So, it should be pretty obvious by now that I'm behind the idea of gay marriages. I want my uncle and his partner of two decades (longer than my parents lasted), as well as my boss and her fiancée, to be able to enjoy the same legal and social position my wife and I are entitled to. I was formerly in favor of a differently named institution for both hetero- and homosexual couples, but linguistically I know that such unions will be called "marriages" no matter what label we slap on (and really, can you imagine asking "are you civilly united yet"?).
But. However. Nonetheless. I can't get over the following emotion, and I don't know whether I ever will: I want my children to be heterosexual. I want my daughters to find good, honest, loving men who will be great dads for my grandchildren. I want my son to fall in love with a woman who will stand by him as an equal, give him that extra push to become all he can, and help him create new life to which they'll both pass on the basics of the Bowles philosophy of existence.
A couple of years ago, I wrote a thread about this, about the inability (as I perceive it) of humans to view homosexuality as an equally desirable lifestyle. I was countered by people who (I'd argue disingenuously) said they had no such desires for their children, beyond their individual happiness. But I think the majority of us do have hopes for our kids, and I simply cannot envision most people I know thinking, as they look at their little kids, "Gosh, I hope they're gay when they become adults."
As a result, homosexuality will continue to be treated (I predict) much like blindness. The visually impaired, our society demands, must be extended every right (and perhaps additional ones) that seeing citizens enjoy. The blind are capable of the same love, creativity, and fullness of life that we all are. But (and this is where I piss everyone off, heh), no one wishes to be blind. No one wants her child to be born blind. We see the blind as equals, we love them and respect them, but blindness can never be on equal footing with sightedness.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Personally, I feel that I'd want my children to be heterosexual for the explicit reason that it's unacceptable for them to be homosexual. So it's one of those vicious cycles. As long as gays continue to be discriminated against, people will continue to... ah.. discriminate against them...
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Well, that may be true in your case, but I think many people (including me) won't wish for the gay lifestyle for our children even if the discrimination is largely, or even totally, eliminated.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's a difference between wishing against "the gay lifestyle" and wishing against homosexuality. A big difference.
There are plenty of homosexual people out there living healthy lives, and I think most jatraqueros would be capable of bringing their children up to make the right choices, whatever those right choices might be in their case.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
What are you saying David? Gay marriage is sort of like the blind leading the blind?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
You know, I think this speaks more to the perception and acceptance of 'handicapped' people in general than gay people specifically. I created several false starts about this in another thread where I was conversing with sndrake about my brother, but it just wasn't something that I could ever make gel.
[ February 28, 2004, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Too many people miss the point when I bring this up. I'm trying to point out what is a fundamental difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality: inherent desirableness for our children. Anyone want to comment on that specific consideration?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I said on my very first post that my biggest concern about homosexuality has to do with my desire that my children be heterosexual. So I guess I feel the same way.
While I won't have the opportunity to put my opinion to practical application for a while, I would be okay with my children being homosexual. I just don't feel anything in my desires for my potential offspring that is dependent upon the sex of the people they romantically entangle with being the opposite of their sex, but rather upon what that relationship means to them, and how it brings them joy and happiness.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
David, you would probably also not wish for your children to be like me. Heterosexual, but without the desire to have children of their own.
It's actually more about producing grandkids for you, than it is about sexual orientation.
Is that a fair assessment?
[ February 28, 2004, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Slash the Berzerker ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
See, fugu, I want to believe you, though I have a sneaky feeling that you're being just a bit disingenuous about your feelings (and do you have kids yet? I don't remember, but that's not important). However, a good number of people DO feel as I do (and I am a very open-minded person, despite what Lalo may have told you). What about our stance? Is it wrong? Can we be memetically reprogrammed?
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Slashmeister!!!
Actually, no. Or maybe. Who knows? I don't wish for them to be childless, either, but it feels less... undesirable than their being gay.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
It's odd you should bring this up, David, I was discussing this very thing with Strider the other day. See, my initial, gut-reaction, without thought, is "I wouldn't care one way or the other"
But the more I thought about it the more I realized that I would be initially uncomfortable. NOT with the pronouncement of homosexuality -- but seeing them with their partner. Why is this? I can watch Deathtrap w/ Michael Caine planting one on Chris Reeve without so much as an eye-blink, yet the thought of my daughter or son holding hands and gazing lovingly into the eyes of another of their sex gives me pause.
My thought is that while I completely sympathize with and accept gay lifestyle -- I'm not gay. So I can't really join in the attraction. Or not -- blah, i'm not explaining this well. The attraction doesn't suit me -- much the same way as I might cringe if a friend of mine was dating someone I found personally unattractive, I might get the squickies if they leaned over to kiss in my presence. Because I don't share the attraction. Does that make sense?
Another way of looking at it is every parent "wants what's best" for their child. The only frame of reference they have for that is their own life and lifestyle. I can freely acknowledge that my child could be perfectly happy in a homosexual relationship, but can i understand where they're coming from? Understand's a bad word. I can't empathize, maybe. Anyhow. my two cents. these are very un-thought-out thoughts, so...take that into consideration
Is that a possible explanation for some
[ February 28, 2004, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Leonide, that seems a very sensible explanation. Frame of reference. But you of course see the dilemma in this, neh? Your average American cannot think outside her own personal box, and as a result she is unlikely to see homosexuality as being on par with, equally viable as, heterosexuality. Hence homosexuality will continue, at very best, to be seen as a sort of handicap people must deal with (and, by extension, that we secretly feel sorry for them about).
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
You're absolutely right, and I think I would be worried for my child not because they are gay and thusly less of a person, or because they're gay and going to hell (certainly not that!) but because they're gay and therefore unaccepted by society in general. So i think i would never be overjoyed that my child is gay, at least if i had a child in this day and age, because of the social stigma and difficulties surrounding the admittance of homosexuality. I have a dear, dear friend who's gay and it tears him up inside that his family is still not entirely accepting...and he's only 17. I wouldn't wish the three years of pain he's had to endure on anyone, much less the lifetime of hurt he's going to be facing if the world doesn't lighten up and let him be.
For some parents, i think it's on par with wanting your child to go to medical school and having them instead decide on a liberal arts college and a poetry major. You see that they're doing what they love and you support them, but you worry for the hardships they're going to face.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
We prefer the term 'childfree' to 'childless'.
*sniff*
But I can buy the idea of frame of reference. That makes as much sense as the grandkids thing.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote: But I think the majority of us do have hopes for our kids, and I simply cannot envision most people I know thinking, as they look at their little kids, "Gosh, I hope they're gay when they become adults."
It is entirely possible that the only people to whom this matters (as parents) would be those who dread one of the alternatives.
That is, if it doesn't matter to you, you may have no preference, but if it does matter, one side may be preferentially selected (because of custom or fear or your own sense of identity with your children, or what have you).
It's not necessary for this particular characteristic to be desired in order to be, well, not really relevant.
[ February 28, 2004, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
DB, I can agree with your point (I feel it viscerally, but that may be as much lack of exposure in early upbringing), but that doesn't mean you have to act on the emotion, so long as you've identified it.
You talk about the "average American" being unable to cope; I agree with this. The solution, I think, is to make a better average American. I know you tend to be somewhat pessimistic on this point, and agree with this on the short-term and at a certain point, inherent human wiring standpoint, but I think there is a lot more plasticity on many of these issues.
-Bok
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Yeah, well at this moment, I don't think it's a hard-wired problem, Bok. I do think we're talking a major memetic shift, something that hasn't ever been deliberately pulled off before. We've had temporary memetic engineering that has usually required a good deal of totalitarianism to install, and which has fallen apart once the muzzle of the rifle has been pointed away from the populace's temple. We've had radical redefinitions of human nature, but they've been byproducts of technological changes (or other unforeseen social alterations): there's not been the sort of methodical meme-manipulation that is required in this case.
I mean, seriously, if I can sit here and metacognitively understand why I feel as I do and why feeling this way isn't conducive to the sorts of unifying goals I profess to have, yet simultaneously be loath to attempt a change (i.e. try to make myself see homosexuality as a viable sexual state for my children), then what hope is there for massive, global change?
[ February 28, 2004, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: David Bowles ]
Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
This thread got me thinking...now that I'm engaged... Oddly, I don't think I'd care what sexual preference my children were or whether or not they'd have children...(though I have to admit, having grandchildren is a happy thought), but personally, my future child's sexual preference has no bearing on me, I'm more worried that my children will be able to find loving partners and be happy. Is there anybody else that feels this way? Satyagraha
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
I dunno, man. In my highly liberal pre-marriage days I KNOW I'd've responded exactly as you and fugu et al. have responded... something about having kids though... really changed my perspectives on some things.
Posted by Thunder's Core Smith (Member # 6234) on :
Yay! Slash is here so I don't have to be.
My father-in-law and I very nearly had this fight earlier today. I don't know why he decided to start lecturing us on the ills of gay marriage and the importance of preserving the traditional family structure, but fortunatly he remembered who I was before I had to ask where women in the workplace fit in. Or whether us not having kids was any different than Bill marrying a man.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Whoa! Thunder's Core Smith isn't T_Smith at all, it's Celia!
I'm going to have to go back and re-read a lot of stuff now...
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Slash, I would have a very hard time not taking it personally that my children decided not to have kids. Not that I'd take that out on them; it's their decision and life, after all...but I would feel profoundly that I had failed as a parent, and it would take me a while to work through that.
But then, I've felt like I failed as a parent many times before, so at least it wouldn't be a new sensation.
DB, I wonder how gay parents feel about this topic....
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Considering about 8% of gay couples already have kids, and about half say they want kids, I'd say being gay doesn't have much to do with wanting kids.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
DB, maybe the discomfort you feel at the imagining of your own children being gay is because they aren't (if one assumes various measures of genetics and nurture determining it by a certain age.)
I, on the other hand, being heteroflexible, and my husband being rather metro, can imagine a future where our kids might be more prone to influence. One of my boy's favored websites Which may be why I am generally against "changing the definition of marriage".
Though I'm not particularly drooling for grandkids. I am in the stage of life where the fact that having kids is a lot of work, and wishing that on my own children is also something I'm not wishing for them. It's not that I don't like them, it's just like if I hear someone wants to go to med school, and I think of them as a resident risking car accidents because they are so sleep deprived.
Maybe it's because I still have a baby, I don't have "baby hunger" (which I always thought was an extraordiarily odd thing to say).
[ February 29, 2004, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
fugu, maybe I'm not understanding you (entirely possible), that's not what I meant.... I meant I wonder how gay parents feel about their kids eventual sexuality. I was wondering if, generally speaking, they have a preference.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:David, you would probably also not wish for your children to be like me. Heterosexual, but without the desire to have children of their own.
I buy into this, not only because of my inherent love of puppies, but because having children has been such a joyful and growing experience for me.
I absolutely want my kids to have the opportunity to experience the same joy.
I also buy into the idea that the traditional meme that defines "family" is very narrow and very strong. My mind's picture of a family is Man/Wife/Boy/Girl.
My family doesn't fit that picture. We have two boys. Sadly, when I found out that my second child was going to be male, I was very disappointed. I even cried.
Days after Jacob was born, I was very thankful for my healthy baby, but sad that I'd never have a little girl to dress-up.
By the time Jacob was two, I wouldn't have traded being a mother to "two boys" for the world. I had found all the advantages; from using John's outgrown clothes to the fact that boys just adore their mom.
I bring this up to point out how arbitrary and pointless even a deeply held meme can be. Why in the world should I have preferred a "girl" when it would have meant that I'd miss-out on knowing this amazing little boy who is my Jacob?
So, if I was picking all the options for my kids, I'd choose for them to be hetero and marry a woman that would always be a safe and loving haven for their heart and dreams. I'd also pick: No divorce, no being drafted, work that they're passionate about, enough money so that it doesn't define their lives, a balanced and forgiving self-image and a long and healthy life among other things.
Part of my wish list is a result of memes, part is a desire to keep them safe from physical and emotional danger.
I realize that this brings up another assumption/meme... safety equals the possibility for joy; and by extension, the greater safety the greater the chance for joy. Yet many find the most self-fulfillment in overcoming risk, danger and blindly held memes. So the last pick on my wish list for them to have enough strength and courage to be whoever they are and know that they're accepted and loved.
[ February 29, 2004, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: LadyDove ]
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
jeniwren- I was wondering the same thing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I was referring more to the first part of your post, and the general secondary theme this thread has involved.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I bring this up to point out how arbitrary and pointless even a deeply held meme can be. Why in the world should I have preferred a "girl" when it would have meant that I'd miss-out on knowing this amazing little boy who is my Jacob?
We have a winner. In the 3,456,556 posts I've seen on the subject of homosexuality and gay marriage, your post in general and this point in particular is the best.
Posted by Frameshifter (Member # 2967) on :
quote:something about having kids though... really changed my perspectives on some things.
Something about the change from the theory to the practical I would suspect.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Excellent post, LadyDove.
I was struggling to frame a reply, but you put it so much better than I would have.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Something about the change from the theory to the practical I would suspect.
I don't want to derail this thread, but I've got to throw this thought out. I think that many of the changes in mentality that occur after one has children are purely hormonal/instinctual, and aren't really a very good rational guide to right and wrong.
This is a difficulty I have with a lot of posts on this forum, in which someone will criticize teen sex as foolish and based on raging hormones rather than love, then come back in another thread and say "I would do absolutely anything for my child." I myself respect both urges -- the teen sex drive and the parental desire to protect young -- even while realizing that neither is really a sensible basis for decision-making and both can have harmful effects on society and individual lives.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*raises eyebrow*
So how do you explain these changes in perspectives in others?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Like I said, hormones and instincts. Teens are biologically driven to have sex, and adults are driven to protect their young.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
quote: Slash, I would have a very hard time not taking it personally that my children decided not to have kids. Not that I'd take that out on them; it's their decision and life, after all...but I would feel profoundly that I had failed as a parent, and it would take me a while to work through that.
I am pretty sure my Mom feels that way about me. It makes me sad for her, because I don't feel that she failed me in any way. We live in an era where children are a choice. We have to understand that any time people are presented with choices, there will be a group that takes the alternative. And while for some having children is a joyous growth experience, for some it will not be.
I personally think that parents should be thrilled if a child they have does enough honest self analysis that they can make an informed decision on such a personal topic. Much better that than to thoughtlessly produce children that are neglected or abused.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Interesting thread, DB.
I think that a lot of the opposition to gay marriage comes from people afraid of their children being gay. Which I completely understand.
One side says to themselves "My children will be better offf hetero, so don't want to do anything to make homosexuality any more acceptable." They feel like the other side says "Your children will be better off exploring their sexuality and possibly being gay", which makes them feel like their family is under attack.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
My children would be better off right-handed.
I know that left-handed people are just as capable, but that society is geared towards the right-handed. While it wouldn't bother me at all if my children were left-handed, I know they'll face daily annoyance and unconscious persecution whenever they come in conflict with their surroundings.
Okay, it's not a perfect analogy, but it does reflect the level of concern I have about either of my sons being gay, which isn't much at all.
Will they find love? Will they be happy? Will they find someone to challenge and support them, will they be as fortunate in their marriage as I've been? I'm much more concerned about that than about whether there'll be two grooms on the cake, and part of that concern is because with the social pressures they'd face, the odds are worse. So is the answer to force your children not to be gay, or to change society to accept them?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Our son is definitely left-handed, and though it will make things more difficult for him, I hardly blink at it. If he were to turn out to be gay, whoa. That would be really hard for me. Different people, different perspectives.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
DB- good analysis. I think you are absolutely correct. No heterosexual parent wants their kids to be gay, and I don't think that this feeling has anything to do with possible persecution. The only people who I have ever heard say that they don't care are people who have no kids, which is a bit like people who say that their kids will always sit quietly in church etc. I think that Gay parents who adopt or have kids from a previous romantic engagement might possibly be able to honestly say they don't care about their kid's sexual orientation, but then based on human nature I'd guess that gay parents may hope that their kids follow their example just as any other parent hopes.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
...but then based on human nature I'd guess that gay parents may hope that their kids follow their example just as any other parent hopes.
I would think they'd want their kids to follow their example of a happy marriage, not that they'd necessarily want them to be gay. Besides, who better than gay parents to want their kids to follow their hearts, instead of what their parents expect for them? Why wouldn't they want their kids to avoid the hassle they themselves went through?
[ March 01, 2004, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
My kids will always sit quietly in church.
---
I'll duct tape their mouths.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
And it's not entirely inconceivable that some gay parents might like to be grandparents at some point, too.
I can totally understand a parent's disappointment at finding out a child is gay.
But who knows? Given enough technology, maybe one day gay couples will be able to have biological children of their own. I wonder if, as this day nears, whether there will be a greater outcry at this than there is about gay marriage. Wouldn't that be ironic.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Or, to use a much milder example, I want my sons to be happy and loved. It makes little difference to me if they share my own preferences, which run to short, busty, brown-haired women with cute noses. If they turn out to prefer blondes, redheads, liberals, conservatives, Matrix-lovers, Matrix-haters, or guys, so be it.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Chris- do you really think that they would want a happy marriage (where I assume you are defining marriage as any combination of two people regardless of sex) for their kids, or is that what you hope?
Most folks I know are fairly convinced that their particular way of living is right, and they would be disappointed if their children chose something radically different. For example, you are a pretty moderate guy, would you be pleased if you had a kid who was a Religious zealot of the Pat Robertson variety, or a liberal of the San Francisco variety?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Despite my professed desire not to derail this thread, I confess that I'm a little disappointed that no one responded to my post. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think this has an interesting relevance to Deaf Culture. I don't know how much you know about American Deaf Culture, but mostly because of the language barrier (that's just my opinion) a unique culture and community has developed among the deaf of this nation. Different nations, having different sign languages, might have different deaf cultures, but I don't know much about them.
Anyway, we tend to look at a deaf person in this country as handicapped or disabled because they are missing out on one of the five senses, the sense of hearing. They have a totally different perspective. Being deaf is a part of who they are. ASL (American Sign Language) is a part of who they are. They are often closer to their community than their own hearing families. If we could give them an opperation to restore their hearing, we would call it a miracle. Many of them, believe it or not, would actually be horrified at the idea. It would totally alter what they perceive as their identity. Not just that, but if deafness were abolished, ASL would "go the way of all the earth" as would deaf culture. That is very threatening to them.
When two deaf people get married, they often hope against all hope for a deaf child. Not that they would ever purposefully make a child deaf, but there is a certain amount of sadness that comes with a hearing child because that child will differ from them in what they feel is a very fundamental way.
Now, according with my religious beliefs, I believe that after the resurrection these individuals will be able to hear. Some of them may find this idea terribly insulting.
Now, let me tie this together. I think it is very reasonable for a heterosexual parent to wish for their child to be heterosexual and a homosexual parent to wish for their child to be homosexual. Whether we get what we wish, well that is often out of our control. I personally have strong feelings about wanting my children to be heterosexual. If the wide acceptance of gay marriage threatens that in some way (and I think it does), I feel threatened personally. I have not decided yet that that means it is right for me to oppose it, but I still feel uncomfortable about it.
I do believe that in the resurrection those who have felt only homosexual tendancies from their birth will no longer be so physiologically. Emotionally they might be, I don't know. But if the cause of their homosexuality is a function of their physical bodies, that cause will no longer be present. This view is very offensive to some, but it is my personal belief.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:DB- good analysis. I think you are absolutely correct. No heterosexual parent wants their kids to be gay, and I don't think that this feeling has anything to do with possible persecution. The only people who I have ever heard say that they don't care are people who have no kids, which is a bit like people who say that their kids will always sit quietly in church etc.
Jacare, Chris Bridges had already stated that "Okay, it's not a perfect analogy, but it does reflect the level of concern I have about either of my sons being gay, which isn't much at all. [emphasis added]"
I'm not sure what the relevance of the assertion (that no heterosexual parent is unconcerned about whether his or her child is gay) actually is. Even when there is evidence to the contrary in this thread, it seems to be ignored. Why?
[ March 01, 2004, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Chris- do you really think that they would want a happy marriage (where I assume you are defining marriage as any combination of two people regardless of sex) for their kids, or is that what you hope?
It's what I would hope any parent would wish for their kids, and is (in my opinion) one of the defining characteristics of a Good Parent.
Most folks I know are fairly convinced that their particular way of living is right, and they would be disappointed if their children chose something radically different.
That presupposes that that way of living was chosen. If it's not, and only the gay person in question could answer that from the experiences he or she had discovering it, then why be surprised if the child has a different path? Most humans are heterosexual by nature and choice. It would be like albino parents demanding their child bleach himself to match.
For example, you are a pretty moderate guy, would you be pleased if you had a kid who was a Religious zealot of the Pat Robertson variety, or a liberal of the San Francisco variety?
Depends. Is he honorable? Does he believe what he says based on his own reasoning or experiences? Are his opinions honestly appraised and constantly examined? Does he maintain his opinions in the face of changing fads or opposition? Does he treat others with respect and consideration, even if he disagrees with their actions? Does he believe in helping others, in improving life for those around him? Not to say that there wouldn't be some spirited arguments around the dinner table, but my sons don't have to believe what I believe for me to be proud of them.
[ March 01, 2004, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I'll answer you destineer:
quote: I don't want to derail this thread, but I've got to throw this thought out. I think that many of the changes in mentality that occur after one has children are purely hormonal/instinctual, and aren't really a very good rational guide to right and wrong.
This is a difficulty I have with a lot of posts on this forum, in which someone will criticize teen sex as foolish and based on raging hormones rather than love, then come back in another thread and say "I would do absolutely anything for my child." I myself respect both urges -- the teen sex drive and the parental desire to protect young -- even while realizing that neither is really a sensible basis for decision-making and both can have harmful effects on society and individual lives.
I'll just speak from my own anecdotal evidence here. Hormonal changes may account for short-term behavioral changes in mothers, but in fathers of course nothing changes physiologically with the birth of a child. Instinctive protection responses and so forth may indeed come into play, but of course these may just as well be culturally programmed traits and at any rate are affected by culturally defined roles as well as the environment the parents were raised in etc.
At any rate, the same limitations apply to teenage sex. Either way, you are right that these feelings are not a good basis for establishing a moral code, but of course these feelings must be taken into account in defining moral codes. I think a clear and logical reason that society as a whole condones the parental defense instinct and slanders the teenage sex instinct is because generally the parental defense instinct is required to establish a stable civilization (except of course when taken to extremes) while the teenage sex instinct serves to destabilize society.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
An addendum: I'll admit I may just be farther out on the curve than most about this, but the notion of two people of the same gender having sex bothers me not at all. Just doesn't.
But that isn't to say that anything goes. If one of my sons were straight but decided he was into the kind of sadomasochism that includes humiliation and extreme pain, that would bother me. As long as the participants are careful with the pain part it's not illegal, S&M partners of opposite genders can get married without anyone complaining, and unless someone has visible rope marks or brags about their evenings no one at the office ever has to know about it. But it bothers me something fierce.
Mild bondage, ravishment fantasy, scratches and bites and other forms of mild pain I can understand, but I can't reconcile a desire to humiliate or be humiliated with a strong self-image and high self-esteem, and both of those traits are things I value highly. Compared to that, who cares if both people use the same bathroom?
[ March 01, 2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Jacare, Chris Bridges had already stated that "Okay, it's not a perfect analogy, but it does reflect the level of concern I have about either of my sons being gay, which isn't much at all. [emphasis added]"
I missed that in reading through this thread. Would it make you happy if I amended my statement to say "Only a vanishingly small number of heterosexual parents would not care at all if their child were gay"?
quote: Chris- do you really think that they would want a happy marriage (where I assume you are defining marriage as any combination of two people regardless of sex) for their kids, or is that what you hope?
It's what I would hope any parent would wish for their kids, and is (in my opinion) one of the defining characteristics of a Good Parent.
I can see why you would say that from your point of view, but I know that there are a great number of things which I do not want my kids to do regardless of whether it makes them happy or not. For me my children's happiness is indeed my greatest goal for them, but I don't want them to happy at the expense of others (for example if one of my daughters enjoyed squashing people as she climbs the corporate ladder) nor do I want them to trade transitory 'happiness' for long-term (for example shooting up heroin to feel happy).
quote: That presupposes that that way of living was chosen. If it's not, and only the gay person in question could answer that from the experiences he or she had discovering it, then why be surprised if the child has a different path?
I think nearly everything behavioral is chosen. If a person is genetically predisposed toward addiction I still think that pursuing an addiction is a choice.
quote:Not to say that there wouldn't be some spirited arguments around the dinner table, but my sons don't have to believe what I believe for me to be proud of them.
Maybe I chose a poor example. Surely there are things which are at the heart of who you are which, if your child chose to do, would cause you extreme distress.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Maybe I chose a poor example. Surely there are things which are at the heart of who you are which, if your child chose to do, would cause you extreme distress.
I'm guessing you wrote this while I was posting the message above. You're right, as I stated. If my sons chose lifestyles or opinions that lessened them as honorable, intelligent, contributing human beings, I would try to lead them a different direction with my words and my actions.
Homosexuality isn't one of those lifestyles.
[ March 01, 2004, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I'm guessing you wrote this while I was posting the message above.
Yeah, I need to learn how to type faster.
quote: If my sons chose lifestyles or opinions that lessened them as honorable, intelligent, contributing human beings, I would try to lead them a different direction with my words and my actions.
Homosexuality isn't one of those lifestyles.
I can agree that homosexuality doesn't make one less intelligent, honorable etc. However, it is still one of those decisions that would cause me to do what I could to talk a child of mine out of it because of the far-reaching effects it has (in my view) on life after this one as well as in creating and raising a family.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote: Would it make you happy if I amended my statement to say "Only a vanishingly small number of heterosexual parents would not care at all if their child were gay"?
Would you amend your statement still further if I presented you with more than a vanishingly small number? *tongue only partly in cheek
I am pretty convinced that the accuracy of this statement doesn't really matter to many who make it. That is, I'm guessing it isn't really a buttress of the argument, but more an aside. Yes?
(Not setting you up, just trying to figure out how it works.)
[ March 01, 2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Thanks, Jacare. Good answer, too.
I don't object to people/society supporting the parental-protection instinct. What I have a problem with is people believing things on the basis of their instinct, and then criticizing others for acting on instinct without showing that the instinct they oppose is harmful.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Would you amend your statement still further if I presented you with more than a vanishingly small number? *tongue only partly in cheek
I am pretty convinced that the accuracy of this statement doesn't really matter to many who make it. That is, I'm guessing it isn't really a buttress of the argument, but more an aside. Yes?
(Not setting you up, just trying to figure out how it works.)
Mostly I was just agreeing with DB in my own poorly-worded way which generally serves no purpose other than to deflect the gist of my argument away from what I meant to say into what others think they heard me say.
So, yes, it was an aside and a pointless one at that, since I already said that I agree with DB.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Not pointless, just not crucial.
Ahhh, that makes more sense.
*becomes a Jacarehead
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Jacare - and that's where we have disagreed before, and will again, so I'm very glad we get along anyway Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: don't object to people/society supporting the parental-protection instinct. What I have a problem with is people believing things on the basis of their instinct, and then criticizing others for acting on instinct without showing that the instinct they oppose is harmful.
I can agree with you on that.
quote: Ahhh, that makes more sense.
Maybe there is yet hope that I will one day communicate effectively.
quote: Jacare - and that's where we have disagreed before, and will again, so I'm very glad we get along anyway
Yes, we certainly can.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
As a lefty, I'd prefer that my children were right-handed because it's an inconvenience and there are few benefits to being left-handed. Perhaps this is because there isn't much of a left-handed culture and I don't see it as an integral part of my identity. However, I wouldn't want to force a naturally left-handed child to switch to right-handedness because I think that causes more problems than it solves and might be traumatic for him or her. I guess I feel the same way about homosexuality. I would rather that my children were heterosexual to spare them the pain of living in a society that doesn't fully accept this behavior, and because I'm on the fence about the morality issue. But I wouldn't try to change them or love them any less if that's the way they were born.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Nor would I, friend. Nor would I.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
What if being left handed keeps someone from being autistic?
Being left handed is a right brain trait, and being autistic is a left brain trait. Realizing that this is somewhat genetic, what if the genetics so combined that the left-handed part forces them to use more of the brain than the autistic gene normally lets them use? What if gender contributes as well. Someone with a Y chromosome is more likely to be autistic than someone with two X's, it is documented and it is due to the way normal brain functions are distributed between the halves in different genders.
CT tell me if I'm out to lunch and I know this doesn't really belong in this thread, but it is something I've been wondering about traits overlapping and cancelling each other for a while.
AJ
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I haven't heard that before, AJ. Being left-handed is probably better than being autistic. Still, being left-handed is pretty darn inconvenient and possibly dangerous when operating heavy machinery designed for right-handers. Anyhow, my little brother is right-handed, and he's perfectly normal. In fact, he's a lot more athletic and social than either Funny or I, both lefties. And when he writes on chalkboards, it doesn't smudge. Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
I will not entertain the idea of having my own children until such time as I am financially and realistically capable of providing for them the kind of life that I myself would want to grow up in.
That said...
If I had children I would want them to be whatever they felt comfortable being. This is because I grew up in a time and inside of communities where that was basically impossible for me to do, since I am homosexual.
On another level I would be happier to have a gay child because I would like to personally share in a coming-of-age experience that might have mirrored my own, had my circumstances been different than what they were. It would be quite a learning experience to watch someone (especially someone of my own genetic material) grow into themselves without having to deal with a home life that was inherently unwelcoming to their basic personality. To be a part of it would be an honor.
On still another level I know that pressures at home are not the only thing gays have to deal with. They are a minority and will always be subject to the discomforts of minority status wherever they go, whether or not my government eventually recognizes them as equal citizens. So for that reason I would be perfectly happy having a straight kid.
In fact, David, I think that the memetic reality of parents everywhere hoping against having gay children is that humans are not all that great at valuing diversity. Were society to eventually recognize homosexuality as within the normally occuring range of human dispositions, and further recognize that it was a facet that does nothing to inhibit their ability to contribute to society without great effort (such as the aforementioned blindness), people will still, like you, prefer to have children who are more like themselves.
And that's absolutely okay.
On yet *another* level I believe that it is also YOU who is being a bit disingenuous here, David. For while I have no doubt that you would prefer to have straight kids to gay kids, I also have no doubt that, once you HAD a gay kid, your preferences would cease to matter anymore.
I remember, for instance, the outpouring of love that this community extended to the Card family several years ago when their youngest son died from complications related to his illness. Parents do not wish to have disabled kids, but as any of us familiar with the Cards' expereinces are already aware, the uniqueness of having a child who does not fall into normal categories carries with it its own special value.
And having already raised two decent people in the Bowles philosophy, I have no doubt that you too would be able to love, cherish and nuture a homosexual child and perhaps in the process even learn a few things from them.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
JohnKeats- Thank you for your answer. Though I've never thought of homosexuality in the same light as disability, your analogy to love of specialness certainly holds true. I like that.
[ March 03, 2004, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: LadyDove ]
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
If I had a gay kid I would probably punch him a lot and keep him locked in the closet.
Though, that's probably true if he were straight too.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Ralphie- Toni, if you're listening, would you PLEASE beat your brother!
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
No, she is too afraid of me.
I used to punch her a lot and keep her locked in a closet.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
LadyDove-
It is difficult to come up with fair comparisons on this subject; I had difficulty using the one I just did because of the possible connotations that it entails, but you "get it" so I don't have to explain further. Thanks.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: As a lefty, I'd prefer that my children were right-handed because it's an inconvenience and there are few benefits to being left-handed. Perhaps this is because there isn't much of a left-handed culture and I don't see it as an integral part of my identity.
See, that's strange to me, because I'm left-handed and wouldn't care one way or the other if my child was left-handed or not. I've always been able to use right-handed scissors and such -- I actually revel quite a good deal in my left-handedness, being only 10% of the population, getting to have my own left-hander desk in college classrooms (always in the back and against the walls! glory be!) And i think i like it because it just shakes things up a bit. When I played softball it was a definite advantage, and i got a cool Black left-handed glove instead of the boring brown righty gloves. And i always feel a camraderie when i see another person is a southpaw too! It's annoying to write in pencil for extended periods of time, but it's a small price to pay for being wicked cool and left-handed! Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
If I had a left handed kid, I would probably punch him a lot and keep him locked in the closet.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)