posted
Geoff, you may just be playing devil's advocate, or just trying to bridge the gap between the two camps, but the common thread of all your arguments is to marginalize, even if only a little, gay marriage or gay love.
That's your right, personally, but I still don't how that translates to legislative action. Why does the state need to prop up (especially when you more or less admit it does so awkwardly) your religious sense of marriage?
I do think pooka and Jenny Gardener and Belle have some intriguing concrete issues about raising awareness, or in some cases, resisting awareness (I don't like to use "educate" here, since that implies some sort of truth in it), out of a fear for impressionable minors. I don't know how to answer them, as I only see greater awareness as a "good" problem, but they obviously don't feel that way.
Hmmm, I don't think I'm making much sense... Am I?
posted
Geoff, those warnings weren't to you specifically, they were toward the direction those points could have been taken. In fact, you went ahead and did it anyway:
quote:That's true. That is, in part, due to the fact that those psychological conditions have absolutely nothing to do with sex or mating (except insofar as everything in a human mind is somehow interconnected).
Guess what, Geoff? People do not have to mate when they marry. They don't even have to have sex. However, what they do have to do is mutually enter into an agreement that they will love, honor, and cherish each other for an indefinite amount of time. And as I pointed out, those with all those other psychological, physiological, and sociological conditions may still marry, while homosexuality—which I'm assuming you regard a psychological condition—may not marry others of the same condition.
I don't have to have children, Geoff, and no government in the world can force me. That's not democracy, that's tyrannical fascism. No, thank you, that's not where I want to live. A large chunk of the nearly 400 million other citizens of the United States probably feel the same way: if I am going to have a child, I'll make that damn decision on my own. Being married does not include having children. If your faith feels that the two are inexorably linked like that, good for you—I am not of your faith. Do not force me to be.
quote:No one, at least on this board, is going nearly this far to try and "correct" the behavior of homosexuals.
Except by condoning the keeping them as second-class citizens with less rights than heterosexuals.
quote:The only thing at issue here is whether or not homosexual relationships, which are demonstrably different from heterosexual relationships, should be codified by law the way heterosexual marriages are. It's a good question, worth more respect than you give the people that ask it.
It doesn't deserve respect. It intentionally assumes homosexuality is morally wrong, and works towards keeping that singular moral opinion the standard by which law is dictated. Like I said, if your faith feels that way, good for you, but I am not of your faith. Do not expect me to live by a faith I am in no way a part of. I would say that those who support denying gays the right to marry have no respect for beliefs that are different from their own—they sure don't have enough respect to live and let live. Why should I afford them any more?
quote:You say again and again that "separate but equal can never be equal".
That is true of the situation for which it was coined. Blacks were being given different educational opportunities than whites, and those opportunities, as a product of their separation, were inherently unequal.
How many times must we really go over the added privileges heterosexual married couples enjoy? And what makes you think that making a "separate but equal civil union" will pass the mustard in anything but an ideal fanstasy-land where everything happens just how everyone says it should? I don't think you really believe that, but since heterosexuals have nothing to lose on the matter, the anti-homosexual-marriage crowd can pretend otherwise. This is what I mean when I say it's easy to disregard something when one already has it—it's easy to offer a token when one has nothing to lose. The thing is that no one can prove that there would be anything lost by allowing homosexuals marriage in the first place, outside of the "it's mine" argument.
quote:Homosexuals present a different situation because they not only possess a psychological difference, they are DEFINED by it. That doesn't mean that we will inevitably conclude that different treatment for the mating practices of heterosexuals and homosexuals is warranted. But it DOES mean that we should not automatically apply the same exact set of rules and values that we apply in cases of racial discrimination. Homosexuality, as a difference, presents a unique set of questions. We need to examine and answer THOSE questions, rather than blindly applying the template from a previous problem. That kind of behavior isn't tolerance or acceptance. It's laziness.
Bull. You assume way too much. First, you assume that homosexuality is a psychological condition, when there is no conclusive proof. Conclusive, Geoff. And there is no "template" being broadly applied from previous condition. Those "questions" you say should be asked can't be asked in a realistic set of conditions, because homosexuals are not afforded the freedoms necessary to ask those questions. On top of that, the anti-crowd seems more than just bent on asking questions—there's a push for a Constitutional Amendment. And you may scoff, but with a +80% population of those of a Judeo-Christian faith, it's pretty fair to say it has a good chance of passing with the 3/4ths necessary to ratify it. So, in the meantime, while everyone sits around a table asking "questions," those questions are made null by the legislation.
And what questions are going to be asked? Or, more importantly, how are those questions going to be asked? In the current situation, where being gay makes one a pariah in all but at least nominally liberal environments? Where people are ostracized due to their sexual orientation? Where armed forces enlistment itself employs a "don't ask / don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals? Gee, I can name a crapload of ways such questions can be steered in that incredibly biased environment, Geoff. So, what ideal situation are you prepared to ask these questions in? Current American public sure isn't the place. Or do you really want realistic answers?
Amka:
quote:This will lead to exactly what Card talked about. The generation of children that we raise will not support our government. The government will cease to become for the people, because it excludes a very large group of people, perhaps even a majority of people, in favor of a small minority of people who have a psychological phenomenom.
Sorry, but if I have to choose between having the choice to decide on my own and having a religion (of any kind) tell me what I should do, the religion is going to lose every time. What you suggest is making our legislation directly based off a specific religious value (as opposed to universal ones), and that is not representative of the whole of the country. That's representative of the Christian part.
I seriously hope that doesn't happen, because I really don't want to have to look for another country to live in. I like it here, and don't want to be told how to live by a religion I do not belong to.
pooka:
quote:Prejudice is against my religion, which is why I would be saddened if gay marriage is adopted.
In other words: "Prejudice is against my religion, that's why everyone should live according to my religion." No thanks.
Oh, and:
quote:Everyone has the urge to reproduce: to have someone very much like them come into existance because they willed it. It is not only a genetic urge, but also memetic.
And unproven. Are you seriously going to sit here and tell the members of Hatrack who are not going to have children that they are lying to themselves?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have time for a long response right now, but ... it sure must be nice to adopt such a self-righteous position that you don't have to listen to anybody
[ March 01, 2004, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bull. You assume way too much. First, you assume that homosexuality is a psychological condition, when there is no conclusive proof. Conclusive, Geoff.
Okay, patronization aside, we're looking at a phenomenon that is rooted entirely in someone's emotions, perceptions, and desires. And we're assuming too much if we say it's psychological? What is it, then? Muscular? Tracheal? What unique feature does it have that separates it from other psychological phenomena with suspected, but unproven, genetic components?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I listen just fine, Geoff. I simply don't agree that everyone should live by the values of a specific group. You refuse to acknowledge that. That's fine. I'm not ignoring what's being said, I'm not being convinced by anything that's said. There is a difference. Perhaps you just refuse to admit the weaknesses of the arguments against gay marriage?
The problem I have with your attempts in this thread to find a middle ground is that you keep assuming some kind of ideal scenario each time, unfetterred by the quirks and inconsistencies that including more and more individuals in the question allows. You are assuming that there are specific rules, and that every group abides tightly to those rules, within the boundaries. In just heterosexual marriage alone, this is so untrue as to be utterly laughable. Yet I don't see you bringing that up. And like Bok said, while you may be attempting to establish a middle ground, your opinion on the matter keeps peeking through, and it shows in each of your "conclusions" where gay < straight in your intellectualizations.
Geoff, you're asking me to say "they might be right" when it's not about right or wrong with me. It's about equal or unequal. Right and wrong as far as moral values have so many different shades as to be utterly impossible to document all of the different mixes. This is an equality issue, since people are allowed to form their own values. Imposing a certain set of values is not equal, unless one has a case to show where homosexuality qualifies as criminal behavior.
quote:Okay, patronization aside, we're looking at a phenomenon that is rooted entirely in someone's emotions, perceptions, and desires. And we're assuming too much if we say it's psychological? What is it, then? Muscular? Tracheal? What unique feature does it have that separates it from other psychological phenomena with suspected, but unproven, genetic components?
I didn't make a claim either way, Geoff. You did. So, the burden of proof is not on me, it's firmly on your shoulders. Don't put off a claim you made for me to prove or disprove. You're the one who stated it, I'm sure you have a lot of evidence other than "I feel this way about it" to back up your allegation.
[ March 01, 2004, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
thank you for your reply. I'm going to let this one drop. For several reasons, I find it frustrating to address your idea. Please believe it's not for lack of something to say that I don't write more.
Hopefully, this will all work out such that we can all, somehow, be happy.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
For what it is worth, I understand what the other side is wanting/needing too.
All it really breaks down to is this: what one group needs is in conflict with what another group needs. No matter what gets decided, someone will be marginalized.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, my only point there was that, darn it, this language has got to be useful for something. If I can't use the word "psychological" to describe something that takes place in the human mind, because my assertion is "unproved", then what's the point of speaking at all? What is it, exactly, that I need to prove? That the word "psychological" means what I think it means? That homosexuals don't think with their scapulas or the soles of their feet? What?
Yes, I'm trying to address the concerns of the pro-traditional-marriage camp. It's the camp I started in, and will remain in throughout my personal life because of my religious beliefs. In my public life, I feel free to be more moderate about the issue, realizing that America may well be absolutely committed to transforming itself into a foreign culture with very little resemblance to my own. What I want is (1) the freedom to practice my own religion, which I believe I have, and (2) a nation free from hateful culture wars and bitterness.
You seem very committed to the idea that the way to end this "culture war" is for your side to grind mine under their heels. I don't believe that to be the best way for either side. I realize that this issue affects a certain segment of our population (including some good friends like KarlEd) in a personal way that I do not experience, and so I've stepped outside my own culture to try and understand theirs, to see if I can find a common ground and resolve a few of my concerns.
I created this thread as a place where I could explain some of my thoughts about homosexuality that have become taboo in this debate, but which must be discussed if people with my concerns are to have any satisfaction whatsoever from the result of this conflict. And despite the fact that this is a thread specifically designed to include offensive content, I believe that I have been remarkably non-offensive and open-minded.
But despite all of this, you condemn me, and treat me with a patronizing tone that I have never earned from you. You exaggerate my statements and claims to find offense in them, going so far to proclaim yourself the "Enemy of Religion" in my eyes, something I never would have said. You are so hell-bent on making an enemy of me that it's starting to work.
So I'm bowing out of this debate. I think I've said my bit already, had any effect I'm likely to have. You can go on acting this way, though I suspect you'll lose far more support than you'll gain because of it. Forty years from now, we can talk about who might or might not have been right.
Meanwhile, I hope I'm stepping back in time NOT to cause a permanent rift between us. I've really liked and respected you in the past, and I don't think this one bad experience should make that disappear. So can we call a truce?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You seem very committed to the idea that the way to end this 'culture war' is for your side to grind mine under their heels."
The problem, Geoff, is that I don't see how watching two men get married is going to grind YOU under its heel. Besides pooka, no one here has claimed that this phenomenon will have any adverse effect on his or her marriage at ALL.
Do you believe that your marriage will be more likely to fail if you became legally able to marry another man?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Homosexuals present a different situation because they not only possess a psychological difference, they are DEFINED by it.
I have no problem with Geoff pointing out that homosexuals have a different outlook on life than heterosexuals. I even accept that such a outlook deviates from the norm (norm in the statistical sense, not the moral sense).
But should homosexuals be DEFINED by their sexuality? Didn't they use that argument against women suffrage? Women were considered either too emotional to make rational political decisions or considered too pure to be contaminated by the muck of politics.
Even today women are still perceived as more emotional than men and have suffered discrimination at the workplace because of that. Are we going to continue to subject homosexuals to the same treatment?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not that we believe our own marriage will fail. That is a strawman argument.
It is that we believe it will make it harder for our culture to maintain traditional marital values. It will be harder for us, as parents, to teach our children those values because someone with authority will be teaching them something different.
Is this the worst thing? No. Already, our children must deal with the consequences of other people's divorces. Society shows them that their mom and dad staying together is not a sure thing. At school, they meet with those whose parents aren't together and witness their pain, anger, rebelliousness, promiscuity, etc that is a result, either directly or indirectly, of their parent's divorce. Or worse, those who never even had a father.
We've been going down this road quite a while now, and this is simply another mile on that road to a society that has no care for the state of the natural, most basic unit of civilization: the nuclear family.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, I didn't say men and women are the same. I am merely pointing out that the perceived differences between the sexes have been used to deny women the same rights and opportunities that men take for granted.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with trying to be nice and touchy-feely on this issue, Geoff, is that there is no such thing as a middle ground. You cannot be a 'moderate' on the issue of gay rights.
You either desire to live under a system of government that respects our differences and fosters the maximum amount of personal freedoms and individual choice (the elements of our society that allow religious citizens to be so freely expressive of their varying faiths), or you prefer to live under a system of government that echoes the spirit of Judeo-Christian law rather than the relatively new construct of secularism that is our nation's historical inheritance. Our system is ultimately derived from white Christians who fled to this continent specifically because they did not wish to have their values, religious or otherwise, thrust upon them by the state. It is a sentiment that is grafted into our national identity by everything from the Boston Tea Party to the Separation of Powers to the addition of the 9th and 10th amendments to the Bill of Rights, which was discussed further upthread.
In the subsequent 200 odd years of American history, the evolution of our system is unquestionably characterized by the pursuit of extending these principles to their utmost potential, for individual sovereignty is the basic foundation for Western thought.
***
We do not now and we may not ever completely understand the nature of human sexuality. Arguments that do not welcome the immediate dissemination of full and equal rights to homosexuals are inherently predicated on the idea that we know more than is concretely known about the way humans go about pairing with one another.
For example:
quote:We're looking at a phenomenon that is rooted entirely in someone's emotions, perceptions, and desires. And we're assuming too much if we say it's psychological?
In a word, yes.
Because you do not know that this "phenomenon" is rooted entirely in someone's emotions, perceptions and desires. I understand that you're working very hard not to sound belittling and you even believe that you're working toward open-minded and civil discourse, but using words such as "phenomenon" implies that you fully believe homosexuality to be outside the 'normal'-or perhaps 'intended'-range of human behavior. This is knowledge that you do not and cannot have at this time, not withstanding information or perceptions that are ultimately derived from your personal Trusted Rulemaker.
For one thing, you seem to have skipped over the possibility that sexual expression is as much a spiritual part of our nature as it is an emotional, physical, biological, social and biochemical derivative of our varying personalities. This again reveals your bias because I at least would assume that you do recognize the spiritual elements inherent in your own sexuality, yet you make no effort to recognize that homosexuality could have spiritual elements as well, which is only natural because that would seem to contradict the decrees of your Trusted Rulemaker.
quote:Yes, I'm trying to address the concerns of the pro-traditional-marriage camp. It's the camp I started in, and will remain in throughout my personal life because of my religious beliefs.
That is precisely the problem with pretending to be a 'moderate' on this issue. You literally have no other proven justification to avoid homosexual marriage other than your feelings about homosexual sex itself, and your perceptions of what would happen to our culture if it were not held at arm's-length from our mainstream institutions--perceptions that again are based on nothing more than a system of values in which no American citizen is obligated to participate, much less codify.
Like your father, you attempt to make a reasonable case to be wary of a future where human sexuality is acceptably available in non-traditional frameworks. You started off this thread arguing that "society has it's priorities straight"--oh, the irony--by trying to show that it is sensible for our community to provide special treatment toward institutions that are vital to the survival of the community, or "have a unique importance to the welfare of society as a whole". What you don't expound on is the underlying suggestion that homosexual relationships do not have a unique importance to the welfare of society as a whole, for that is the only conclusion you can take from your argument that leads to differentiating between heterosexual rights and homosexual rights.
I would argue that a video game programmer does indeed have a unique importance to the welfare of society as a whole. I would argue that it is easy for "privileged" Americans to forget how much they owe to living in a society that does not overbalance it's resources toward the "infrastructure" of their community. It provides for the evolution of new technologies and the betterment of the human condition. You seem to argue that food and baby production automatically trump all other interests in the human experience (and thereby make the suggestion that any deviation from that structure poses a threat to its viability), where even a cursory glance at the evolution of the human condition easily leads to the conclusion that that is not necessarily the case. They are vital elements but they are not all that defining of who we are as people or what kind of world we want our children to grow up in--else the majority of us would be working in closely-related fields. And even if your concerns about this possible devaluing were viable in a survival priority context, none from your camp have been--or will be--able to demonstrably show that homosexual equality would have any effect whatsoever on these supposedly underappreciated elements of our "infrastructure".
Your father makes a more plausible fiction of how homosexual equality could undermine the system to its detriment: that people like yourself will have to put more effort into resisting the cultural education of your children, and the resulting mistrust will cause all sorts of problems with Christians being able to believe and/or participate in state institutions. While I do not deny that many would take this route, I do not accept that our society would be significantly damaged by it. The vast majority of Christian parents would continue to send their kids to school because they lack the ability to educate them on their own time, and where differences of opinion are necessary to illustrate, those parents will illustrate them just fine. Just like with with present day sex-ed, condom distribution and abortion rights. And the kids would grow up in a world where it was possible to come to your own conclusions, which I submit would be a plus for the homosexual community and the traditional Christian community as well.
The truth is that there can be no middle ground here. Either you prefer to let people form their own values or you prefer that the state side with one particular set of values. Not suprisingly, the ones that you hold dear.
For those of us who are homosexual, or those of us who have taken the time to get to know homosexuals without reserving judgment on them, it is categorically obvious that homosexual expression does not happen as an act of rebellion against any deity or morality, much less as an affront to the sanctity of heterosexual unions, which are after all the source from which all homosexuals spring.
For myself, I DO recognize that humans are spiritual beings and that many of our behaviours are inextricably linked to our spiritselves, including sexuality. The reason you end up offending people even when you're trying to be politically correct about your point of view is that no matter what kind of wrapping you use, you are subjogating individual sovereignty and willingly forgetting the 'sanctity' of our Freedom of Religion, which at present allows you to hold these views, express them, and marry other people who agree with them, while I may not.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I will agree. But the women who deny that use it to ridicule women who choose to stay at home to take care of their families. We now feel like a minority. Not only that, we are classed overall as less educated and without a backbone.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
[sigh] Great timing, JohnKeats. You present an argument against me right after I bow out of the debate? Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, don't even get me started on this issue.
I despise feminists who challenge a woman's right to stay at home. One latent form of sexism that has not been challenged enough is that the world still defines success from a male's perspective: i.e. your career.
But what "career" is more important than raising your kids? I think any woman or man who stays at home to raise children is more valuable to our society than any doctor, lawyer, or author.
The correct feminist viewpoint is not to force women out of the home, but rather to elevate the position of a homemaker as not only a valid career choice, but a celebrated one for men and women.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would raise a contention that a reasonably sized extended family trumps the nuclear family every time, as far as the ideal... The nuclear family construct was a result of the great mobility in this society in the early- to mid-last century. Perhaps this mobility increased the acceptance of the idea that one can truly and with little effect divorce one's self from current relationships?
Many cultures, particularly amongst the poorer elements have centered child rearing around the parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and so on.
I was raised in a decently sized extended family of the above, plus a loving small church family.
I think I turned out infinitely better as a result.
posted
Thanks for pointing that out, Bok. I was just trying to find a term for 'heterosexual two parent family'. The extended family is so important, and I owe a great deal of my experience to aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, etc. But again, these are merely extensions of the basic unit. The parents of my parents, the siblings of my parents... at one time they were living together as a family and our family is the natural outgrowth of the union, in two individuals, of two basic family units.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing in particular, recently. It is just a bone I occassionally pick.
Well, I drove by Lots-o-Tots the other day. And I got my nails done and realized it would take a second income to do it as much as I want to.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, I agree that at the most basic level, our parents are the bedrock.
I think one of my most fortunate developmental experiences was that my dad had one last 3 month navy sub tour when I was born, but for the next 6 months he spent most of of the time with me, since his enlistment was up, and he leeched off society (ie. unemployment) for 6 months before getting a civilian job at the same naval base.
However, I put a much stronger emphasis on the breadth of love I received as a child. I don't see the relatives/church members as contingent to the family as you do, I suspect. Particularly with my cousins and grandparents, they were as important, and at times, MORE important, than my parents were.
The Gay Report, published by homosexual researchers Jay and Youn in 1979, revealed that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger.
Although homosexuals account for less than two percent of the population, they constitute about a third of child molesters. ...
A study of Canadian pedophiles has shown that 30 percent of those studied admitted to having engaged in homosexual acts as adults, and 91 percent of the molesters of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual.
Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., and Charles B. Johnson, Ph.D., conducted a content study of the personal ads in the Advocate, the "national gay and lesbian newsmagazine," and discovered that "chickens," a common term for underage boys sought for sex, were widely solicited. Many of the advertisements in the magazine solicited boys and teens from within a larger pool of prostitution ads, which constituted 63 percent of all personal ads...
quote:In 1994, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) quietly revised its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (DSM-IV) by redefining long-standing definitions of what constitute "paraphilias" or sexual perversions - including pedophilia. The APA added a new requirement for someone to be diagnosed as having a paraphilia: The person's behavior must now "cause clinically significant distress or impairment of social, occupational or other important areas of functioning." The change is significant, says Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth: In other words, a man who routinely and compulsively has sex with children, and does so without the pangs of conscience and without impairing his functioning otherwise is not necessarily a pedophile and in need of treatment. Only the man who suffers because of his impulses is a pedophile requiring treatment.
quote: In 1998, a study published by the American Psychological Association claimed that sex between adults and children is not only less harmful than believed but might even by positive for "willing" children...
The APA article proposes ceasing to use terms such as child abuse, molestation, and victims and instead deploying nonjudgemental terms such as adult-child sex.
That study was retracted from being 'misused' in the courts after public outcry.
Here is some Kinsey for you:
quote:Kinsey concluded that children were sexual viable from birth and that molestation was harmless unless parents exhibited "hysteria" over the incidents.
And here is someone else:
quote: Richard A. Gardner, a clinical professor of child psychology...who is often cited in cases in which fathers charged with abuse are seeking custody, wrote, "Sexual encounters between and adult and a child are not universally considered to be reprehensible acts. The child might be told about other societies in which such behavior was and is considered normal. ..." As for the abusing father, he "has to be helped to appreciate that, even today, [pedophilia] is a widespread and accepted practice among literally billions of people" and that "he [the father] has a certain amount of bad luck with regard to the place and time he was born with regard to social attitudes toward pedophilia"
There is a lot more in this article. I've attempted only to show the a few of the studies quotes by real people, not the interpretation of the writers of the article, though I pretty much agree with them.
It might speak of 'extreme' viewpoints but it exists and legalizing homosexual marriage will bring us a step closer to this rather than farther away.
There are two more quotes that touch on the concerns I've already stated on this thread:
quote: In 1997, two lesbian activists produced a 78-minute video, It's Elementary, which uses actual footage of five schools to show teachers how to introduce the topic of homosexuality to children. The fmil was slanted for airing on San Francisco's PBS affiliate and has been offered to PBS stations around the nation. It has also been endorsed by the NEA and the American School Counselor Association.... This video is designed to teach children that "gay is OK" and elicits the sympathy of children by portraying critics of homosexuality as "gay bashers."
quote: Jaki Williams, a Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network activist at the Packer Collegiate School in New York, said that kindergarteners are "developing their superego" and "that's when the saturation process needs to begin."
Now who is trying to shove their morality down our throats? Or maybe not our throats, since we are a 'lost cause', but they intend to indoctrinate our children without our consent.
And here is different article that is a little bit of proof about our concerns that legalization of homosexual unions will damage the basic unit of society.
These are my real concerns. Some of these concerns I have personal experience with. Please address them without calling me narrowminded, bigoted, ignorant, hysterical, or trying to shove my subjective morality on society.
posted
O.K. Let's say that we know in general that there is a 50% chance greater chance in the general homosexual population of mental illness, pedophilia, etc. In the straight population, this chance is, say, 5%.
Now, let's say that I have a straight couple that wants to adopt and a gay couple that wants to adopt the same child. Should I screen each couple based on what I can see about them and discover about their history, and give the gay couple a chance, or should I automatically disqualify the gay couple based on the probability of mental illness for gay people in general?
Another point is that there are certain segments of the population that generally test higher for rates of mental illness. If we are able to disqualify gay people for candidates for adoption based on statistical evidence, then what about these other segments of the population? What about genetic screening?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This also begs the question of whether a history of mental illness should be used as criteria for adoption or parenting....
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In theory, we should individually appraise every case of parents who want to adopt.
But let me put this out for consideration. I think we can reasonably say that there are a number of homosexuals who got that way because they were molested. But no heterosexual got that way because they were molested.
I think we can reasonably say that there are a number of molested people who go on to become perpetrators.
I think we can reasonably say that there is a higher chance with the homosexual union that one or more of the partners is a pedophile. I am by no means saying that this reflects the majority of homosexual couples who desire children. But I suspect it would statistically double or triple the risk of sexual abuse of the child. This number may sound outrageous, but what I'm suggesting that if child sexual abuse occurs in 1 out of 1000 of the heterosexual population, it will occur in 2 or 3 of the homosexual population.
Risk. Should we be willing to take it? Do you think the homosexual couple seeking to adopt will be honest about their family history?
Sorrow and pain: how this must hurt those homosexuals who have no such problem and only want to provide safe and loving environments to children.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're just restating my point (edit: that is actually just restating your point but asking the tough follow up question that your point creates). I would love your opinion to my questions. (I'm not being snarky when I say this. I'm genuinely curious about your opinion.)
posted
People naturally have children. To mess with that too much goes down a slippery slope where one must conform to PC standards before big brother gives you the right to not have an abortion should you get pregnant.
But adoption is another story. Here we have an infant, already born, who needs a family. We can't, in good conscience, simply randomly toss it out to whoever wants it. And a LOT of people want it. So we have the advantage of being able to be very, very picky. And we should be. Only parents who post the lowest risk of harm and the highest chance of success for the child should be chosen.
What about older children? Typically, those children who are born of parents that have definately had their parental rights terminated because they proved to be harmful need caring families. There is not a lot of high demand for them, because they need more than most people can give and the state can be pretty disruptive too. In this case, the prospective parents sometimes need to go through even more background check and go through training, but it is at this point where I see the usefulness of caring, mentally stable homosexual parents coming into play. The need then outweighs the risk.
posted
Amka, I applaud you bringing up the hard statistics, knowing that it's going to seem offensive to a lot of people. I have read that exact pdf document you link to, and didn't bring it up here or post excerpts from it because, frankly, I didn't want to go through the attacks I would receive and the even more claims that I'm a bigot and a "gay basher"
If we all agree here that the schools have no place teaching religion (and I think we do) then I think we should also conclude that schools should not be teaching anything that attempts to undermine the religious instruction a child receives at home, particularly when we're discussing kindergarteners!
Older children that are capable of higher reasoning and able to understand that there are two sides to every debate, could be introduced to the concept, so long as no side was belittled. But I'm raising my five year old in my faith, which is my constitutional right to do. And in my religion, homosexual acts are sinful. In my religion, homosexual unions are not to be considered as equivalent to the sacrament of marriage established by God. If a school teaches my child something opposite to the teaching I give her, that school is now undermining my religious instruction.
Personally, I have a big problem with the idea of teaching kids that people who oppose homosexual unions are "gay bashers" You're putting my child in a situation where she thinks "Aren't these people talking about my Mom?"
Let's not even go into the fact that human sexuality isn't a subject that should be covered in kindergarten at all!
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Your most recent posts are one of the things that I was having difficulty addressing in your post a couple days a go. The referendum seems to not necessarily be about being gay, but about being 'mentally ill', about averages. As someone who, um, is a survivor of abuse, one of those populations that has a higher risk of carbuncles, fleas, tics, and mental illness, I have to say that playing the numbers game makes me nervous. I'm not saying I don't understand what you're saying and where you're coming from, though. I'm just nervous that as much as good thinking people like yourself might want to keep the issue solely about adoption, I'm afraid that it may balloon out....
The obvious answer, to me, seems to just not play that game at all and look for good people and not worry about whether they're gay or straight or black (another population at risk for certain behaviors...) or whatever.
posted
Unfortunately I can't read that document at work, it is blocked by our server. The numbers did seem to be from a difference set of findings than the ones thrown out there by the Family Research Council that is heavily influenced by Dobson.
Dobson started out just fine 20 years ago but most of the actual scientific stuff that I have seen in the past ten years involves a lot of junk science as well, which annoys me greatly.
The Canadian statistics in particular are very interesting.
posted
I was just reading Amka's stats, and I decided that pedophile men like sex and/or heavy petting.
Straight pedophile men take advantage of little girls, and gay pedophile men take advantage little boys. I bet you if you took a survey of girls who were abused, hetrosexual men could be painted with a horrible brush. Animals.
As to having sex with 16-19 year-olds. I've had sex with 16-19 year-olds. There was a time in my life when I was spending an inordinate amount of time trying to persuade 16-19 year-olds to have sex with me. The fact that when I was 16-19, I spent my energy and resolve trying to sleep with women as opposed to other men makes my pursuits a little less perverse and a little more healthy. In my defense, when I was 16-19, I was chasing 35 and 40 year-old women with the same alacrity. If I were chasing men, maybe I would have "caught" a few more.
In other words, Belle and Amka, look a little bit closer at your "hard statistics." It's not that the statistics are offensive, it's just that interpretations of statistics like those can run the gamut between ambiguous to ludicrous.
Now if it becomes the case that we start debating the merits of marriage between a seventeen year old and a forty year old, regardless of any party's gender, I may have something to say. But when we deny the love and commitment of two 30 year-old women, I think that's just silly.
I'm not saying that I agree that the stats she put out are correct. The problem is that you can't say with complete certainty that they are incorrect, either. So, for the sake of discussion, I am treating her stats as correct.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm saying that they are correct. I have complete faith that they are correct. But girls are attacked, by an overwhelming percentage, by heterosexual men. So much so that the idea of sanctioning heterosexual marriage could be construed as a little chancy at the least, and at the most, downright disrespectful to all of the female rape victims who have suffered the passions and excesses of this heterosexual majority. Straight men rape little girls, and I don't know if the state should be in the business of saying that the love that straight men have for women is okay.
Many, if not most, child molesters are not attracted to adult males or adult females at all. They're attracted to children. That's what makes them pedophiles. Their sexual attraction is not based on gender, but on age.
I'd also like to know how the sampling of homosexuals was chosen for the underage percentage, and whether a comparable sampling of heterosexuals was asked the same question as a control.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, I was trying to say exactly that. These statistics don't appear to be as bogus as ones I've seen in the past. I'm trying to take them more seriously as a result, despite the ownership of the website where they were posted and the religous affilliations of the organization.
The Canadian statistics in particular, do say that 30% of pedophiles admit to adult gay contact, but that leaves 70% that aren't. I suspect the Canadian statistics are less biased since this isn't nearly as much of a hotbed issue in Canada. I would have liked to look up the Canadian study to see if it was online but I don't think I have enough info to do so without acessing the article, which I can't from work due to the subject matter.
posted
"I think we can reasonably say that there are a number of homosexuals who got that way because they were molested. But no heterosexual got that way because they were molested."
Out of interest, why can we reasonably assume either of these two statements?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, you erroneously submit that since heterosexual people can be sexually violent and abusive this is indicative of the heterosexuality. This ignores the fact that sexual abusers are statistally more likely to be homosexual.
A study on the sexuality of rapists might be interesting.
You have not addressed the facts, you have simply said they prove nothing about the nature of homosexuality. I say that you are wrong. The facts indicate something, and that something is not pleasant.
Now, I have high cholesterol due to genetic factors. I can control it with diet, right now. But statistically, I am more likely to die of a heart attack and stroke than the normal person. This, despite the fact that these genetic factors were apparent in my grandmother who showed no signs of heart disease despite repeated tests (she died of parkinsons) and a mother who also shows no signs of heart disease. When I am about forty and this 'problem' requires drugs to keep under control, I will need to tie my tubes so that I cannot get pregnant at all and will face a risk to my liver. This, because of statistics.
There is the occasional child who dies as a result of a reaction to a vaccination. This is tragic and I grieve with the parent, but I still say that every child should be immunized. This is because far more children would die of the diseases they are being immunized against than are damaged by the vaccines.
We all know that statistics cannot describe individuals. And it is true many individuals might suffer because they do not conform to those statistics.
But they do describe societies. We must protect our societies to protect the individuals within it. It is a cyclical relationship. When we enact policies that give benifits to minorities despite statistics that say it will damage more people than it helps, then we've damaged society. This is not to say that the individuals within those societies are less deserving of benefits.
It is the hardest, most terrible thing when we must apply rules that will make life more difficult for some in order to protect others. But we do have to make those choices. And we better have a lot more than emotional ranting and raving before we come to a consensus.
Tom:
People are heterosexual by default. Even studies that showed some genetic tendancy only show a disposition towards homosexuality, not an absolute fate. Therefore, we know there is a lot in the environment that affects the person being homosexual or not. That environment may very well have included molestation. There are homosexuals who gained an attraction to the same gender due to sexual molestation they experienced as a child or teenager. These people, had they not been molested, would have been more likely to grow up heterosexual.
posted
Amka, the one stat that says 1/3 of molesters are homosexual, I wonder what defines homosexual in this case? Many children are molested by people that otherwise identify with heterosexuality. Did they just assume that if the molestor and the victim were the same gender, the molester was homosexual?
I'm not saying your stats are wrong, but what you have quoted allows for some ambiguity.
posted
Every human being is female by default (Though in the case of XY chromosome people, they would be barren). Saying something is default isn't the most useful statement in the world.
In terms of defining someone as a pedophile, post-pubescent, 17-year-old boys cannot be considered children. Legally, yes. But not the sexuality is not same as being attracted to pre-pubescent 10-year-olds.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
They might identify with heterosexuality, but the fact is they are acting on homosexual urges and therefore can be defined at the very least as bisexual.
A lot of heterosexual molestation occurs. I'm not denying that. In fact, I won't even deny that most molestation is heterosexual. That is found mostly in families, and within that, mostly by non-biological parents. In fact, adoption itself is a higher risk situation with regards to sexual abuse. Non-familial molestation far more likely to be homosexual.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, this is true to a point, but what do we call it when the adult male is 40 and is seducing the 16 yr old male and only wants those younger ones?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This ignores the fact that sexual abusers are statistally more likely to be homosexual.
I don't know if this is true. I mean, I'm under the impression that more women are sexually abused than men are. I'm also under the impression that most women who are sexually abused are abused by men. Maybe it's because an overwhelming percentage date-rapes, roofies, "no" means "no," stories I hear are about men accosting women. ________________________________________________
Even if homosexuals comprise a 30 percent of the sexual predators, more than double are heterosexual, and I'm a little suspicious of the absence of bisexuality in that survey. As Bok mentioned above, how do they define homosexuality and heterosexuality if they don't include bisexuality?
quote: A study of Canadian pedophiles has shown that 30 percent of those studied admitted to having engaged in homosexual acts as adults, and 91 percent of the molesters of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual.
Having been engaged in homosexual acts doesn't rule out that they were engaged in heterosexual acts as well. I think that encompasses the bisexuality.
I fail to see how that impacts the argument. Are you saying that in my world, bisexuals are better because at least they have some attraction for the opposite sex?
I think you're making an absolute statement here in a situation that's not actually backed by evidence.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
You know that the survival of the species depends on the fact that humans are, by default, attracted to the opposite sex. When 97% of all people are heterosexual, then I think that is statisically significant enough to say that humans are, unless there is a deviation from normal development, heterosexual.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, not quite. It's enough to say that 97% of humans are heterosexual -- but, since there's no way of knowing how much of a factor environment plays in the development of the remaining 3% (or in the 97% majority, for that matter), you have to stop there.
quote:A study of Canadian pedophiles has shown that 30 percent of those studied admitted to having engaged in homosexual acts as adults, and 91 percent of the molesters of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual.
I agree that non-familial boys are in greater danger from homosexual men than by heterosexual men. Just as non-familial girls are in greater danger from heterosexual men than they are from heterosexual females. And furthermore, heterosexual men are attacking girls left and right. _____________
I just don't agree that, "engaged in homosexual acts as an adult" makes you a homosexual. And the Canadian study doesn't list the parameters on the control group. We don't know how many of the non-pedophiles engaged in homosexual acts as an adult, and furthermore, who in this control group is more likely to lie. _______________
I'm also curious about the effects of repression, but that's fodder for another thread.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
The problem is that you can't say with complete certainty that they are incorrect, either. So, for the sake of discussion, I am treating her stats as correct.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
