Author Topic: monolight discusses homosexuality  (Read 9072 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #58 on: February 21, 2013, 01:57:18 PM »
This not about particular techniques but about the fact that gays are interested in this. The actual techniques are irrelevant (assuming no violence). So in your opinion, seducing straight are ONLY fantasies - I don't think so.

If they were seduced, they weren't heterosexual to begin with.
Hasn't someone here mentioned that sexuality is not absolute? Most people are not 100% heterosexual, 100% homosexual or 100% bisexual.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12345
  • Darwins +678/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #59 on: February 21, 2013, 02:03:39 PM »
But this man is pointing to the fact of his parents being LGBT as the cause of his life screwed (and not the usual bad things).

So what?  You can find one testimonial from someone somewhere saying how their gay parents made life totally wonderful.  One story means squat.  Data matters. 


This not about particular techniques but about the fact that gays are interested in this. The actual techniques are irrelevant (assuming no violence). So in your opinion, seducing straight are ONLY fantasies - I don't think so.

No, no, darling.  That is back-pedaling.  It was about the fact that you thought teh gey could be transmitted or coerced in people. Remember, the quote from you in my post was:

To find out how erotic activity with another of the same sex is sometimes capable of spreading to others of different sex, google for: gay seduce straight

It does not matter whether it is a gay fantasy or not.  It matters whether they are actually effective.  You have not shown that it is. 

You also did not answer my question. Could it work on you?  I've been hit on by tons of gay guys and more than one straight one.[1]  I've not been inclined to indulge them.  How is that possible?  How did I not catch homosexualism?

 1. It's true.  I have some kind of power over the same sex.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Traveler

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2056
  • Darwins +142/-2
  • Gender: Female
  • no god required
    • I am a Forum Guide
    • Gryffin Designs
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #60 on: February 21, 2013, 02:25:06 PM »
LOL re: fantasies. How many straight men fantasize about turning lesbian women straight?  Its so common as to be an absurd stereotype. ;D

Your "arguments," Monolight, are quite biased. In future, simply turn around your argument for straight/gay and see if they make sense. It'll save us all a lot of time.
If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6713
  • Darwins +896/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #61 on: February 21, 2013, 08:51:46 PM »
My husband's best friend (since preschool) is a gay guy. He is our daughter's favorite uncle. My hubby hasn't caught teh gay yet, after knowing this man for 45 years, but we keep an eye on the two of them.... &)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #62 on: February 21, 2013, 11:48:08 PM »
Here is a testimony of a man raised by 2 lesbian mothers and who is against LGBT marriage, and marriage is related to LGBT parenting, which we discuss here. I found it here: http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/2013/01/le-figaro-runs-confessional-of-man.html
As others have pointed out, simply finding one person who agrees with your perspective does not a comprehensive consensus make. That you had to (metaphorically, of course) go all the way to France to dig up this obscure story is indicative of the tenuous nature of your argument. After reading the article you linked, it seems this person's biggest issue is not being raised by lesbians, but that his father abandoned him. He says:
Quote
"My father, who had abandoned my mother when I was three, precisely due to the relation she was engaged in, was never around, notably when I needed him."
So he justifiably attributes his parent's breakup to his mother's affair, but he inexplicably blames his father's absence on the lesbian relationship. He goes on to say:
Quote
"I suffered from the lack of a father, a daily presence, a character and a properly masculine example, some counterweight to the relationship of my mother to her lover. I was aware of it at a very early age. I lived that absence of a father, experienced it, as an amputation."
And further:
Quote
When one objects to him that many children live in such a state because of divorce, he rebuts:  "Divorce does not deprive a child necessarily of its parents, who normally are given shared or alternate guardianship of the child. Especially, divorce does not replace the father with a second woman, exacerbating even more the affective imbalance, both emotional and structural, for the child."
Finally, he presents the foundation for his opposition to gay adoption:
Quote
"I oppose this bill because in the name of a fight against inequalities and discrimination, we would refuse a child one of its most sacred rights, upon which a universal, millenia-old tradition rests, that of being raised by a father and a mother. You see, two rights collide: the right to a child for gays, and the right of a child to a mother and father.
The obvious problem with this view is that his father chose to abandon him.

I am a father. I adore my children. If, for any reason, my wife and I were to divorce, I would continue to be a prominent part of my kids' lives. I would insist on it. They are my children as much as hers, and nothing would keep me away from them. Not even <gasp!> if my wife was in a lesbian relationship.

This man's pain is caused by his father not caring enough to have a part in his life, not by his mom being a lesbian. The sad fact is that fathers, and occasionally mothers, abandon their children with alarming regularity. No child has a "right to be raised by a father and mother" because the actions and/or disposition of the father and mother cannot be determined or controlled.

I know this because I, too, was raised without a father. In my case, my father had the audacity[1] to succumb to a brain aneurysm and die when I was a boy. And I have to agree that it kind of felt like an amputation to me, as it does to this day. But I suppose my situation is not as hurtful because my dad didn't choose to abandon me, as his did him. Its just sad that this person has twisted his own hurt feelings of having a father who didn't care about him into condemnation of same-sex marriage/adoption rights.

Homosexuality didn't make his dad run away, weak character did.
 1. sarcasm, folks
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #63 on: February 22, 2013, 12:40:42 AM »
I like how that particular anecdote merely begs the question that a gay relationship was to blame. What would have made that testimonial any different if they had been raised by a single parent instead? For that matter why are only gay relationships singled out when single parents are just as bad in deviating from the "traditional marriage" model?

Offline natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1658
  • Darwins +66/-0
  • Polyatheist
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #64 on: February 22, 2013, 01:57:11 AM »
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Offline Monolight

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #65 on: February 22, 2013, 07:28:56 AM »
As others have pointed out, simply finding one person who agrees with your perspective does not a comprehensive consensus make.
Of course not. And I didn't want to strike you with numbers, but rather illustrate what I had in mind by using the term "deviant behavior". It was my direct response to this: "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."
Quote
That you had to (metaphorically, of course) go all the way to France to dig up this obscure story is indicative of the tenuous nature of your argument.
There are more sites that speak negatively about LGBT parenting. But the problem with those sites is that they, in addition to irreligious arguments, also draw religious arguments. In order to discourage you from easily attributing their arguments to the fact that they are religious, I searched for a site that does not put forward religious arguments and is not anti-gay at all. This site owner is a Bi. It's somehow unique.

I don't know what's your point with the rest of your arguments in this post. My points are two:
1.
"Especially, divorce does not replace the father with a second woman, exacerbating even more the affective imbalance, both emotional and structural, for the child."
He is saying here, as I understand, that in his case, having a  single divorced mother would be better than two mothers, because the second mother added more to the emotional and structural imbalance after his father left him. Due to the "affective imbalance" he has "turned as much as possible to the men of my surroundings, who begged for an oversized and sometimes unhealthy place in my life". That's a possible and logical scenario. All children without father have emotional imbalance, the question is will second mother add or subtract from the imbalance - in his case it added.

2.
I like this statement: "While I was a child and a teenager, I had absolutely no notion of all that and I naturally adored the two women who raised me alone and with courage. But I did not pose questions about the nature of their relationship,which I therefore did not figure out." This is actually what I meant by saying "exposed to deviant behavior". It's difficult to put into words, he did it rather well.

Offline Monolight

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #66 on: February 22, 2013, 07:30:19 AM »
No, no, darling.
Ok.
But I am just wondering, how do you address gay people with whom you don't agree?
You may familiarize yourself with the definition of sexism.

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #67 on: February 22, 2013, 10:04:36 AM »
"Especially, divorce does not replace the father with a second woman, exacerbating even more the affective imbalance, both emotional and structural, for the child."
He is saying here, as I understand, that in his case, having a  single divorced mother would be better than two mothers, because the second mother added more to the emotional and structural imbalance after his father left him. Due to the "affective imbalance" he has "turned as much as possible to the men of my surroundings, who begged for an oversized and sometimes unhealthy place in my life".
So the theory is, bearing in mind we are speaking only of a single person's unique perspective, that he got a double dose of "emotional imbalance" because his estrometer got pegged up to 10 instead of the standard 5? I'd like to see some supportive research, but I doubt it exists. In any case, the fallacy here is that this man seems to think children have a strict parent limit of two, and since his quota was already filled by two lesbians his daddy had no choice but to disappear. This is obviously untrue, and it seems that he is using gay parenting as a scapegoat because the alternative that his father just didn't care that much about him is too painful.
Quote
All children without father have emotional imbalance...
Well, that is quite a bold and blanket statement, considering you are speaking to one. I can assure you that I am exceptionally emotionally stable. Also, the man in the article admits that many in similar circumstances turn out fine, just not him.
Quote
I like this statement: "While I was a child and a teenager, I had absolutely no notion of all that and I naturally adored the two women who raised me alone and with courage. But I did not pose questions about the nature of their relationship,which I therefore did not figure out." This is actually what I meant by saying "exposed to deviant behavior". It's difficult to put into words, he did it rather well.
If the nature of their relationship was so "deviant", why was he unaware of it for most of his childhood? It would seem to me that anything labeled "deviant" ought to be more self-evident than that. Surely, at the very least, he must have been aware of the uniqueness of having two mothers when he observed most other children with either a mom and a dad or just one parent. Yet he repeatedly states that he adored his moms and that they raised him well. It does not appear that the "nature of their relationship" did any harm at all.

Again, his problem is with his absentee father, not his mothers. He is projecting the notion that, if not for his two moms, his dad would have been a white knight to spirit him away from his troubles, but he is likely better off without having grown up under the influence of a man who could so readily turn his back on his own child.

So many people who oppose gay rights say things like "the ideal situation for a child is to be raised by one father and one mother," but they leave out one important detail - "loving". I would bet that for every person bemoaning being raised by a loving gay couple you could find thousands who would happily trade a childhood filled with physical, emotional, and/or sexual abuse at the hands of their straight mothers and fathers for a stable one with two loving, supportive, same-sex parents.

I am certainly not saying that all or even most straight parents are rotten, or that all gay parents are great. I'm just saying that being raised by good, caring parents is more important than is the sex of those parents.

edit: punctuation
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 10:08:23 AM by DumpsterFire »
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline Monolight

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #68 on: February 22, 2013, 11:20:06 AM »
Quote
All children without father have emotional imbalance...
Well, that is quite a bold and blanket statement, considering you are speaking to one. I can assure you that I am exceptionally emotionally stable. Also, the man in the article admits that many in similar circumstances turn out fine, just not him.
No. I was talking about children. And in your previous post you confirmed the feeling of not having father as a child to amputation (obviously, in emotional not physical sense). It sounds like imbalance to me. This imbalance may disappear with time, of course.

Offline Tykster

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #69 on: February 22, 2013, 11:36:29 AM »
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.
My bold.
Please cite examples, I'm not familiar with how this transpires.
By Merriam Webster:
Infectious - 3. spreading or capable of spreading rapidly to others
Homosexuality - 2. erotic activity with another of the same sex

To find out how erotic activity with another of the same sex is sometimes capable of spreading to others of different sex, google for: gay seduce straight

from 1st page:
How do I seduce a straight guy when i am gay? - Yahoo! Answers
How to seduce a straight guy - National Bisexuality | Examiner.com
How to get a Straight Seduced in 8 Easy Steps
How to seduce a straight guy | Gay Cork Community
Read This If You Wanna Learn How To Seduce Straight Guys ...

or watch a movie:


None of this is a method for altering the innate physical make up that determines ones sexuality. What you have cited is the use of the power of persuasion to initiate a sexual fling.
rhocam ~ I guess there are several trillion cells in a man, and one in an amoeba, so to be generous, lets say that there were a billion. That is one every fifteen years. So in my lifetime I should have seen two evolutionary changes.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6710
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #70 on: February 22, 2013, 01:52:24 PM »
http://williamapercy.com/wiki/images/Prison_Homosexuality_and_Its_Effect.pdf A report into homosexuality in prisons (1976) worth a read as background.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12345
  • Darwins +678/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #71 on: February 22, 2013, 06:01:02 PM »
No, no, darling.
Ok.
But I am just wondering, how do you address gay people with whom you don't agree?
You may familiarize yourself with the definition of sexism.

I usually say "attention gay people: you are wrong!" and then explain from there.

I don't understand.  You clearly have a problem.  It seems to have something to do with sexism.  Can you elaborate? 

Is it because I called you darling?  Well, you'll either have to take my word for it or check my post history to verify, but I've used that to address mainly men in the past.  In fact, maybe even exclusively, though I cannot say for sure.  It has nothing to do with your dual x chromosomes.

Now, pretty please with sugar on top, answer my goddamn post.  Otherwise I will take this as a convenient red herring for you to dodge the issue.  You've already dodged it several times.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4617
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #72 on: February 22, 2013, 09:22:26 PM »
 
 Mono Why do you focus on just LGBT parents?

 Single parents,alcoholic parents,drug addict parents,parents parnets with 3 jobs to pay the bills,abusive parents.......some of these examples can be great parents....what do you think the odds are that one group would be more balanced than the other.

 The fact you are focusing on LGBT is a red herring,WHAT are you hiding?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Monolight

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #73 on: February 23, 2013, 01:19:45 PM »
I don't understand.  You clearly have a problem.  It seems to have something to do with sexism.  Can you elaborate?
From article titled "Sexism in Language" : http://www.jllonline.co.uk/journal/5_1/5LingLei.pdf
The use of endearments for women and men is acceptable in some situations, usually
informal and private. In public situations, however, women are also often addressed
by such words as dear(ie), darl', darling, sweetie, love and so on. This treatment is not
generally extended to men. The practice of using endearments for women who are
unknown to the speaker or in situations that do not call for such intimacy should be
avoided as it is condescending and sometimes insulting to women.


Additionally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism#In_language :
Gender–specific pejorative terms intimidate or harm another person because of their gender. Sexism can be expressed in a pseudo–subtle manner through the attachment of terms which have negative gender oriented implications, such as through condescension.

I found a discussion about something similar here: http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/02/08/being-called-babe-offensive/

So maybe it's a matter of being used to specific language or culture (environment).

Quote
Now, pretty please with sugar on top, answer my goddamn post.  Otherwise I will take this as a convenient red herring for you to dodge the issue.  You've already dodged it several times.
Assuming your question is: "Do you think any of those techniques if used by a woman would work on you?  Why or why not?"

I've already answered a very similar question in my reply #25. I don't believe/think I would turn homosexual under any circumstance, hence I don't believe such techniques would work on me.

There are two problems with it. First, I have lived long enough to realize that not everything I believe about myself turns out true in specific circumstances. Mostly, but not all. (that's why I gave the example with eating insects in reply #25, because I've read about people who ate insects from hunger, and also there was a program on Discovery about a globetrotter who was eating worms in the jungle, because they have proteins). Second problem is that I don't see how it adds to this argument being more or less true, if my personal belief either confirms it or not.

The article linked in post #70 is a study of men who changed their sexual orientation after homosexual experiences in prison. Even though (or just because) they were specific, forced, involuntary experiences, as far as biology and psychology is concerned, it looks possible.

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #74 on: February 23, 2013, 10:14:26 PM »
This article in Scientific American explains what researchers found.:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=single-angry-straight-male

A quote from that article – also partially referenced by another poster.
Quote
Adams and his colleagues’ interpretation of these plethsymograph findings have not gone unchallenged. For example, 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've never met anyone IRL or online who is genuinely homophobic; all so-called "homophobes" are anti-gay but are mislabeled with a supposedly PC term.
Meier draws a false – and ridiculous – analogy to genuine phobics. Any adult male who has felt strong fear knows that, in fact, the male genitalia contract, not expand, with fear.
Also, a brief perusal of a web search indicates that, while human sexuality is quite 'interesting', the overall thrust[1] of the articles about anxiety and sexual arousal regards paraphilias[2] and sexual dysfunction.
There was no "defensive loathing" of gay males by the anti-gay males; there was only self-loathing and sexual arousal towards other males.

As for the supposed "infectious" nature of homosexuality.
http://williamapercy.com/wiki/images/Prison_Homosexuality_and_Its_Effect.pdf A report into homosexuality in prisons (1976) worth a read as background.
This supports what I've read of the Kinsey sexuality studies and refutes any possible "infection".
Approximately 40-50%[3] of the male population might, under some conditions, engage in homosexual acts but only a much smaller percentage will continue those acts throughout their lives. That smaller percentage seems to be roughly one quarter (maybe smaller). This means that three fourths (or more) who have tried homosexuality do not continue to engage in it on a regular basis. If the same conditions arise they may resume the activity but will not under normal circumstances. If the behavior were infectious then a much larger percentage would remain homosexual. They do not. It is not infectious.

IMO this points to roughly half of all men having the genetic potential for homosexuality but some environmental factors affect the expression of that potential. If this is correct then roughly half of all males are straight, most of the other half are bisexual and a small percentage are gay in orientation.
I suspect that at least 40% of all males have the genetic potential for homosexuality but I doubt more than 60-65% have the potential – these are my personal speculations.
 1. pun intended
 2. Paraphilia involves sexual arousal and gratification, involving a sexual behavior that is atypical or extreme. – quoted from the Wikipedia article on Paraphilia
 3. the variation depending upon the specific study
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12345
  • Darwins +678/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #75 on: February 25, 2013, 08:11:27 AM »
Assuming your question is: "Do you think any of those techniques if used by a woman would work on you?  Why or why not?"

I've already answered a very similar question in my reply #25. I don't believe/think I would turn homosexual under any circumstance, hence I don't believe such techniques would work on me.

So why would you think it would work on other people?  Do you think you have an immunity other people do not have? 

As for the prison thing, that is a whole different ball'o wax, innit?  You started at "teh gey is contagious!" moved to fantastical methods for gays to seduce straight guys, and then moved to persistent forced homosexual encounters in a single sex prison.  Apples, oranges and rutabegas.  You keep changing the boundaries.  Dirty pool, old sport.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #76 on: February 25, 2013, 11:47:14 AM »
No. I was talking about children. And in your previous post you confirmed the feeling of not having father as a child to amputation (obviously, in emotional not physical sense). It sounds like imbalance to me. This imbalance may disappear with time, of course.

I think it is natural to feel a great sadness at the loss of a parent, but it does not follow that a child will inevitably be "emotionally imbalanced" because of it. Exactly what "emotions" can a child only learn from his father and not his mother? You seem to think each sex incapable of exceeding some given framework, as if no one can ever color outside the lines. I think most people are more adaptive than you give them credit for.

Again, keep in mind that the person in the article may very well have been better off without having his father in his life. Do you think a man who chose to abandon his child at the first opportunity would have been a good dad if he had stuck around? I suppose its possible, but I don't know how any man who truly loves his children could ever abandon them.

You spout ideals, but real life very, very rarely conforms to them.
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline Monolight

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #77 on: February 26, 2013, 05:06:20 AM »
So why would you think it would work on other people? 
If you did google for gay seduce straight, you would find success stories too, not only techniques. Besides, the most interesting fact is not the particular techniques, but the scale of the demand. Those fantasies must materialize somehow.
Quote
Do you think you have an immunity other people do not have? 
Other people may be somewhere else on the Kinsey scale.
Quote
Approximately 40-50%[3] of the male population might, under some conditions, engage in homosexual acts but only a much smaller percentage will continue those acts throughout their lives.
This is what I meant by saying that homosexuality is sometimes infectious. They engage under some conditions, they have pleasant experience (get infected, like infected with enthusiasm) and will continue. They may stay straight (http://www.straightguise.com/default.asp?id=1288) but anyway, will be engaged in homosexual activity.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #78 on: February 26, 2013, 08:26:22 AM »
You know, I've really been holding back on this thread.  But I really have to make a few comments.

I'm an adoptive mom, and I am active in several adoptive parent networks.  Quite a few of the families in these networks include same-sex parents.  Let me tell you a little about what distinguishes these families from other families.

Adoptive parents are folks who made a very conscious decision to parent.  We didn't just wake up and find out we were having a baby, ready or not.  We planned.  We are not only emotionally prepared for the parenthood journey, but we actively sought it out.  Most of us (but not all) are older, and more established in our careers. 

Each of us went through a complex process to be vetted as parents.  Most families do not host social workers in their homes prior to parenthood.  But we did.  We went through interviews, discussions on values and parenting philosophy.  Some of us were required to take courses.  Social workers peeked in our cabinets and warned us to put safety locks on the ones containing dishwasher detergent and other toxic cleaning supplies, and discussed the dangers of dangling pull-ties on window blinds.  We were quizzed about our childcare plans, and the ways in which we planned to balance work and family.  Our finances were examined, to determine if we were able to implement these plans.

Then, a child came into our lives. For some of us, the child was the healthy, beautiful child of our dreams.  For others, the child came into this world suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome or birth defects or other special needs, or the child came into our homes after having lived in an abusive or unsafe environment.  Those of us welcoming special needs kids into our homes went through an additional set of requirements, ensuring that we were prepared to meet the physical and emotional needs of a child who might need special schools, and extra support.

The same sex parents who underwent this journey to parenthood, did so with their eyes wide open.  And when I look at the children in the homes of the same-sex parents in my social network, I see children who are loved and cherished.  Their parents struggle over decisions that all active parents face.  Summer swimming lessons vs extra academic help over the summer.  They say no to too much tv or sweets.  They shuttle the kids to ballet class and soccer practice and playdates and birthday parties.   They tuck money away into 529 savings plans in preparation for their kids' college expenses.  In my social circle, most of the kids with same sex parents have more stamps in their passports than their peers. 

But you know what the most important thing is?  These kids are loved.  Wanted.  Cherished.  I'm not saying that every same sex couple becomes the perfect parent.  But when compared to the general parent population, I feel really confidant in saying that the majority of (adopted) kids growing up in homes with same sex parents are really the center of their parents' universe.   

They are loved, cherished, nurtured and wanted.  And provided for.  And that is what every child deserves. 


Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #79 on: February 26, 2013, 08:51:50 AM »
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.

There are so many assumptions in this paragraph it staggered me!

First point - I'll read "deviant behaviour" as "non-standard hetero behaviour", which I think is what was meant.

Second point: you are saying that children parented by a homosexual couple will learn that behaviour as normal.  Is homosexual behaviour somehow MORE appealing that heterosexual?  Because if not, the converse of your argument is that children parented by hetero parents will learn THAT behavious as normal - so where have little gays come from?  They can't ALL be from homosexual parents, surely?

Third point: "he will be laughed at by others at school".  Maybe he will.  But is that not because of the attitude instilled in those other children by parents such as you?  Parents who will use the term "deviant behaviour" and claim that they mean ONLY "different from the norm", despite the colossal baggage that comes with the word?  If children are laughed at because of something outside of their control, who is in the wrong?  The child, or those who have been taught to laugh at him?

And I'll close with my general point.  Given that for the last few hundred years we have been primarily in a hetero-parent society, it would not surprise me in the slightest if people raised by non-hetero parents found it harder than normal to fit in with that society.  But that does not mean that the society is correct, any more than it means the society is wrong.  What it means is that - unsurprisingly - someone raised in a particular environment will tend to do better when living in that environment. 

The real question should, perhaps, be "is our society the best one possible"?  And I would venture to suggest that a society where two humans who love each other and are not judged or considered "deviant" by any other human would be the best society there could be.  Where children are not taught to laugh at other children for things they have no control over - you know, the way we tell them not to laugh at people with learning difficulties, or the colour of their skin.

Fortunately, we DO appear to be moving slowly towards that kind of society.  I'm wondering whether you approve, or disaprove, of such a society as I refer to above - and if so why?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #80 on: February 26, 2013, 09:02:32 AM »
Monolight, what's your stance on bisexuals?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #81 on: February 26, 2013, 09:30:51 AM »
If you did google for gay seduce straight, you would find success stories too, not only techniques. Besides, the most interesting fact is not the particular techniques, but the scale of the demand. Those fantasies must materialize somehow.

Homosexuals most likely find the same people attractive as do straights, so if most straight women think Channing Tatum is sexy, you can bet an equal percentage of gay men would like to get into his knickers. Hell, I'd love to have a chance at Portia de Rossi, but she's probably not cool with that.

The same would hold true in daily life, but gays usually have the disadvantage of not immediately knowing if the person to whom they're attracted is also gay. In most cases, the person would not be, hence the "gay seduce straight" fantasy.

Remember when you were in middle school and had a huge crush on the cutest boy in school, but he already had a girlfriend? You probably used to fantasize about him leaving her for you, right? Well, this is the same type of situation. Except now you have a penis. ;)
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline Traveler

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2056
  • Darwins +142/-2
  • Gender: Female
  • no god required
    • I am a Forum Guide
    • Gryffin Designs
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #82 on: February 26, 2013, 10:54:38 AM »
I keep coming back to this ... whatever might happen to someone's sexuality by being exposed to other variants ... so what? Love between consenting adults is a beautiful thing.

Anything else is a red herring. Whatever your objections, real or fantasy, about gays, is also true about straights. Many straight people engage in anal and oral sex. Many straight people are TERRIBLE role models. My neighbor's husband cheated repeatedly on his wife, and beat her up once. How is that a good role model? How is that a good family? How is that teaching responsible and beautiful relationships?

Those of you who believe in an antiquated, patriarchal, biblical god need to realize that love of whatever type is healthier than outmoded sexual stereotypes. I am a straight woman, and your ancient role models have been more detrimental to the health of women and men everywhere than most religions I can think of. I have been harassed by men at work and in public and in school. Ditto with most women I know. Most women are, at some point in their lives, afraid for their safety from men. Because its dark out, because its late, because we've been attacked. The male/female dynamic is broken in so very many ways. Do you know why stories tell of white knights riding to our rescue? Because straight men, many of them, are scary and dangerous. We are often in need of rescue. We need to redefine gender roles. We need to stop teaching our kids to be passive women and aggressive men. We need to allow children to blossom into something better than that. People are unique. They are not all cookie-cutter Ozzie and Harriet folks. When the world can let go of these stereotypes and let people grow into their true selves, instead of trying to force everyone into one set of norms ... that will be the day that humanity can begin to shine.

ARG!!! I cannot believe we are still having this conversation in the world. Freedom. Love. Peace. These are good things. Restrictive roles, whether sexual, gender-related, and more, are, quite simply, destructive. I have gay relatives and friends, and they are all dear, sweet people. I love them, and I see what they've gone through to come to grips with their orientation. It is not an easy road, because of bigotry and the religion of their families. It is a terrible waste. We NEED to let people love whom they will if we want to evolve into a better people.
If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #83 on: February 26, 2013, 11:15:02 AM »
ARG!!! I cannot believe we are still having this conversation in the world.

It's fear.  Fear of the different, which is why "homophobia" is often so apt a description. 

To be fair, it was probably a good survival mechanism waaay back in early history.  If you saw someone like you, you'd be likely to be fairly safe.  See someone NOT like you, and you would likely have no common ground.  When resources were scarce, and life was brutal and short, fear of the different may well have been a good thing.

But - at least in the West - we now live in a world where resources are plentiful.  Where seeing someone different does not need to result in a "fight or flight" reaction, but in a broadening of our horizons and increased experience of life.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1286
  • Darwins +85/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #84 on: February 27, 2013, 03:10:55 AM »
Came across an interresting article the other day.
Seems there's a type[1] of fish, Poecilia mexicana, where the females sexually select for size[2].
So, what to do when you're a small male?
You have sex with other small males, of course. Oral sex by the way, no, don't know either how the mechanics of that work. And no, not just to get off (though, of course, ...) but it seems that the females do become interrested in small males who engage in gay sex. The hypothesis is that they see the small male having sex and go "hm, he's having sex, he must be a good partner."
So, there you go, turning gay to increase your chances of procreation.
 1. or ... KIND ... ooooh
 2. No, not THAT kind of size!
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6713
  • Darwins +896/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #85 on: February 27, 2013, 03:55:53 PM »
^^^But...that's not natural! No way they evolved gayness on their own. :?

Those fish must have all been adopted by a gaggle of gay guys and witnessed a lot of oral sex. That's it. Gay aquarium owners should be required by law to cover the tank whenever they get it on. &)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12345
  • Darwins +678/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #86 on: February 27, 2013, 05:58:00 PM »
If you did google for gay seduce straight, you would find success stories too, not only techniques.

heresay.  google "alien anal probe" and you find lots of accounts of that too.

Other people may be somewhere else on the Kinsey scale.
Quote
Approximately 40-50%[3] of the male population might, under some conditions, engage in homosexual acts but only a much smaller percentage will continue those acts throughout their lives.

Ah-ha!  so, they are not exactly straight to begin with.  And engaging in homosexual acts is something they may have had some desire to do to begin with.  And if they already "had it", they could not have "caught it".

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.