whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Sexuality, Reproduction, & Abortion => Topic started by: DumpsterFire on February 16, 2013, 02:32:49 AM

Title: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: DumpsterFire on February 16, 2013, 02:32:49 AM
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?
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight on February 16, 2013, 04:21:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Azdgari on February 16, 2013, 04:55:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight on February 16, 2013, 05:43:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Azdgari on February 16, 2013, 06:12:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: jaimehlers on February 16, 2013, 07:31:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight on February 16, 2013, 02:00:23 PM
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: 12 Monkeys on February 16, 2013, 02:39:44 PM
 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
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Aaron123 on February 16, 2013, 03:07:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: jaimehlers on February 16, 2013, 03:24:39 PM
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.

Quote from: Monolight
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?

Quote from: Monolight
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.

Quote from: Monolight
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?
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 16, 2013, 04:03:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: shnozzola on February 16, 2013, 06:11:29 PM
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 (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/photobooth/2012/12/video-young-gay-and-homeless-in-new-york-city.html) 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Graybeard on February 17, 2013, 12:54:05 PM
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:

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

Quote
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

Quote
"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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 17, 2013, 01:09:57 PM
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 (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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Graybeard on February 17, 2013, 03:17:40 PM
It is worthwhile to read the entire article, which I'm sure you have:

Quote
“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 [wiki]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?

Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: shnozzola on February 17, 2013, 04:03:30 PM
How bout Ketchup?
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 17, 2013, 06:05:55 PM
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?
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Willie on February 17, 2013, 06:10:48 PM
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?
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: shnozzola on February 17, 2013, 06:31:43 PM
Who in the f**k wants to eat celery?
   Whoa, whoa, whoa, - as we descend into the predictable path from homosexuality to vegetables, :o  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. 
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: DumpsterFire on February 17, 2013, 11:16:57 PM
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.
Quote

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.
Quote
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
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: DumpsterFire on February 18, 2013, 12:54:33 AM
...homosexuality is sometimes infectious while being left or right handed is not...
This is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: 12 Monkeys on February 18, 2013, 12:55:06 AM
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)
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Fiji on February 18, 2013, 04:07:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight on February 18, 2013, 06:32:39 AM
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.


Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight on February 18, 2013, 06:37:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight on February 18, 2013, 06:43:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight on February 18, 2013, 06:47:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Chronos on February 18, 2013, 07:46:39 AM
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.


Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: One Above All on February 18, 2013, 08:06:16 AM
BM
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Tero on February 18, 2013, 08:30:53 AM
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.
There have been no measurable effects on lesbians raising children, same as a single mom. Some lack of a dad figure.

Lesbians' daughters do not become lesbian other than  the usual low percent.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: jaimehlers on February 18, 2013, 09:01:34 AM
Monolight, that's how science works.  People draw conclusions from available data.  If there is no data on gay parenting (and there wouldn't have been), then any conclusions about the effectiveness of gay parenting are going to be questionable, at best.  For example, those studies were probably comparing two-parent families to one-parent families, so trying to draw conclusions about gay parents from them makes very little sense, since they didn't include any gay couples to begin with.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Chronos on February 18, 2013, 12:19:16 PM
What if a gay man and a lesbian female married each other and had kids? What harm could they cause? Would that be unacceptable?

It wasn't unacceptable at any time prior to, oh, I don't know, maybe 1990, because nobody knew they were gay. Just look at Michele and Maurice Bachmann. As for all of those gay-pretending-to-be-hetero couples, I'm sure the children turned out to be horrific serial murderers, even the adopted ones. But, Hey! At least they didn't grow up with homosexual parents!

Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Tykster on February 19, 2013, 02:59:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: kaziglu bey on February 19, 2013, 04:42:06 PM
Tykster caught you saying something incredibly stupid.
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.

Here's the deal. You can do one of two things. You can make horribly ignorant statements such as this, or you can be taken seriously by other members here. You can't do both.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight on February 20, 2013, 06:44:52 AM
Tykster caught you saying something incredibly stupid.
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.
How about calling it peer influence (that's what I had in mind) as I explained in reply #25
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Tykster on February 20, 2013, 08:42:40 AM
Tykster caught you saying something incredibly stupid.
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.
How about calling it peer influence (that's what I had in mind) as I explained in reply #25

How much has peer influence affected your sexual proclivity? I'd suspect none at all, so why do you try and infer a different standard for others?
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: One Above All on February 20, 2013, 09:03:26 AM
How about calling it peer influence (that's what I had in mind) as I explained in reply #25

Assuming this to be true, so what? What's wrong with being homosexual? The only problem I see with being homosexual is the homophobes like you who make their lives hell.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: kaziglu bey on February 20, 2013, 09:04:38 AM
How about calling it peer influence (that's what I had in mind) as I explained in reply #25
Peer influence? How is that an excuse for profound ignorance? You stated, as a fact, that homosexuality is sometimes infectious. This is completely, utterly, entirely false. If you are willing to just go along with what your "peers" tell you, without any critical examination or fact checking, then I submit that you are willing to believe in anything. If you think that peer influence is a proper substitute for rational discourse, you really are a blight on human civilization.

EDIT: It appears that you believe peer influence causes homosexuality. My apologies for misunderstanding your point. However, this is still a profoundly ignorant statement. The only conceivable way that peer influence could affect homosexuality is that people "in the closet" are motivated by those who are openly gay to embrace their natural sexuality. In other words, peer influence helps them to overcome the ignorance of bigots such as yourself. My brother is gay. How come his influence hasn't made me gay? My roommate in college is gay, why didn't I become homosexual?
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: screwtape on February 20, 2013, 10:52:44 AM
How much has peer influence affected your sexual proclivity? I'd suspect none at all, so why do you try and infer a different standard for others?

Hm.  To try to keep an open mind and not be dogmatic about it, consider this:

Quote
At the lowest level, behavior-into-attitude conversion begins with impression management theory which says you present to your peers the person you wish to be. You engage in something economists call signaling by buying and displaying to your peers the sorts of things which give you social capital. If you live in the Deep South you might buy a high-rise pickup and a set of truck nuts. If you live in San Francisco you might buy a Prius and a bike rack. Whatever are the easiest to obtain, loudest forms of the ideals you aspire to portray become the things you own, like bumper stickers signaling to the world you are in one group and not another. Those things then influence you to become the sort of person who owns them.
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/10/05/the-benjamin-franklin-effect/[1] 

I once  briefly hung out with a group of people who were all a weirdos/ outcasts of one sort of another.  Homo- and bi- sexuals were heavily overrepresented.  One particular young, lost, borderline mentally unstable member of this group decided he was bisexual, possibly homosexual.  I did not then nor do I now, think he had any actual homosexual proclivities.  He was just a loser looking for a place where he fit in.  And I think he was trying very hard to fit in with this group.   

So maybe if you blow enough dudes, and think "this aint so bad..." evenutally it becomes "I like this".  Guys in prison seem to make due.  That raises the questions "does that really make you gay?" and "what does it mean to 'really' be gay?"

I do not think teh gey is contagious.  But maybe Kurt Vonnegut is right.  Maybe we are what we pretend.

Of course, there may already be a ton of studies about "curing" homosexuality that say this idea is all wet. 


My roommate in college is gay, why didn't I become homosexual? 

You didn't practice enough?

 1. hat tip to bertaberts for introducing me to this site
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Jag on February 20, 2013, 10:56:02 AM
Attraction is a funny thing. I've always been drawn to a certain type of man, for as long as I've been old enough to be aware of men as a distinctly different entity than myself, a female. Early on it manifested as an attraction to the "bad boy" type, and I'm well aware that this is a pretty common phase for most women. In me, it never really subsided, but as I got older, and more self aware, it shifted a bit.

Now, at middle age, I'm still attracted to that same type, but I've also realized that what I'm actually attracted to is an air of self confidence that shows in a specific way. I like people that do not automatically follow the crowd, who think independently, who don't disguise their true selves in order to fit in. I'm not a fan of rebellion for it's own sake, and have little patience for those who are. The distinction matters.

My point is this - attraction is what it is. My attraction to a specific type was troublesome for several years, but once I saw the real draw, I was able to make better choices. However, trying to ignore my attraction to "bad boys' and instead date "nice guys" - men I wasn't attracted to - would have been stupid. Not only would it have been dumb to do to myself, it would have been completely shitty thing to do to whomever I chose to date.

Attraction is hardwired. I'm not attracted to independent-minded women, despite my strong attraction to independent-minded men. I like them, I'm just not attracted to them. That's because I'm heterosexual - why would it be any different for someone who is homosexual?

Edited to correct grammar error.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Traveler on February 20, 2013, 10:56:57 AM
Wow. Just wow. The ignorance of the homophobe is large in this one. Bookmarking for future comments ... too tired right now to sort it all out.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Tykster on February 20, 2013, 04:17:56 PM
How much has peer influence affected your sexual proclivity? I'd suspect none at all, so why do you try and infer a different standard for others?

Hm.  To try to keep an open mind and not be dogmatic about it, consider this:

Quote
At the lowest level, behavior-into-attitude conversion begins with impression management theory which says you present to your peers the person you wish to be. You engage in something economists call signaling by buying and displaying to your peers the sorts of things which give you social capital. If you live in the Deep South you might buy a high-rise pickup and a set of truck nuts. If you live in San Francisco you might buy a Prius and a bike rack. Whatever are the easiest to obtain, loudest forms of the ideals you aspire to portray become the things you own, like bumper stickers signaling to the world you are in one group and not another. Those things then influence you to become the sort of person who owns them.
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/10/05/the-benjamin-franklin-effect/[1] 

 1. hat tip to bertaberts for introducing me to this site

Respectfully, I think I can remain dogmatic on this one :)

I don't consider that a ( true choice ) behavior, i.e. buying truck nuts, is governed by the same hypothesis as that of behavior that is inherent in ones physiology, i.e. sexual preference. I'm open for discussion though. I think the two are not similar, one is who you actually are, and the other is more of a nod in the direction of whom you'd like to be seen as...
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Quesi on February 20, 2013, 07:50:18 PM
Yeah.  I'm too tired to contribute anything intelligent to this thread this evening.  However, just before I logged on the forum, my 6 year old was watching this video on TV. 

http://youtu.be/aqqbqILFCLs

If you have no idea why this is relevant, perhaps you are too young to remember the original video.

http://youtu.be/78LAgl90UyM

It appears that there is a huge Disney-channel endorsed conspiracy to recruit young children into the homosexual lifestyle by using cultural allusions to the original gay anthem.  And probably subliminal messages as well.  And if all of our children grow up to be gay, and fail to reproduce, then all of humanity may disappear.  This may, in fact, be the last generation of humanity. 

And it is all the fault of the homosexuals.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 20, 2013, 09:31:33 PM
monolight

I think I see the problem. You misunderstood. You thought that Jimmy Haggart "caught" it.

He didn't. He "bought" it. Big difference.

Moral of the story: Don't believe typo's.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Chronos on February 20, 2013, 11:06:54 PM
How about calling it peer influence (that's what I had in mind) as I explained in reply #25

Peer influence, like religion?

Or, peer influence, like heterosexuality?

Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: screwtape on February 21, 2013, 07:51:18 AM
Respectfully, I think I can remain dogmatic on this one :)

I don't fully buy it either, but I do think sexuality is somewhat more maleable than people think. 
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Traveler on February 21, 2013, 10:10:50 AM
Respectfully, I think I can remain dogmatic on this one :)

I don't fully buy it either, but I do think sexuality is somewhat more maleable than people think.

I'm convinced that its very common to be somewhere in the middle of the sexual continuum. In other words, many people are not completely straight, or completely gay. My response is, "so what?" Anyone who understands the obvious fact that sex is not just about procreation (otherwise we'd only come into season once or twice a year like dogs do), and lets go of the idea that all sex must be "open to children from god," can finally get it, that it doesn't matter who one loves. Its no one's business but the lovers. I still don't understand why people get so upset about love. Why must it all look like Ozzie and Harriet?
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Tykster on February 21, 2013, 10:59:19 AM
Respectfully, I think I can remain dogmatic on this one :)

I don't fully buy it either, but I do think sexuality is somewhat more maleable than people think.

Totally agree, it's more of a continuum than a binary state, hence bi-sexual.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight on February 21, 2013, 11:30:42 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.

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.

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

"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. 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. Also I turned as much as possible to the men of my surroundings, who begged for an oversized and sometimes unhealthy place in my life."

One will not know of this prior to feeling the consequences for his life as a man. That transom is still impossible to cross. "All my life as an adult was thrust out of whack by this experience," he blurts. But he stops himself there. "It is too intimate a matter." Pushed, he concedes, "I offer you a testimony. It's not the same in value as a poll. Other children, placed in the same conditions, have certainly grown up and reacted differently. But to the best of my knowledge, no serious study has been carried out in due diligence about this topic, within scientifically irrefutable conditions and bearing upon a large sample size. I doubt that many children of gay couples will open themselves up easily and honestly to journalists on this very delicate matter. It's traumatizing to speak of suffering that one would rather silence."


This same site also contains (among other things) another such testimonial. It might be of interest to someone who is like me, not convinced (or at least defininitely not fully convinced) by the results of "current research" about LGBT parenting.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight on February 21, 2013, 12:07:13 PM
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DzFg1gsenM
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: screwtape on February 21, 2013, 12:12:12 PM
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

This is a common gay fantasy.  I've not done the google search, as you've suggested, mainly because all the sources you provided are less than rigorous.  Yahoo answers?  That's the place where anyone can just post an answer, right? 

Do you think any of those techniques if used by a woman would work on you?  Why or why not?
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight on February 21, 2013, 12:15:55 PM
Monolight, that's how science works.  People draw conclusions from available data.  If there is no data on gay parenting (and there wouldn't have been), then any conclusions about the effectiveness of gay parenting are going to be questionable, at best. 
The site: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx says:
What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.

Can there exist something that is not determined by any factor (has no reason)?
If on the other hand there are factors, only scientists don't know yet which ones, then we can't really safely rule out developmental, social, and cultural influences.

Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles;
Oh, then it's not only me..
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Traveler on February 21, 2013, 12:46:59 PM
Monolight, we can toss individual experiences around all day. I'll be you that I can quote screwed up children of heterosexual parents many, many more times than you can quote screwed up children of gay parents, and not just because there are more of them. The gay parents I've known have raised very nice children who turned into very nice, well adjusted adults. Its about parenting, not sexuality. Good parents TALK to their kids. If you're implying that these kids were "hit on" by gay male friends of the family, then I am very surprised. Gay does not equal pedophilia. People can parent badly, regardless of any orientation issues. Especially in the United States, where, quite frankly, I think you'd have to look long and hard to find any family that's completely functional and healthy.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight on February 21, 2013, 01:05:01 PM
I think I see the problem. You misunderstood. You thought that Jimmy Haggart "caught" it.
He didn't. He "bought" it. Big difference.
Moral of the story: Don't believe typo's.
I don't understand what you are talking about??? Who is Jimmy Haggart?
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight on February 21, 2013, 01:14:51 PM
Monolight, we can toss individual experiences around all day. I'll be you that I can quote screwed up children of heterosexual parents many, many more times than you can quote screwed up children of gay parents, and not just because there are more of them.
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).
Quote
The gay parents I've known have raised very nice children who turned into very nice, well adjusted adults. Its about parenting, not sexuality. Good parents TALK to their kids.
Parents are statistically average. Also, LGBT parents are statistically average. Critics point out that the LGBT parents research was mainly done for well educated white lesbians without financial problems.

Quote
If you're implying that these kids were "hit on" by gay male friends of the family, then I am very surprised. Gay does not equal pedophilia.
Pedophilia is a deliberate act. He didn't mean that gay is pedophilia and I am not messing those things either.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 21, 2013, 01:21:12 PM
I think I see the problem. You misunderstood. You thought that Jimmy Haggart "caught" it.
He didn't. He "bought" it. Big difference.
Moral of the story: Don't believe typo's.
I don't understand what you are talking about??? Who is Jimmy Haggart?

My bad. I get theists mixed up in lots of ways.

I meant Ted Haggard. I'll be more careful next time.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Traveler on February 21, 2013, 01:45:25 PM
Monolight, ask many gay/bi/lesbian/trans kids whether their straight parents messed them up because of the parent's sexuality and prejudices about it. One person's personal experience is not evidence of any trends at all.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight on February 21, 2013, 01:52:56 PM
This is a common gay fantasy.  I've not done the google search, as you've suggested, mainly because all the sources you provided are less than rigorous.  Yahoo answers
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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: One Above All 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: screwtape 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Traveler 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: nogodsforme 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.... &)
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: DumpsterFire 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
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Aspie 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?
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: natlegend on February 22, 2013, 01:57:11 AM
(http://www.kissmekwik.co.uk/images/thumbs/0001540.jpg)
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: DumpsterFire 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
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Tykster 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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DzFg1gsenM

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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Graybeard 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: screwtape 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.

Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: 12 Monkeys 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?
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Samothec 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 (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
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: screwtape 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.

Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: DumpsterFire 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Quesi 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. 

Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Anfauglir 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?
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: One Above All on February 26, 2013, 09:02:32 AM
Monolight, what's your stance on bisexuals?
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: DumpsterFire 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. ;)
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Traveler 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Anfauglir 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Fiji 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!
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: nogodsforme 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. &)
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: screwtape 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".

Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Quesi 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. 


http://youtu.be/yMLZO-sObzQ
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Samothec 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.


Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: nogodsforme 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: screwtape 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: J0SH 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight 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).
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Anfauglir 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Quesi 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.


Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Azdgari 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>>
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: nogodsforme 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
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Azdgari 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: screwtape 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Samothec 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?
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight 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?
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Quesi on March 18, 2013, 09:54:40 PM
This video is going around some adoptive parent circles today. 

http://youtu.be/W_bAiTwJAnc
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Bereft_of_Faith 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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBhru5nLpGE
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: wright 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: screwtape 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.

Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Graybeard 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.

Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: nogodsforme 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)
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Anfauglir 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?
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight 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.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight 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).
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Graybeard 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."
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Quesi on March 23, 2013, 04:14:25 PM
The single meanest thing that anyone has ever said to my daughter was this:

She had just turned 5, and was at a soccer daycamp.  She was with a group of other 5 year olds.  A big kid (maybe 8 ) came up to the little girls and said:

"Do you like Elmo?"

And my daughter said "Yes!  I like Elmo!"

And the big girl said "Then you are a baby.  Only babies like Elmo."

My poor sweet little girl, changed gears, and said "No, I don't like Elmo."

And she came home all upset.  She told me that she lied to the big girl, and she was sorry that she lied, and that she knows lying is wrong, but that she didn't want the big girl to think she was a baby because she wasn't a baby.  She cried and cried and told me that she did like Elmo, and that she didn't know why she lied, and that she wasn't a baby and was just left all confused.  We snuggled on the couch and watched Elmo together, and talked about bullying, and about people who are judgmental about other people, and we discussed strategies to deal with future events. 

Kids have made comments about adoption, about race, about single parent families, but most of those comments (so far) have been innocent statements or questions from kids who genuinely don't understand.  Sometimes my daughter comes home and tells me the things that other kids have said, (kids only get adopted when their real parents die, all kids have to have a father - President Obama made it a law, why doesn't your mommy look like you?) but none of these things have hurt her like the Elmo incident. 

The content of bullying doesn't matter.  We have a responsibility to teach our children not to be judgmental about other people.  Sadly, most religions teach their followers to look down on others who don't fit a specific set of criteria.  And that characteristic is one of the greatest dangers of religion. 
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Monolight on March 24, 2013, 03:49:50 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?
In the meantime I found an article from the point of view of a lawyer. It has interesting points about all concerns about same-sex parents that crossed my mind even remotely, and a few more. Including social stigma. http://www3.law.harvard.edu/journals/hjrej-articles/archive/vol21/schwartzreich.pdf

So, the answer to your question from a legal perspective, could be like this (the line I made in bold). It uses some rethoric I don't fully get, but maybe clear to you.

An additional perceived consequence of homosexual parenting is that
children of homosexuals will suffer from social stigma. While children
may in fact be taunted or suffer other adverse reactions from those who
disapprove of their parents’ sexual orientation, the argument that gays
should cease parenting does little to ameliorate the lives of children who
are bullied because of their family characteristics. The Supreme Court already
rejected this kind of argument in a custody dispute between two
biological parents where the biological mother had married a member of
a different race and the child suffered harassment. The Court stated:
“The Constitution cannot control these prejudices but neither can it tolerate
them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law
cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect . . . .” Social stigma arguments
should similarly fail in the case of homosexual parents since stigma
arguments give legal effect to social prejudices.
Society—as it is currently
constructed—supports and accepts such institutionalized stigmatization—
facilitating the eradication of deviancy by those who have the authority
to defne “deviancy” in the first place. Essentially, this argument
signifes that as long as one group has the authority to defne what is acceptable,
that group may require others to comport with the status quo.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: nogodsforme on March 25, 2013, 04:17:08 PM
I thought the big kid was going to tease the little kid about Elmo being gay. Whew. Dodged that bullet.

And tell your sweet daughter that commie mommy Nogodsforme adores Elmo and she is waaaaay past baby age.  ;D
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: valiant venus on March 25, 2013, 05:23:21 PM
Dear Quesi,  I could relate to the upset your little girl suffered - I don't know one mom (or a lot of dads) who have not had to soothe a child's "dashed and bashed" heart.  What also made me sad was your assumption at the end of your post, "Sadly, most religions teach their followers to look down on others who don't fit a specific set of criteria.  And that characteristic is one of the greatest dangers of religion."

I apologize if a religious believer has made you or your child feel "less than".  We are taught to love our neighbors, but being imperfect people, we often get this wrong.  Adhering to Judeo-Christian beliefs and ethics often highlights our own sins and transgressions.  But we have faith in repentance, hope in salvation and joy in mercy.

Kindest regards,
VV
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: shnozzola on March 25, 2013, 06:11:51 PM
Here we go again.

(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/03/25/10078781_h21756251_wide-364d27163bfcd0fb964f025c7d3168b86dd394cc.jpg?s=4)

People camping out in Washington DC to get courtroom access to the supremes arguments.  Interesting that Justice Robert's gay cousin will be in the courtroom.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/us/background-on-same-sex-marriage-case-at-supreme-court.html?_r=0
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Azdgari on March 25, 2013, 06:42:25 PM
Gonna be back to respond to anyone's comments this time, VV?
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Chronos on March 25, 2013, 07:48:19 PM
Interesting that Justice Robert's gay cousin will be in the courtroom.


Well, somebody has to give fashion advice and sing show tunes.

Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Quesi on March 25, 2013, 08:09:29 PM


Dear Quesi,  I could relate to the upset your little girl suffered - I don't know one mom (or a lot of dads) who have not had to soothe a child's "dashed and bashed" heart.  What also made me sad was your assumption at the end of your post, "Sadly, most religions teach their followers to look down on others who don't fit a specific set of criteria.  And that characteristic is one of the greatest dangers of religion."

I apologize if a religious believer has made you or your child feel "less than".  We are taught to love our neighbors, but being imperfect people, we often get this wrong.  Adhering to Judeo-Christian beliefs and ethics often highlights our own sins and transgressions.  But we have faith in repentance, hope in salvation and joy in mercy.

Kindest regards,
VV


Hi VV, and welcome to the forum! 

I certainly know many believers who are not judgmental, and who lead ethical lives, and who live with love and respect for a diverse set of people.  I've spent my adult life working with immigrants, refugees and displaced people, and have had the opportunity to work alongside many wonderful people from various religious backgrounds. 

But there are many many different kinds of Christians.  There are those who believe that "love thy neighbor as thyself" is the most important teaching of your religion.  There are others who are much more obsessed with other people's sex lives.  Or other people's religious practices.  There are those who believe that the god of Abraham rewards the pious with material wealth, and there are those who believe that material possessions are a corrupting force.   

So obviously, any generalization about Christians can be met with an abundant set of examples of people who do not fall into that category.  I apologize if my generalization about judgmental religious people was not accurate for you and your sect of Christians. 

But you certainly must admit that there is a growing trend in many Christian sects to not only judge, but attempt to legislate their version of morality.  Mobilization of folks fighting against marriage equality is one example.  But there are lots of other examples.  Adherents claim to be acting on behalf of TRUTH.  God's TRUTH.  They claim to know better than the rest of us.

I look forward to hearing more from you, and learning more about your beliefs. 

Again, welcome. 
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Quesi on March 25, 2013, 08:21:01 PM
I thought the big kid was going to tease the little kid about Elmo being gay. Whew. Dodged that bullet.

And tell your sweet daughter that commie mommy Nogodsforme adores Elmo and she is waaaaay past baby age.  ;D

I love Elmo too, and I made it clear to my daughter that I do.  Don't love Barney.  Don't even like Barney.  But Elmo is worthy of love and respect. 

Sadly, poor Elmo is in the midst of a scandal himself.  Not really sure what to make of the charismatic, (and downright adorable man) who does his voice.  The first accusations from a man who claimed to have been seduced by him as a teenager was a little unsettling, but rich famous gay people working in the children's entertainment industry are indeed vulnerable to accusations.  But then the second and the third young men came forward and well....I'm finding this actor a little less endearing.  Apparently we will be getting a new Elmo voice soon.

 (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/10/article-2245962-165A4160000005DC-594_306x423.jpg)

But we still love Elmo in our household.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2295819/Kevin-Clash-Elmo-puppeteer-accused-luring-minor-drug-fueled-parties.html
Title: Re: What is a Christian?
Post by: Cutdogg on March 26, 2013, 03:39:40 PM
Good point, the only comment I would make on that though is Im not a Christian, but I still think homosexuality is wrong. Period! And I know people will say, "well you don't have to do it, why worry about those who do", well true I hope I never have to witness 2 men doing it in the ass. I'd probably be scarred for life at such a pathetic and grotesque act. But what about these innocent children that get adopted into this hell hole. What about the poor little girl who never has a mommy to teach her how to be a woman, or a daddy to be that father figure we all need. Or the boy who walks into his parents room one day and sees daddy fucking daddy in the ass. You tell me he's growing up a normal kid. I myself know what it's like to grow up without both parents full time because of a divorce. No my parents weren't gay thank you, but any home without a mommy and daddy is going to have consequences for those children that some of us still live with today as adults. Why can't people see the reason we see so many school shootings and depression, to name 2, is because of the fact kids aren't brought up in same type of family atmosphere they once were centuries ago. Look at statistics of kids brought up in a loving, daddy, mommy home and kids brought up in fatherless, or motherless homes and you'll see the proof. Our society has yet to produce many gay home facts yet since we won't know results for another generation. There's a few but not as many as there's going to be here now with all the new laws. But I bet that will prove to be a failure let on by our society as well. I say don't give em any rights to marry, it's bad enough there's no law saying its not ok to fuck another man in the ass!!!!
Title: Re: Re: What is a Christian?
Post by: Quesi on March 26, 2013, 04:52:36 PM
Wow Cutdogg.   Hate, fear and ignorance are a very dangerous combination.

I usually say that ignorance is curable, but you are pretty far gone.

We have another thread running in which the issue of gay adoption is addressed.  Perhaps you might spend some time there and learn a little bit. 

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24500.0.html
Title: Re: Re: What is a Christian?
Post by: naemhni on March 26, 2013, 05:09:13 PM
Hello, Cutdogg.  My use of green boldface font indicates that I am speaking as a moderator, not as a thread participant.

The post you just made about homosexuality and children is way over the top.  If you want to voice your opinions and objections to same-sex marriage, adoption rights, and the like, you are free to do so, but the type of language and phraseology you used in that post is not permitted here.

If you haven't already, I suggest you read the forum rules, which you can find here:


http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21732.0.html
Title: Re: Re: What is a Christian?
Post by: jaimehlers on March 26, 2013, 06:25:43 PM
I'm having a hard time figuring out why Cutdogg decided to post this diatribe against homosexuality in a thread talking about what a Christian is.  Having looked over the last several posts before his, I must say I see no reason for him to go off like this.

Aside from that, his argument is basically that he hates homosexuality, therefore it's wrong and should be banned.  Oh, and even though we have very little information on how children raised in homosexual households turn out, and even though he admits this, we shouldn't allow it because it'll scar children for life (because it would scar him for life to see homosexuals having sex).  In other words, it's just about him and his feelings, not the children he's oh-so-concerned about.
Title: Re: Re: What is a Christian?
Post by: Azdgari on March 26, 2013, 07:19:04 PM
Isn't there already a thread up where his tirade would be at least topical?

Yes, yes there is...here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24500.0.html).

EDIT:  Quesi beat me to it.
Title: Re: Re: What is a Christian?
Post by: carstensenscott on March 26, 2013, 08:46:27 PM
Cutdogg....

OBVIOUSLY not an atheist. At least by standards I have experienced and try to adhere to. (disclaimer-yes I have had negative inclined posts)

We should not hate anyone. Our actions should be to show the religious and ignorant what their christ would really want out of a "good" person sans the hokey pokey hocus pocus pie. I dont speak for others, just what an atheist acts/responds like usually. And being open minded enough to realize that evolution and similar attraction is a piece of the puzzle that just must happen.

If that is what a christian was....
Title: Re: Re: What is a Christian?
Post by: Astreja on March 26, 2013, 09:29:27 PM
What about the poor little girl who never has a mommy to teach her how to be a woman, or a daddy to be that father figure we all need.

Wow.  Just wow.  It's been a long time since I've read such a steaming pile of sexist, homophobic pig excrement.

My former girlfriend was more of a "father figure" than My daughter's other chromosome contributor.  She helped out with the renovations, brought home actual money from a for-real job, and in general was 10000% more invested in the welfare of My family than that abusive deadbeat Whatsisname.

And WTF was I, the female member of the previous, dead-in-the-water, heterosexual union supposed to "teach" My daughter, anyway?

Oh, and she has a boyfriend (so much for catching the ghey from MamaDyke, wot?) and she's self-employed.

So stuff it with the "Think of the children!" BS, because it simply isn't true.
Title: Re: Re: What is a Christian?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 26, 2013, 11:48:31 PM
Astreja, if your daughter didn't already have a boyfriend and if my son wasn't gay, we could get them together and then we'd almost be related.   :)

+1 for explaining to him why his small world is full of error and of no value.
Title: Re: Re: What is a Christian?
Post by: Anfauglir on March 27, 2013, 06:27:16 AM
Our society has yet to produce many gay home facts yet since we won't know results for another generation. There's a few but not as many as there's going to be here now with all the new laws.

Right.  We don't have the information, so we can't make a judgement.  Makes sense.

.....I'd probably be scarred for life.....
.....these innocent children that get adopted into this hell hole.....
.....You tell me he's growing up a normal kid.....
.....any home without a mommy and daddy is going to have consequences.....
.....the reason we see so many school shootings and depression.....
.....I bet that will prove to be a failure.....
.....I say don't give em any rights to marry.....

....yet off you go with a load of unsubstantiated opinions, which you admit yourself are based on zero evidence.  Same as your argument with screwtape about love: you are quite happy to ignore the evidence because of what you feel has to be right.
Title: Re: Re: What is a Christian?
Post by: jynnan tonnix on March 27, 2013, 06:53:37 AM
It seems to me that there was a post or two eerily similar to Cutdogg's rant here some time ago...maybe a year or so. Complete with almost identical phrasing. 

I could be mistaken, of course (and never seem to have much luck using the search function). And certainly Cutdogg is not the only person in the world with such views. But I'm getting a strong sock-puppet vibe here.
Title: Re: Re: What is a Christian?
Post by: Fiji on March 27, 2013, 07:22:52 AM
Cutdogg....

OBVIOUSLY not an atheist.

Well, technically, he could very well be an atheist. Atheist bigots do exist. The only requirements to join the atheist club is "does not believe in any gods" ... and we don't know his position on the matter.
Title: Re: What is a Christian?
Post by: DumpsterFire on March 27, 2013, 09:55:29 AM
Why can't people see the reason we see so many school shootings and depression, to name 2, is because of the fact kids aren't brought up in same type of family atmosphere they once were centuries ago.

I'm pretty sure the reason there were no school shootings centuries ago is because there weren't guns everywhere back then, and the few that were around took a good deal of time and effort to load and fire.
Title: quesi & cutdogg
Post by: Quesi on March 27, 2013, 10:14:17 AM
Ok.  I think I've calmed down enough to at least attempt to respond coherently. 

Or the boy who walks into his parents room one day and sees daddy fucking daddy in the ass. You tell me he's growing up a normal kid.

Over the millennia, many many children have accidently witnessed their parents engaging in coitus. 

I agree, it is not a great thing for a kid to see.  But do these kids grow up to be "normal?"[1]Well, normal is a relative term.  I think most of us agree that it is something we should try to avoid. 

Do you think that it would be significantly more damaging for a child to witness his or her heterosexual parents engaging in penal/anal penetration?  Is it the anal penetration that concerns you most?  Or is it the gender of the parents? 

Or is it the gender of the child?  I notice here you specify a "boy" walking in on his parents.  Is your primary concern that a boy is going to witness a male experiencing penetration?  Do you consider penetration so degrading that you think a boy will be permanently damaged if he imagines himself being penetrated?  What would your feelings be about a boy witnessing his heterosexual parents engaging in digital or other forms of penetration of the father?  Would this concern you equally damaging to the child?

I'm wondering if you have thought this through. 

But what about these innocent children that get adopted into this hell hole.

Now let's move on to the topic of adoption.  As an adoptive parent, this is a topic very close to my heart.  With the possible exception of stepparent adoption, or surrogacy, let's remember that all adoption starts with a tragedy or crisis in the life of a child.  His or her biological parents are unable or unwilling to parent, for whatever reason. Death, drugs, jail, abuse, economic marginalization, age, inability to cope effectively with a child's special needs, or perhaps just an undesired pregnancy. 

For the adoptive parent or parents, adoption is not an easy process.  It is not something someone does on a whim.  It is an intrusive process, that involves social workers inspecting your home, quizzing you on parenting style and philosophy and digging into your financial records, gobs of paperwork and legal procedures, and depending on the type of adoption, it might require psychological evaluations, parenting classes, extensive travel, expenses, and waiting.  Lots of waiting.

When somebody decides to adopt, it is because she/he/they really really really want to become parents.   Children who grow up in families in which they are wanted and loved and cherished tend to grow up happier and healthier than children who are raised in families in which the parent or parents are not invested in the child's welfare.

Which leads us into the topic of non-traditional families.

Look at statistics of kids brought up in a loving, daddy, mommy home and kids brought up in fatherless, or motherless homes and you'll see the proof. Our society has yet to produce many gay home facts yet since we won't know results for another generation. There's a few but not as many as there's going to be here now with all the new laws. But I bet that will prove to be a failure let on by our society as well.

Excellent point.  There is a wealth of data about the hardships faced by children who have grown up in single mom households.  But you need to take into account a range of other factors.  The data clearly demonstrates that the majority of children being raised by single (never married) moms are being raised by very young women who had not planned the child's conception.  The vast majority have low levels of education, and often the pregnancy resulted in their failure to continue their education.  There is a very close relationship between educational levels and lifetime income, and most of these families tend to be very low income.  The kids often grow up not getting enough attention, enough nutrition, and enough exposure to educational opportunities that will lead the child out of poverty. [2]

I'm a single mom, and I've studied these statistics.  I'm older, financially established, well-educated, and I was SO READY to be a mom.  Younger married couples who have kids my daughter's age still want to call a babysitter and go out to clubs or whatever.  I have left my daughter with a babysitter ONCE.  My weekends are hers, to enjoy zoos and museums and music festivals and birthday parties and playdates and parks.  At 6, she WANTS to take a Saturday class next month to prepare her for her first chess tournament.  She is well-traveled, can say a few phrases in a half a dozen languages, is thriving at one of the boro's best elementary schools, and has an active social life.  But most importantly, she know she is loved and cherished and that she is the center of my universe.  I've been very conscious to make sue she has strong male role models.  Heterosexual uncles and cousins.  But one of her favorite men in the whole wide world is the gay dad of one of her classmates. 

I'm guessing that decades from now, my sweet little girl will be a happy, highly educated, accomplished young woman, in spite of being raised by a single mom. 

I myself know what it's like to grow up without both parents full time because of a divorce. No my parents weren't gay thank you, but any home without a mommy and daddy is going to have consequences for those children that some of us still live with today as adults. Why can't people see the reason we see so many school shootings and depression, to name 2, is because of the fact kids aren't brought up in same type of family atmosphere they once were centuries ago.

Then there is divorce.  Divorce is often hard on children.  Children like security and continuity, and children often feel confusion and guilt about the changes in their family structures.  Divorce is also hard on the parents, who often feel stress and unhappiness, which effects their interactions with their children.  I am sorry that the divorce of your parents impacted your life so negatively. 

But sometimes divorce is the right thing to do.  For the children as well as the parents.  Look at Astreja's story.  It seems pretty clear that her accomplished young daughter grew up in a much healthier environment that she would have if her biological parents had stayed together. 

Why can't people see the reason we see so many school shootings and depression, to name 2, is because of the fact kids aren't brought up in same type of family atmosphere they once were centuries ago.

It would be great if you could take a moment and really think about what you really believe.  If I were a man, I might be able to see the appeal of the Ozzie and Harriet lifestyle.  Who wouldn't want an obedient wife, who cleans and cooks and takes on the primary parenting role?  A man who rules supreme over his household kingdom, who is free to slap his wife around if she gets out of line.  Of course, in those families, kids were abused emotionally and sometime sexually by their dads.  But no one ever talked about it, like they do today.  Dad could do what he wanted.

But as a woman, I have a little trouble feeling nostalgia for this era.

School shootings?  Really?  You think we have school shootings because dad's don't reign supreme in their families anymore?  Is that what you really believe? 

Or anal sex?  You think we have school shootings because of anal sex?   Really?  Think about it. 

I apologize for my angry post last night.  I really hope that you are not past the point of moving beyond your ignorance on this issue.  I think you just haven't really thought most of this through.

Give it some time and some thought.  Try and figure out what it is that you are really so angry about. 
 1. We should note that in many cultures, families sleep together in a single room, and kids witness their parents' relations with frequency. But in our culture, we tend to avoid it, and my cultural bias leads me to believe that this is a good thing to avoid exposing children to the sexual activities of their parents.
 2. Please note that there are MANY exceptions, and there are many amazing young single moms, and many healthy accomplished children who were raised by young single moms
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: kindred on March 27, 2013, 10:40:53 AM
Why hate homosexuals? Personally, I am disgusted by male homosexuality and strongly dislike effeminate males yet I tolerate them just as they do to me. They might just as easily feel the same way about me yet you don't here them complaining about me and my heterosexual bullshit.

We live in a free world here, where men and women can bump nasties with the sex of their choice. Just because you, personally don't like that some people bump their genitals a certain way or bump their genitals onto different than normal set of genitals doesn't mean they can't do so.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Traveler on March 27, 2013, 11:22:02 AM
Clearly Cutdogg doesn't understand that not all gay men engage in anal sex, that many straight people do engage in anal sex, AND that its none of his business.

ETA: Why do homophobes feel it necessary to add that they find gay sex acts disgusting? There are lots of so-called straight sex acts that I would never engage in, finding them personally repellant in whatever way. But that doesn't impact my feelings toward other straight people. And I don't bring it up at every opportunity when discussing marriage or dating. The focus on sex is beside the point. Completely. One's orientation is about love. About companionship. About so very many things. Sex is only one very small part of it, and may not be any part of it at all for a particular couple.

Get your mind out of the gutter, stop imagining what others are doing in the privacy of their own home, and seriously ask yourself why you're so fixated on other people's sex lives. Quite frankly, it makes YOU sound like a pervert. Obsession is not a pretty thing.

(http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b85/GreyhoundMama/gayunclebob-1_zps0fcc231e.jpg)

Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Tonus on March 27, 2013, 12:00:58 PM
I keep missing out on these spontaneous public gay sex orgies that everyone else is victimized by.  I really need to start hanging out with different people.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: One Above All on March 27, 2013, 12:05:24 PM
I keep missing out on these spontaneous public gay sex orgies that everyone else is victimized by.  I really need to start hanging out with different people.

IKR.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Quesi on March 27, 2013, 12:13:48 PM
Clearly Cutdogg doesn't understand that not all gay men engage in anal sex, that many straight people do engage in anal sex, AND that its none of his business.


Thank you, Traveler, for making the point much more succinctly than I did. 
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Seppuku on March 27, 2013, 02:48:00 PM
I think you make an interesting point Traveller. People seem to be soooooo fixated on gay sex and completely sidestep everything else. If "doing it up the bum" is what homophobes think when they think of gay people, well...there's a good chance what people often say is true, that many homophobes are in reality, homosexuals in denial. This is certainly true of Ted Haggard.

People who generally don't 'agree' with homosexuality usually keep it to themselves, I know folks who don't think a man should lie with another man, but are perfectly tolerant of homosexuals and don't stick their nose in things that aren't their business. All the do is just avoid engaging in homosexual behaviour. I mean, it's like many vegetarians, they don't believe it's right to eat meat, but won't be a complete arsehole because I like to have extra bacon on my burger.

At the end of the day, the "think of the children" argument is complete bullshit, because a lot of homosexual parents have managed to be capable parents. Have managed to raise their children to be happy and for those kids to not be screwed up in anyway or infecting them with 'the gay'. The only way I can see kids being disadvantaged by gay parents is through the prejudice some folks may show towards them, which to my mind is the real fucked up thing. And yet, homophobes say, "think about the children", yet will contribute to an environment where they're scorned, looked down upon, perhaps even pitied for being the child of a homosexual parents and not only that, but have parents people shame. If homophobes REALLY did care about the children, they'd want a world where said children and their parents won't face prejudice.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Chronos on March 27, 2013, 06:55:36 PM
ETA: Why do homophobes feel it necessary to add that they find gay sex acts disgusting?

One theory is that they want to engage in these acts but repeatedly describe them as disgusting to convince themselves not to act upon their own desires.

Another theory is that nobody gives a damn unless it sounds disgusting, so they keep portraying acts as disgusting to try to win an argument.


Title: Re: What is a Christian?
Post by: nogodsforme on March 29, 2013, 05:11:35 PM
Why can't people see the reason we see so many school shootings and depression, to name 2, is because of the fact kids aren't brought up in same type of family atmosphere they once were centuries ago.

I'm pretty sure the reason there were no school shootings centuries ago is because there weren't guns everywhere back then, and the few that were around took a good deal of time and effort to load and fire.

And guns were expensive, not just lying around the cabin for any crazy to grab. It is a myth that back in the good old days everyone and his dog was packing. That is only in the movies. Plus you were not going to waste precious ammo unless you were in danger or needing some food.

The strange connection between gay sex, marriage, adoption and school shootings is a new one for me. Have the shootings only occurred in states where gay marriage and/or adoption is legal? We need to look at all the countries that have legalized gay marriage (I think there are ten now, including South Africa and I think Nepal) to see if they are having similar outbreaks of random saw-gay-parent-having-sex  fueled violence in the schools.  :o
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Fiji on March 30, 2013, 01:42:58 AM
Well, here in Belgium the gays can marry AND adopt for some time now and the number of school shootings last year was ... zero. We did have a few school stabbings though. All of those perpetrated by what we refer to here as "North Africans"[1].
Somehow I doubt many of those have gay parents to walk in on.
None of the stabbings were fatal, btw.
 1. A vile PC term to avoid putting "Moroccan" or "Muslim" ... either put those or better yet put no reference to the perpetrator's origins. In fact, get this, I'm technically breaking Belgian law by pointing this out to you.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: nogodsforme on April 01, 2013, 04:01:24 PM
Hell, if I saw my parents having sex, I'd want to shoot someone. If I saw my grandparents having sex, I'd want to shoot myself. But I think that may be universal, having nothing to do with whether the relatives[1] were gay or straight.

I mean, does anyone want to see their parents doing the nasty? In any way shape or form?
 1. I almost typed "relations"
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: natlegend on April 16, 2013, 09:14:20 PM
I find it interesting that Cutdogg focuses purely on male acts of homosexuality. So, Dogg, lesbians are okay, right? Cos that sh!t is sexy...
Title: Re: What is a Christian?
Post by: The Gay Impositor on April 22, 2013, 06:49:37 PM
But what about these innocent children that get adopted into this hell hole. What about the poor little girl who never has a mommy to teach her how to be a woman, or a daddy to be that father figure we all need.
Children can learn about baseball without having a pitcher and a catcher as parents.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: nogodsforme on April 23, 2013, 03:42:29 PM
My daughter has a school friend who is a gay young man with two lesbian moms. Now how did that happen? Cats and dogs will be mating in the streets next! :o
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Astreja on April 23, 2013, 08:28:54 PM
My daughter has a school friend who is a gay young man with two lesbian moms. Now how did that happen? Cats and dogs will be mating in the streets next! :o

Yes, but generally cats with cats and dogs with dogs.   ;)
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: The Gay Impositor on April 23, 2013, 09:20:03 PM
My daughter has a school friend who is a gay young man with two lesbian moms. Now how did that happen? Cats and dogs will be mating in the streets next! :o
  I think you will find there's going to be all kinds crossed orientations among parents and children. Just take a deep breath and chill awhile.
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Anfauglir on April 24, 2013, 01:35:31 AM
My daughter has a school friend who is a gay young man with two lesbian moms. Now how did that happen? Cats and dogs will be mating in the streets next! :o
  I think you will find there's going to be all kinds crossed orientations among parents and children. Just take a deep breath and chill awhile.

Impositor, NoGods was joking - though I can see how for someone new to the site you wouldn't necessarily have spotted that .....  take a deep breath and chill!
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: nogodsforme on April 24, 2013, 02:20:37 PM
My daughter has a school friend who is a gay young man with two lesbian moms. Now how did that happen? Cats and dogs will be mating in the streets next! :o
 

I think you will find there's going to be all kinds crossed orientations among parents and children. Just take a deep breath and chill awhile.

I am totally chill with gays, lesbians, kids, cats, dogs, lesbian cats and gay dogs. I was just trying to be funny, making some fun of the concern trolling about the supposed dangers gays pose to their children. Think about it: 99% of gay people were raised by heterosexuals, and seeing their parents kiss or make out was surely the least of their problems.

I imagine that people who freak out about gay people raising kids[1]would worry that the gay young man raised by lesbians will grow up totally confused, thinking he has to have sex with..... a woman.  ;)

Cats and dogs will be mating in the streets as long as there are streets. It's disgusting. We should ban streets. And they should get a room. >:(
 1. because the kids will catch teh gay, or will be traumatized by seeing their gay parents having gay sex, or will be bullied by idiots (who should be dressed in full drag, tied to comfy chairs and forced to watch Priscilla Queen of the Desert hundreds of times like in Clockwork Orange)
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: albriston on May 21, 2013, 08:14:19 AM
It is worthwhile to read the entire article, which I'm sure you have:

Quote
“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 [wiki]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?
I'm not saying that homophobia = repressed homosexuality, but in my case-- this was true.

You cannot see why anyone would want to eat a tomato, but it tastes good to some. You must know that because it doesn't taste good to you, doesn't make it bad. But the queasiness? It's just a tomato, that's something you need to get over. No one is spilling blood all over the street.

You need to actually rank things by an objective level of intensity rather than taste. i.e Eating a fruit, killing someone, drinking a glass of water, being late to work. i.e your response to watching a murder should not equal eating a fruit.

(Jumping overboard to make a point)
Title: Re: monolight discusses homosexuality
Post by: Anfauglir on May 21, 2013, 08:41:17 AM
Welcome to the forum albright!

.....your response to watching a murder should not equal eating a fruit.

See, now it's exactly that kind of imagery that gives monolight the heebie-jeebies.....   :o