Author Topic: monolight discusses homosexuality  (Read 8882 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #87 on: February 27, 2013, 06:36:12 PM »
google "alien anal probe" and you find lots of accounts of that too.


First of all, I want to state publically that I am opposed to all alien abductions, and there is a mounting body of evidence that the resulting anal probes are damaging the moral fabric of our society.  I support any legislation which prohibits these activities.  It may, however, fall in the judicial realm.   

However, back here on planet earth, same sex relationships have existed among humans and animals for all of recorded history.  Human same sex relationships were frowned upon in societies in which procreation essential to the communities' survival, because high infant mortality rates and short life spans kept communities small.  When you imagine the tribal communities described in the OT, who were marginalized minorities, struggling for survival, you can really understand why it was not good for the community to have men coupling off with men, and women coupling off with women.  Repopulating the community was essential. 

But in this era, things are quite different.  We don't have lots of children in hopes that there will be someone to milk our goats and feed us when we get old.  We have the option to become parents, or not to become parents.  And folks who want to be parents, tend to be more attentive involved parents.

I've posted this video many times before, but it is worth posting again.  This kid is so conservative and clean cut.  And, I assume Christian.  But he is a nice kid.  A bright, articulate kid.  And I don't know what you think, moonlight, but he doesn't look too damaged to me. 




Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #88 on: February 28, 2013, 03:32:21 AM »
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.

No, you don't understand. Everyone is assumed to be straight from birth and subtly taught that. So some gays and bisexuals don't understand they are gay or bisexual until they have an experience and learn something about themself. It is not at all infectious.
Also, no one who has had gay sex is straight; they are bisexual or gay. Those who "go back to being straight" are bisexuals who prefer women or bisexuals who are afraid of being thought of as gay. Just as there are no gay men who have sex with women - they are bisexuals who prefer men.
But these statements are made using logical and consistant definitions. Your usage may vary.

The straightguise website contains some rather stupid and/or repulsive material. If you read it thinking it was realistic, that would help explain why you don't understand what we are discussing here.

As for the seducing-a-straight-man fantasy: there are two main types of this. One is those who want a str8-acting gay/bi man. The other is an interest in someone actually straight - and thus unattainable - so that the person who has the fantasy will not have their desire fulfilled; they probably have a self-esteem issue and are lusting after someone they can't have to frustrate themself.

Pointing out a sole exception who claims his lesbian mothers messed him up (in spite of a missing father and him not feeling abused while growing up) really does not support your contention that LGBT parents are bad at parenting. In fact it says pretty much the opposite.

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.
I find your mental processes to be very deviant if you read into his quote that he is saying he was exposed to deviant behavior. A normal person would not make that wild leap. What he did say is that he had a decent and normal childhood and adolescence. The real question is when did he begin to start thinking his parents weren't decent and normal: did someone get into his head later in life and screw him up? That is the logical result of reading his statements carefully.


Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline Monolight

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #89 on: February 28, 2013, 11:03:53 AM »
So some gays and bisexuals don't understand they are gay or bisexual until they have an experience and learn something about themself. It is not at all infectious.
Also, no one who has had gay sex is straight; they are bisexual or gay. Those who "go back to being straight" are bisexuals who prefer women or bisexuals who are afraid of being thought of as gay. Just as there are no gay men who have sex with women - they are bisexuals who prefer men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexuality#Sexual_orientation.2C_identity.2C_behavior :
sexual orientation falls along a continuum. In other words, someone does not have to be exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, but can feel varying degrees of both. Sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime–different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual."[8][14][15] Sexual attraction, behavior and identity may also be incongruent, as sexual attraction or behavior may not necessarily be consistent with identity. Some individuals identify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual without having had any sexual experience. Others have had homosexual experiences but do not consider themselves to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual.[15] Likewise, self-identified gay or lesbian individuals may occasionally sexually interact with members of the opposite sex but do not identify as bisexual

Quote
The straightguise website contains some rather stupid and/or repulsive material. If you read it thinking it was realistic, that would help explain why you don't understand what we are discussing here.
His books have good reputation on Amazon.

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.
I find your mental processes to be very deviant if you read into his quote that he is saying he was exposed to deviant behavior. A normal person would not make that wild leap. What he did say is that he had a decent and normal childhood and adolescence. The real question is when did he begin to start thinking his parents weren't decent and normal: did someone get into his head later in life and screw him up? That is the logical result of reading his statements carefully.
Maybe it would help if the mothers talked to him about how their relationship differs from majority. (e.g. to prepare him for confrontation with what peers will say and what he will observe with other families). He didn't ask, they didn't talk.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6680
  • Darwins +888/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #90 on: February 28, 2013, 04:20:01 PM »
^^^Whatever kids experience growing up is normal for them. Every family is the way they are, and most do a pretty fair job.

Why would anyone sit their kids down and try to convince them that their normal everyday life is not really normal? Having two moms is the way their household runs, just like having one young single Chinese mom, or one middle-aged divorced Italian dad, or two short fat Latino gay dads, or a young mom in a wheelchair and older dad with two working legs is the way other households run.

My husband is white and I am black. We never sat our kid down and said, "Honey, most people marry the same race. We, however are weirdos. Other people will tease you about it." It could just be that we are the normal people who recognize that race is a made-up illusion, and everyone else is screwed up!

There is no perfect, ideal Platonic model family out there somewhere that people should measure themselves against. Those perfect Happy Days families only ever existed on 1950's-style tv shows. In real life, even the 1950's family was a lot more diverse than the tv shows ever portrayed.
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: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #91 on: February 28, 2013, 08:44:15 PM »
His books have good reputation on Amazon.

Oh, well then, he must be an authority.  After all, Drs Phil and Oz also have good reputations on amazon and they are totally not quacks at all.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline J0SH

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Unbeliever of the bullshit.
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #92 on: March 01, 2013, 03:10:49 AM »
Isn't there enough homophobia going on in the world? Just really... Intolerance like this is exactly why the world will never advance towards world peace when people can't even get over such ridiculous primitive fears over same sex couples.  Let the gays live in peace and stop bashing on them since doing so will do no good for the world. They do nothing to hurt you, do they? I'm not trying to bash you, Monolight. I'll tolerate you because I have the belief that tolerance breeds more tolerance and intolerance breeds more intolerance.  I refuse to stoop myself so low as to hate someone even if they are somewhat bigoted, as hate also breeds more hate.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 03:29:20 AM by J0SH »
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion."  -Robert M. Pirsig
“Be the change you want to see in the world.” -Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Monolight

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #93 on: March 01, 2013, 05:18:54 AM »
Why would anyone sit their kids down and try to convince them that their normal everyday life is not really normal?
I would say "explain how it differs from majority", not "convince that it is not normal", and I meant not the whole everyday life, but a particular aspect of it. Because other people will eventually persuade of it anyway, and it will hurt. *Maybe* this is what this man was talking about.

Quote
There is no perfect, ideal Platonic model family out there somewhere that people should measure themselves against. Those perfect Happy Days families only ever existed on 1950's-style tv shows. In real life, even the 1950's family was a lot more diverse than the tv shows ever portrayed.
There are still a lot of in commercials (advertising).
« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 05:24:14 AM by Monolight »

Offline Monolight

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #94 on: March 01, 2013, 05:23:20 AM »
The straightguise website contains some rather stupid and/or repulsive material.
His books have good reputation on Amazon.

Oh, well then, he must be an authority.  After all, Drs Phil and Oz also have good reputations on amazon and they are totally not quacks at all.
Saying that it's a "rather stupid and/or repulsive material" is more authoritative, naturally. Because it was said on WWGHA.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #95 on: March 01, 2013, 07:53:53 AM »
Why would anyone sit their kids down and try to convince them that their normal everyday life is not really normal?
I would say "explain how it differs from majority", not "convince that it is not normal", and I meant not the whole everyday life, but a particular aspect of it. Because other people will eventually persuade of it anyway, and it will hurt. *Maybe* this is what this man was talking about.

If that's the case, then it STILL means that the trauma he experienced was down to the predjudices and attitudes of others...people perhaps like yourself? 

From the little you've posted, it seemed that his experience was "growing up with lesbian parents=good experiences.  Interacting with society=bad experiences".  And you take from that that it was his parents that were most at fault?  I just can't get my head round that.

If a parent doesn't prepare their child for all the bad things in the world, and those bad things then happen, then I'm sure the parents would blame themselves.  But I'm equally sure that most people, while perhaps wondering whether the parents had done as good a job as they could have, would squarely put the "blame" for the bad things on the people that did them.

The fact that you don't, and that you believe the fault is entirely or even mainly with the parents, speaks volumes to me.
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 Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #96 on: March 01, 2013, 08:48:17 AM »
I would say "explain how it differs from majority", not "convince that it is not normal", and I meant not the whole everyday life, but a particular aspect of it. Because other people will eventually persuade of it anyway, and it will hurt. *Maybe* this is what this man was talking about.


I agree that it is important to talk about families, and how families are different.  But you know what?  I'm pretty sure that most families "differ from the majority" in some way or another.  Here in the US, how many families are living with a parent who is or was deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan?  How many kids live with mom Monday-Friday, and with dad and step mom on weekends?  How many families have grandma living in the converted garage?  How many kids have a parent in prison, or a parent who is undocumented, or a parent who is away on business more than s/he is home?  How many families are multi-racial, or multi-ethnic, or have parents or grandparents who believe in different religions?  How many kids have an autistic brother, or a mom in a wheelchair, or a dad who is in denial about the post-traumatic stress he suffered during his military service?  And there are a lot of kids who lost a parent in one of those wars.  How many kids were adopted, or are living in foster care, or are living with step-siblings? 

I'm a middle aged single adoptive mom of a child who is a different race from me.  We are certainly different from the majority of families.  I tell my daughter that all families are different.  I also (try) to offer her the tools that she needs to deal with the misconceptions of others.  When she was in pre-school, a child told her that kids only get adopted when their "real parents" die.  She came home and asked me about that.  I told her that a lot of people don't know much about adoption, and that she knows more than most kids, and she even knows more than many grown ups.  I told her that she could help educate people about adoption if she wanted to, and we talked about some of the specific things she could say.

A couple of months ago, on the bus ride home from school, another 6 year old told my daughter that everyone has to have a mommy and a daddy.  The little boy went on to say that President Obama said it was the law.  The second statement made it easy to laugh.  I explained that everyone has a "biological" mommy and daddy, but that all families were different.  I went on, with the help of a neighbor, to tell my daughter about Obama's childhood, and how his biological dad left the country, and how he was raised by his mom and his stepdad, and then by his grandparents. 

Kids who grow up surrounded by love and nurturing are lucky kids.  I don't talk about the little 6 year old whose dad sleeps drunk on the playground bench for so many hours while my little one plays with her little friend.  This spring/summer, perhaps my little one will notice that there is a loose community of parents who look after this little girl, because her biological father, (who was granted custody on weekends) does not seem capable of taking care of his daughter.  This will be a big, hard discussion. 

My sweet little girl believes that all parents take care of their kids.  It will be really earth-shattering for her to learn that this is not true.  When she looks at the moms and dads, and the two dad families, and the two mom families, and the single mom families, and the families with nannies who spend more time with the kids than the parents, she sees kids who are loved and protected.  At a certain point, she will lose her innocence, and learn that not all kids are protected by those whose responsibility it is to keep them safe. 

That will be really shocking for her.

And unlike the two dad/two mom families that you are so concerned about, it is a real social problem.



Offline Monolight

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #97 on: March 01, 2013, 12:28:18 PM »
If that's the case, then it STILL means that the trauma he experienced was down to the predjudices and attitudes of others
Yes
Quote
...people perhaps like yourself?
No.

You are putting into the same bag:
1. people who have concerns (even if imaginary) about the welfare of children of LGBT parents and
2. people who incite their own children to laugh or bully those children of LGBT or do it themselves

This seems contradictory, because such behavior would do even more harm to children of LGBT parents. So, if such people exist, they cannot be sincere about their true intentions.

Quote
From the little you've posted, it seemed that his experience was "growing up with lesbian parents=good experiences.  Interacting with society=bad experiences".  And you take from that that it was his parents that were most at fault?  I just can't get my head round that.

"Most at fault"? Where did I write something like this??

It was a story of a man raised by a lesbian couple, who is now against LGBT parenting based on his personal experience. In particular, it seems his problem had something to do with the nature of his mothers relationship, which he couldn't figure out as a child.

I interpreted it in my own way, but Samothec suggested different, simpler interpretation - that later in life someone else "helped" this man (in a traumatic way) to figure out that his parents were lesbians and this was the only source of his problems. It sounded possible.

So, in this case, I think that if the mothers talked to him about their family, then the traumatic realization from others would be less traumatic. Or maybe it wouldn't, I don't know. What you think? But it wasn't my intention to conclude that the mothers were most at fault here. (especially after reading that he admired them for their courage at raising him).

I am not convinced about LGBT parenting, but this you already know from this thread. I was not really thinking or interested about this subject before until a week or two ago when somebody asked me about it in this thread. I explained somewhere on 1st page about my concerns. I am not voting anywhere or inciting people to be pro or against (and I never did, partially maybe because nobody asked me). I've read about it on several sites and talked with a few friends last week to know their opinion (but not to influence it). In my opinion this needs more research. But it's already happening, anyway.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12278
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #98 on: March 01, 2013, 01:47:03 PM »
You are putting into the same bag:
1. people who have concerns (even if imaginary) about the welfare of children of LGBT parents and
2. people who incite their own children to laugh or bully those children of LGBT or do it themselves

This seems contradictory, because such behavior would do even more harm to children of LGBT parents. So, if such people exist, they cannot be sincere about their true intentions.

You don't come across as genuinely belonging to category #1.  You come across as belonging to category #2 and using a facade of category #1 to better achieve it.  Your political beliefs surrounding this issue do harm to such families.


<<edit - Modfixed the numbers>>
« Last Edit: March 02, 2013, 10:55:16 AM by Anfauglir »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6680
  • Darwins +888/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #99 on: March 01, 2013, 04:48:03 PM »
Why should other people's "concerns" about gay parenting (absent any evidence that gays make worse parents than anyone else) matter to anyone? Who gives a rats a$$ about unfounded "concerns" about someone else's family makeup? And everyone's family differs from "the majority" in lots of ways. Why single out gays and not people who own six gas-guzzling cars, vegans, Rastafarians, millionaires, gingers, people who don't own a tv or --gasp-- atheists?

As for the battle of the anecdotes, bring it on. For every anecdote about a kid (usually  college-educated and relatively successful in life) raised by gay or interracial or adoptive parents who didn't like their upbringing, I could produce 1000 anecdotes about kids (drug addicts, homeless, in prison, or on welfare) raised by straight same-race biological parents who didn't like their upbringing.  :P
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 Monolight

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #100 on: March 01, 2013, 05:45:25 PM »
Why should other people's "concerns" about gay parenting (absent any evidence that gays make worse parents than anyone else) matter to anyone? Who gives a rats a$$ about unfounded "concerns" about someone else's family makeup?
I wouldn't care, for sure.

It's simple - if you don't want to hear something, don't ask about it. If you hear someone saying things you don't agree with - try to tolerate it (unless something unlawful). If someone wants to convince you about it - don't trust, lookup yourself. If someone is impudent - turn him away.

Strange, but I feel on this forum a little like I felt on JW forum. It has something to do with like-mindedness.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12278
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #101 on: March 01, 2013, 09:08:46 PM »
You don't come across as genuinely belonging to category #1.  You come across as belonging to category #2 and using a facade of category #1 to better achieve it.  Your political beliefs surrounding this issue do harm to such families.

Fixed...made this post on the road and didn't have a chance to re-check it in the normal editing time.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #102 on: March 01, 2013, 11:29:34 PM »
Saying that it's a "rather stupid and/or repulsive material" is more authoritative, naturally. Because it was said on WWGHA.

Samo was expressing a personal opinion.  You were appealing to authority for legitimacy.  Apples and oranges.

And you seem to have a pattern of appealing to poor sources.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #103 on: March 02, 2013, 02:15:16 AM »
Saying that it's a "rather stupid and/or repulsive material" is more authoritative, naturally. Because it was said on WWGHA.
This was hilarious. Now if you had intended it to be funny, I'd have given a +1.
I worded it as a statement to try and give my opinion the sound of authority because you have bought into what other questionable "authorities" have said. If I had said that at least some of the claims there were questionable, I doubt you would have paid any attention to that.


You quoted Wikipedia to supposedly refute a portion of my prior post. In which I did say:
But these statements are made using logical and consistant definitions. Your usage may vary.
I used "straight" = only heterosexual encounters and desires. Kinsey 0
I used "gay" = only homosexual encounters and desires. Kinsey 6
I used "bisexual" for everything else. Kinsey 1-5
That was how I was using the terms - just to clarify things for you.

Did you quote an article in Wikipedia that you don't accept just to try to refute my post? Or have you come to realize no one is infected with homosexuality?
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline Monolight

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #104 on: March 02, 2013, 05:04:37 AM »
I worded it as a statement to try and give my opinion the sound of authority because you have bought into what other questionable "authorities" have said.
I took it as your opinion (although it indeed sounded a bit authoritative). And I pointed out that other people have different opinions than yours. Opinion contra opinion. It was a way to say that I won't rely on it, just because you say so.

Quote
Did you quote an article in Wikipedia that you don't accept just to try to refute my post?
I quoted the article to refute the underlined statement (and next sentence). The issue is, you would call someone a bisexual who is identifying himself as straight. Using your strict definitions, you may be correct. But what practical advantage does it have, if he still identifies himself as straight?

Offline Monolight

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #105 on: March 02, 2013, 05:19:11 AM »
Samo was expressing a personal opinion. You were appealing to authority for legitimacy. Apples and oranges.
You misinterpreted it. I don't have personal opinion on this site's material, but maybe other people have. For example on Amazon. I didn't expect that Samothec will acknowledge that opinions on Amazon are more correct than his own. So maybe rather I was appealing to social proof, to make it legitimate that I don't have to agree with his opinion. And social proof is about opinions, too. Apples and apples.

By the way, I read your previous statement inaccurately. You wrote: "Oh, well then, he must be an authority. ". I somehow read it as "Oh, well then, it must be an authority. " (it=Amazon)  So I had to balance it with something.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #106 on: March 18, 2013, 09:54:40 PM »
This video is going around some adoptive parent circles today. 


Offline Bereft_of_Faith

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 919
  • Darwins +39/-2
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #107 on: March 19, 2013, 05:51:52 AM »

First of all, I want to state publically that I am opposed to all alien abductions, and there is a mounting body of evidence that the resulting anal probes are damaging the moral fabric of our society.  I support any legislation which prohibits these activities.  It may, however, fall in the judicial realm.   
[snipped]

I always thought this was kind of funny, and ties in with your post.  Humor is the best medicine, apart from real medicine of course

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1857
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #108 on: March 19, 2013, 02:59:41 PM »


I always thought this was kind of funny, and ties in with your post.  Humor is the best medicine, apart from real medicine of course
>snip<

Can the Kids In the Hall be declared a Canadian National Cultural Treasure? Or at least get a street or something named after them? I'm a citizen of the US and I'm forever grateful to Canada for producing them.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #109 on: March 19, 2013, 04:07:32 PM »
Can the Kids In the Hall be declared a Canadian National Cultural Treasure? Or at least get a street or something named after them? I'm a citizen of the US and I'm forever grateful to Canada for producing them.

ZOMG! Me too.  Loved them.  They also introduced me to Shadowy Men on a Shadowy Planet.  They wrote and produced the theme song - Having an Average Weekend, from their cd Savvy Show Stoppers.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6698
  • Darwins +533/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #110 on: March 19, 2013, 04:32:34 PM »
I am not convinced about LGBT parenting, but this you already know from this thread. I was not really thinking or interested about this subject before until a week or two ago when somebody asked me about it in this thread. I explained somewhere on 1st page about my concerns. I am not voting anywhere or inciting people to be pro or against (and I never did, partially maybe because nobody asked me). I've read about it on several sites and talked with a few friends last week to know their opinion (but not to influence it). In my opinion this needs more research. But it's already happening, anyway.
I am surprised that this thread has lasted so long. From the start, I understood your approach exactly as you have written above. To my mind, this is entirely reasonable. Nowhere is it written that it is compulsory to accept without question any group or behaviour. Nor is it necessary for, or incumbent upon, anyone to research to the fullest and form an opinion of something that it unlikely to impact upon their own life directly.

I understand that what you are expressing are merely concerns - and few would disagree that this is reasonable. I thought your point, very early on, about the taunting of children who are parented by a same-sex couple was very valid. Children are, by and large, little animals and conservative; they do taunt.

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6680
  • Darwins +888/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #111 on: March 19, 2013, 05:20:03 PM »
Yes, kids tease other kids about being gay, or for having gay parents. I still don't get the concern trolling. How about equipping kids with the useful tools they will need to survive bullying and teasing?

When I was about 11, I was being bullied by a group of kids for the same stupid things kids have always bullied each other about: I was a JW kid, I was good at school, my little sister was fat, my older brother was "retarded", I had a second head growing out of my back.

Okay the last one was made up. Anyway, one day I had finally had enough. I picked up a soda pop can, and with one blow opened up the nearest kid's face. Blood gushed everywhere. And for one brief, shining moment, things got better.

The end.

ps The next day it was back to Lord of the Flies as per usual. The kids tracked me down after school and mashed my head repeatedly against the red bricks of the school building. But I will always have that soda can moment to treasure in my memory. :angel:

Moral of the story for kids being teased and bullied: do not kill yourself or shoot up the entire neighborhood with automatic weaponry. Simply open a bullying kid's skull with a handy piece of schoolyard debris. Things just may get better, if only for that one brief, shining moment that you will always treasure.  8)
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 Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #112 on: March 20, 2013, 07:14:14 AM »
Kids teased me at school for being quiet, not loving sports, and preferring to read.  Should we be concerned about the effects having quiet, book-loving, non-sporty parents had on me?

If not, then why concern over having two same-sex parents, if teasing at school and "fitting in" as an adult are the ONLY factors for concern?
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 Monolight

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #113 on: March 23, 2013, 12:12:03 PM »
I am surprised that this thread has lasted so long. From the start, I understood your approach exactly as you have written above.
This thread was actually interesting. Even though I have difficulties with identifying myself as addressee of some replies or fragments, because I have an impression that they are replying to stereotypes existing in somebody's head and not to me based on what I've said.

Offline Monolight

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #114 on: March 23, 2013, 12:25:41 PM »
Kids teased me at school for being quiet, not loving sports, and preferring to read.  Should we be concerned about the effects having quiet, book-loving, non-sporty parents had on me?

If not, then why concern over having two same-sex parents, if teasing at school and "fitting in" as an adult are the ONLY factors for concern?
Some children are more sensitive to teasing/bullyig, some are less. The effects of teasing may be anything from insignificant to devastating. *After* the fact (as in your case) we can only deal with consequences of effects of teasing, if there are any. But *before* the fact we could aim to avoid them by adoption policy. This justifies having concerns IMO, if they are well-founded. This in turn depends on the assessment:
- how hard the effects can be on a child (what's the actual scale and form of teasing/bullying for same-sex parents),
- are these effects avoidable (if not for same-sex parents, would the child be teased for something else instead, because teasing is frequent)
- are these effects unique (how teasing for same-sex parents differs from teasing for other reasons)
- how the negative effects of teasing will be balanced with expected positive effects (e.g. having family instead of foster home).

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6698
  • Darwins +533/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
« Reply #115 on: March 23, 2013, 03:20:57 PM »
Yes, kids tease other kids about being gay, or for having gay parents. I still don't get the concern trolling. How about equipping kids with the useful tools they will need to survive bullying and teasing? [...]

That is what is known as "a counsel of perfection". Yes, it would be nice, but, no, it ain't going to happen.

I don't want to be pessimistic, but that's how children are. They firmly believe that everyone is like them and that everyone should like them. Lacking all experience, they draw upon what seems subjectively good, right, and fair to them.

"Bullying" is ill-defined. We all think we know what it is, but, at the edges, it becomes blurred. If someone is a total arse, should we tell them in the hopes of improving their chances in life? Is a 6 year old child capable of presenting that concept in a kind and helpful way? Or do they simply smack the arse in the face?

Children cannot grasp the philosophy of "If you cannot change it, I should not criticise it."

I have seen attempts to have averagely intelligent 14 year-olds understand racism. They have no idea what it means. They grab hold of the idea that if someone is from a racial minority, they are beyond crisicism: what hope for more subtle concepts/

Quote
Moral of the story for kids being teased and bullied: do not kill yourself or shoot up the entire neighborhood with automatic weaponry. Simply open a bullying kid's skull with a handy piece of schoolyard debris. Things just may get better, if only for that one brief, shining moment that you will always treasure.  8)

That happened to me. 60 years ago today, Stephen Mathers teased me for the last time. I attacked him and sat on him and punched his face. After that, he thought I was wonderful - I had spoken to him in a language he understood. Could I, aged 4, have explained to his parents that there were other ways than violence and that a course in pro-active parenting was the way forward? I think not.

Will there come a time when the children who are "different" are not teased? Probably not. The world's a very big place; it isn't small-town USA or "somewhere in Europe."
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”