but as your sexuality is with you wherever you are, I’m not sure that the question is even well-formed.

If you see a parade of people in a uniform, it will remind you of the cause they support and all that that means to you. Likewise, say, a Gay Pride event.

The relevant lines from the OP are:

"In the United States, secular views run from acceptance to the sort of hatred that's born of fear and ignorance."

I'm not even sure what your reply here means, but it certainly doesn't answer my question: Exactly how is your life negatively effected by what consenting adults do in private?

Monolight’s answer is in general terms and even if he had said, “I just don’t like the idea, and I don’t care because I can’t see that I ever will.” I cannot see that it required an aggressive response.

A question has been asked, and an answer given. You may not like the answer, but you have it, and it is in accordance with

"In the United States, secular views run from acceptance to the sort of hatred that's born of fear and ignorance."

Which I find to be a fair assessment of the situation unless I have missed something on the news in the last 20 minutes.

Surely, we can agree upon that to those who have an aversion to homosexuality, anything to do with homosexuality will be distasteful. It should not be beyond the limits of this forum to recognise such a thing.

Of course, we could always ask Monolight his views on homosexuality, but that is a different question that he is under no obligation to answer.

[ParkingPlaces]

Do keep in mind that some of the hatred towards gays, at least among males, comes from the hidden attraction some men have for other men that they don't want to admit. So they overcompensate. As per scientific research that shows that half of all homophobic men are aroused by male gay sex videos.

This article in Scientific American explains what researchers found.:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=single-angry-straight-male

So we up against not only against prejudices brought on by religious interpretations, but by males, often religious, who think the devil is making them do it or something. So it is a complex issue, but only because of the various prejudices, not because of the gay sex part.

It could be so simple. To love who you want, instead of being told by others who to love. Imagine how convenient such a world would be.

[Graybeard]

It is worthwhile to read the entire article, which I'm sure you have:

“in an article published in a 2006 issue of the Journal of Research in Personality, Gettysburg College researcher Brian Meier and his colleagues argue that Adams’s findings can be better interpreted as the homophobic group’s “defensive loathing” of gay males rather than a secret attraction. Drawing an analogy to other phobias, Meier and his coauthors state that, “We believe it is inaccurate to argue that spider phobics secretly desire spiders or that claustrophobics secretly like to be crammed into dark and tight spaces.” These investigators reason that Adams’s homophobic sample experienced erections in response to the gay male porn due not to sexual arousal, but due to their anxiety over the images, which in turn provoked the physiological response of penile engorgement.

I have never accepted the argument of Adam's et al: it is far too convenient. Basically, you look like an idiot if you feel that homosexuality is at all unpleasant.  Do you dislike the Christian establishment and the evangelical churches because secretly you wish you were a member but cannot admit that to yourself, otherwise you would lose face with your peers? How unlikely is that?

What is lacking is the ability to empathise or understand. The play/film Watermelon man^Wiki makes the point and is well worth seeing.

I cannot see why anyone would want to eat a tomato, I feel queasy even watching a tomato eaten - I have no desire to be a tomato or eat one - I cannot image it - and I have no desire to change. Am I a bad person?

[shnozzola]

How bout Ketchup?

[ParkingPlaces]

I cannot see why anyone would want to eat a tomato, I feel queasy even watching a tomato eaten - I have no desire to be a tomato or eat one - I cannot image it - and I have no desire to change. Am I a bad person?

Nope. That leaves more for me.

My theory about why people don't like tomatoes is that the commercial variety closely resemble a root crop in feel, texture and taste. In the good old days they were juicy and tasty and stuff. But you're old enough to have been exposed to the real thing, Graybeard, so you're like me and celery. Who in the f**k wants to eat celery?

[Willie]

He also says that one time in the past a gay tried to seduce him and since then he hates gays.

That doesn't happen unless the hate is already there. Do you think your friend would hate women because one tried to seduce him?

[shnozzola]

Who in the f**k wants to eat celery?

   Whoa, whoa, whoa, - as we descend into the predictable path from homosexuality to vegetables,   let us not forget the holy trinity of cajun cooking - onions, green peppers, and celery.   PP, I am frankly aghast at your dismissal of celery - obviously you haven't had celery hearts, harvested and stored upright in soil trenches for a month - gives celery a nutty flavor.

   No GB  - you're not a bad person for hating tomatoes - as long as you haven't dismissed the tomato to its face for not being worth what other vegetables are. 

[DumpsterFire]

Many people feel the same kind of low level aversion to homosexuality as e.g. for incest. Such people may worry that e.g. their children will become homosexuals by having contact with gays.

People have aversions and may worry about plenty of things that don't actually cause them harm. Anyone who fears that their children or themselves will become homosexual due to contact with homosexuals is laughably ignorant. Do you honestly believe that you[1] could be "turned gay" under any circumstances?

I can tell you that I have had gay friends for most of my adult life. There are several homosexual couples with which my family regularly visits and dines. I have even found myself, on a handful of occasions, at establishments where nearly everyone around my immediate party was gay. Yet, somehow I am still with my wife, and have never once even entertained the notion of leaving her for a man. You know why? Because gay is not contagious.

A friend of mine (atheist) says he hates gays. He also says that one time in the past a gay tried to seduce him and since then he hates gays.

I would wager that your friend is afraid that he is less of a man because another man hit on him, as if the fact that it happened somehow makes him gay by proxy. I would hope it would be flattering to be found attractive by anyone, regardless of whether the attraction is reciprocated. Your friend's hateful reaction paints him as quite insecure.

Homosexuals have demands for adopting and raising children. It is unknown what impact it would have on such children.

Gays, as any group subject to unfair discrimination, strive to be treated as equals in society. Equal treatment would include the same consideration for the adoption of children as any other citizen.

Why do you assume that the "impact" would be negative?

1.	I mean you, Monolight, personally

[DumpsterFire]

...homosexuality is sometimes infectious while being left or right handed is not...

This is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.

The potential harm done for children raised by homosexual couples is a subject of hot discussions.

That something is the subject of heated debate is not in any way indicative of its virtue. Every single thing in human history for which there have been disparate opinions has been the subject of hot discussion. At some point, it becomes clear which side is wrong.

The actual harm is yet undocumented. So the concern is reasonable.

So you are saying that because there is no evidence that it is harmful, it is reasonable to be concerned that a thing is harmful? This is the opposite of logic.

The most likely reason that there is no documented harm is that no harm is occurring.

There is plenty of literature about the importance of traditional mother and father role in parenting. At the same time, there are articles on psychology portals saying that raising children by homosexual couples is OK. Does it depend on the lobby or is it a scientific contradiction? Or perhaps science has evolved to better suit the requirements of a modern society?

Why must these findings be contradictory? I would conclude that having loving, supportive parents is beneficial to children, regardless of the sex of said parents.

In my opinion, it's very unfair to a child to assign him for adoption by a homosexual couple. He will be exposed to deviant behavior and learn it. He will be laughed at by others at school. I am very sorry for such children.

What you are essentially saying here is that you feel sorry for people who are subject to the ridicule that you, yourself, espouse. Its a circular argument similar to the one that condemns homosexuals for having a higher rate of suicide but fails to consider that gays are more prone to suicide due to being so frequently and hatefully condemned.

Monolight, you have failed to express how homosexuality does any actual harm to you. Being offended or morally outraged by something does not represent actual harm.

[12 Monkeys]

GB not liking tomatoes,because of taste or texture is hardly a comparison to accepting someone who is homosexual,he actually believes it can be catching,and that you may become homosexual by being around openly gay people.

 You don't like tomatoes,walk by them in the produce aisle,but being near them while you are grocery shopping will not make you "like" them because of your exposure near to them. (by "like" I mean become a tomato,like mono thinks being exposed to homosexuals up close can make you  one)

[Fiji]

According to Dr. Dick Swaab (neurologist) the size of the hypothalamus is a very strong indicator of sexuaml orientation. Large hypothalamus = gay, small hypothalamus = straight. He based his findings on the Dutch brain-bank ... though he does warn that, with only some 3000 brains available and with records of sexual preference not being complete, he only had several hundreds of brains to work with. Still, if he's right, that infecting someone with gay-ness is as impossible as infecting someone with right-handedness.

His findings are easily debunked, if we look at the rate of sexual preference among those raised by homosexual couples. If those children are disproportionatly gay ... then out goes Swaab's argument. And in Europe, gay couples have been raising (adopted and/or artificially sired) children for long enough that we have adults to evaluate. Among those, the rate of homosexuality is no different from that of people raised by heterosexual parents. Children are not turned gay by being raised by gays.

[Monolight]

That something is the subject of heated debate is not in any way indicative of its virtue. Every single thing in human history for which there have been disparate opinions has been the subject of hot discussion. At some point, it becomes clear which side is wrong.

There is a number of critique of methodologies of the studies on which American Psychology Association based its famous statement about gay parenting being as "equally supportive" as hetero parenting (including convenient samples, short term outcomes, inadequate comparison groups). The majority of the study was for lesbian couples. Regnerus study in 2012 reports statistically significant worse outcome for adults who had unstable (hetero<->homo) carers/parents in comparison to adults who had only hetero carers/parents (this is already after his correction http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/30/1110591/regnerus-admits-gay-parenting).

Many scentists confirm the necessity of further research, especially for long term effects of having LGBT parents.

Having said that I must admit that I am astonished after exploring this subject in the internet. I didn't expect such an amount of research results described on reputable portals, reporting no evidence of negative effects of having LGBT parents whatsoever.. This is indirectly contradictory to what I read in literature around 20 years ago. I was reading a lot about the subject of family, but from a different perspective. There wasn't anything about gay parenting, but rather about the stability of the family in general and how important it is that children have both parents because each parent plays an important role (father different than mother, appart from the fact that 2 is better than 1). (and the literature was not religious, btw) I wonder how it is possible that after 20 years the distinct roles of parents as mother and father are no longer claimed to be so important. I was expecting to have numerous arguments against LGBT parenting, but it's actually difficult to find any. This put it under question how can you take it all seriously (now, then or both).

One possibility is that it's just the fact - nothing wrong with LGBT parents.
Another posibility is that it's just a strong lobby for new "political correctness", because LGBT family is better than no family.
Yet another possibility is that science and research is sometimes broken ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/ajj/how_to_fix_science/ ) and a dose of optimism and trust is needed to choose the side.

[Monolight]

Of course, we could always ask Monolight his views on homosexuality, but that is a different question that he is under no obligation to answer.

I think I don't personally have any particular attitude towards gays as people (similar to left-handed). But some persons around me have attitudes from moderately to strongly negative. Of all their arguments, the argument about adopting children is concerning to me.

[Monolight]

Do you honestly believe that you[1] could be "turned gay" under any circumstances?

I don't believe it. I also don't believe I would eat insects under any circumstance.

However, if you look here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation it states: "research generally suggests that sexual orientation is a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" and contains examples of studies according to which we cannot rule out environmental factors, including peer influence.

[Monolight]

As for the current effort to recognize the legitimacy of being gay, you and others like you with backward beliefs are in the minority. The world is changing in good ways for the LGBT community. Live with it.

Following the majority does not make good for everyone in every case, as someone who is an atheist (13%) probably knows.

[Chronos]

To the same degree as we should worry what right-handed people do in public. Although, homosexuality is sometimes infectious while being left or right handed is not - but we are talking about adults, so they should know what they are doing.

Wow. You think homosexuality is infectious?

There are people still working with that canard?

The potential harm done for children raised by homosexual couples is a subject of hot discussions. The actual harm is yet undocumented. So the concern is reasonable.

What an incredible leap of logic right off the cliff and into the abyss. Let's see -- someone, somewhere, has a hot discussion about the harm black people cause, but the actual harm is yet undocumented. Therefore, concern about black people is reasonable.

Is that how this works?

There is plenty of literature about the importance of traditional mother and father role in parenting. At the same time, there are articles on psychology portals saying that raising children by homosexual couples is OK. Does it depend on the lobby or is it a scientific contradiction? Or perhaps science has evolved to better suit the requirements of a modern society?

Ah, those good ole undocumented scientific studies. They always contradict the fears of the unlearned, don't they?

In my opinion, it's very unfair to a child to assign him for adoption by a homosexual couple. He will be exposed to deviant behavior and learn it. He will be laughed at by others at school. I am very sorry for such children.

It's very unfair to a child to assign him for adoption by a unintelligent couple. He will be exposed to deviant behavior and learn it. He will be laughed at by others at school. I am very sorry for such children.

It's very unfair to a child to assign him for adoption by an atheist couple. He will be exposed to deviant behavior and learn it. He will be laughed at by others at school. I am very sorry for such children.

[One Above All]

BM