posted
Do you have any evidence that kids could be harmed solely by virtue of being adopted by a homosexual couple?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. You believe that being sexually experimental (not necessarily including sex, but physical and emotional activities) is bad.
2. It seems that a higher percentage of girls with lesbian parents have reported sexual experimentation compared to girls of straight parents. Lets say, 40% versus 10%.
3. You want to deny all gay couples adoption rights because of that 30% difference.
-----
It really really sounds like you find it statistically advantageous to your moral righteousness to deny an entire group the rights that you, as a parallel group, have.
I disagree with your moral laws, and I absolutely hate it when these same moral laws manage to enter governmental laws.
But more importantly, I think it's repugnant to stereotype an entire group of people by the supposed negative effects that a small number would have.
After all, to follow your reasoning, you wish to remove all democrats from adoption, because statistically, their children are more sexually experimental than republican children*, for example.
* or Ivy League couples versus State school couples, or any other dividing group. You'll find statistical differences if you look.
Too many confounding variables.
(Edit: I apologize for all the singlet paragraphs. It just looks so much longer in this tiny message field!)
posted
"I think it is very disingenous of you folks to disregard his arguments simply because he has not experienced sex."
Personally, I'm not disregarding his arguments. I'm just aware that he is, according to his own admission, a repressed homosexual who's been trying to "train" himself to find women physically attractive. I respect him for caring so much about his faith that he'd put this kind of effort into denying his sexuality, but I also recognize that this puts him FIRMLY into the minority when it comes to romantic experience.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
[quote]Personally, I'm not disregarding his arguments. I'm just aware that he is, according to his own admission, a repressed homosexual who's been trying to "train" himself to find women physically attractive. I respect him for caring so much about his faith that he'd put this kind of effort into denying his sexuality, but I also recognize that this puts him FIRMLY into the minority when it comes to romantic experience. [quote]
SHeesh! I missed that entirely. Where'd he say that? Who are we talking about anyway?
I'm so confused.
Is confusion a contraindication for becoming an adoptive parent???
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Popatr. Page 4 of this thread. Basically, he'd always been stimulated by just about anything -- male, female, or inanimate -- and was scared by a gay friend's tentative advance into "practicing" being attracted only to women, lest he wind up gay himself. I've never heard of anyone else on earth who's felt this way, so I find it really intriguing.
posted
Except Tom words it in a way I don't like. Instead of "repressed homosexual", I would say "Temporarily detoured Heterosexual". Because, as I said, my interests were developing in girls at first. My friend's advances came when I was 12 or 13, and they put my mind on a different track--which I rejected and I placed my mind back on its original track. I wouldn't say that it took more than 5-6 years to become solely interested in girls (which is where I was headed at first anyway). In fact when I was 19, I had a missionary companion who I was getting to like--and I discovered he was gay when he asked me to take him to bed. Guess what? There was absolutely zero temptation or interest. Not even a little arousal. So it has been about another 8 years since I've really had to think about it.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Post removed. I sincerely thought popatr was about 16 years old. Didn't realize this stuff was already resolved in your mind.
Never mind.
I'll just say that I think you put way too much stock in your prior "attraction" and made way too much of it. Let it go. You weren't gay for having those thoughts. It's pretty normal, actually and most men are still heterosexual in spite of such thoughts. Even if they do act on them as teens or pre-teens.
posted
Bob, I'm glad I read your unrevised post though, before you removed it.
I don't freak out about it now, but I do think that I could have been gay. Maybe you are right though, that even if I had tried it I would eventually discover that it didn't work for me. I can't be sure, 'cause I didn't go there. But I prefer to think of it as a choice.
I wish I could check up on another friend I had then, who I think did do some stuff with our temptor--find out what his life is like now.
Bob, I have talked about this stuff with my parents--but no one else but a few on beleifnet a few years ago, and you guys now.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since you haven't talked to anyone about this stuff, I'm very glad you saw my prior post before I changed it.
I'm glad I changed it though.
My heartfelt advice is to speak with someone whose opinion you trust and who has real experience counseling young men. Ask them point blank if this stuff seems normal to them or is something you should worry about and resolve before getting married.
I think the answer may well set your mind at ease and save you a lifetime's worth of doubt and misgivings.
Frankly, if your parents are like most, talking to them about this would only make someone feel like more of a freak! I hope that wasn't your experience, but basically I think you've wrapped yourself around the axle on something that is completely normal and no big deal. And nobody ever talks about it because it ain't nothing. Unless you let it be something.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, popatr, that's pretty normal. I still don't agree with you, but I guess I understand just a little bit better where you're coming from.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to hand it to you Amka, you hit the nail on the head. The problem that most people have with homosexuality only begin with the issue itself. Homosexuality is no worse than say an adulterer or fornicator, the action that offends me, and most people is the blatant way that homosexuals act. Not only do they want to be gay, the want to make it so that they force feed it to the rest of the country, whether they want it or not. There are not fornicator plays or books, and there isn't a fornicator political movement. That is why it doesn't offend people. That is why these Supreme Court decisions are so wrong. Not only do they trample over state's rights, but they force communities, such as my own, that do not support the issue to embrace it.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
The problem that most people have with religion only begin with the issue itself. Christianity is no worse than say a Cultist or white bigot, the actions that offend me, and most people is the blatant way that Christians act. Not only do they want to be religious, the want to make it so that they force feed it to the rest of the country, whether they want it or not. There are not white bigot plays or books, and there isn't a white bigot political movement. That is why it doesn't offend people. That is why these Supreme Court decisions are so wrong. Not only do they trample over state's rights, but they force communities, such as my own, that do not support the issue to embrace it.
Now, I don't believe that all Christians are evil. But many Christians do try and "force communities to embrace" their moral codes. You don't agree with gays moral codes, and I don't agree with yours.
We both think that in order for one side to win, the other side must lose.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
An excellent point! Everything can be taken to extremes. I agree that forcefeeding Christianity is morally repugnant. And if homosexuals want to be married, then that is their issue. However, I do wish they wouldn't do it in North Carolina.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"are not fornicator plays or books, and there isn't a fornicator political movement."
Wow. You're the first person I've heard voice this kind of opinion who didn't already think that most of American pop culture consisted of fornicator books and plays, and that Democrats made up the fornicator political movement. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Homosexuality is no worse than say an adulterer or fornicator, the action that offends me, and most people is the blatant way that homosexuals act.
Leaving aside the dismissal of homosexuality as a sin, may I point out that in this country, it really doesn't matter whether something offends you if it has no other damaging effects. This thread, or at least the parts of it that haven't been digressions or bickering, has been an exploration of what, if any, damage is done to our society and its members by allowing gay marriage. Have you anything to offer along those lines?
[ August 10, 2003, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Chris- Homosexuality is not so much a danger, as an undesirable element. It is morally repugnant to many people. Therefore a community (City, State, County etc.) chould have the right to allow it or not.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, man. I'd maybe think about putting on a flame-retardant suit and jellying your skin after that post.
Though you may find the concept of homosexuality "offensive," there are a few people around here that are admittedly gay, and truly wonderful people. Out of respect for them do you think you could find another way to phrase it than "undesirable element?"
posted
Ryan: as you have undoubtedly broken at least a few rules in the bible as well, and probably continue to break some of them, would you care to explain what makes homosexual people more morally repugnant than you?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the contrary, uranium is a highly desireable element! It's useful for all sorts of wonderful things, most notably nuclear fusion. Lots of people make big money on uranium mines, though that's not so true nowadays because no one's building nuclear reactors anymore
The thing is, I'm not arguing about a community's rights. I'm trying to find out why, exactly, people find homosexuality morally repugnant. I'm afraid it's simply not as self-evident to me, and so actions to keep it out of the community - something about as likely as banning all left-handed people - completely confuse me.
I'm not trying to mock you or your beliefs, but to understand them. Homosexual acts between two consenting adults are frowned upon in scripture and they don't produce children. So far, those are the only provable statements I've heard, and neither is enough to condemn somebody.
[ August 10, 2003, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Which brings us back around to the 'sanctity of marriage' and 'marriage is a contract with society for the purpose of creating a safe and stable environment for children'.
First of all, let me say that I think there are things much worse for families and marriage than homosexual marriage and adoption. And that is no-fault divorce. I think that has wreaked much more damage on children than homosexual marriage would.
Let me define a safe and stable environment: It's foundation is a good marriage. There is actually a study which lists the best conditions for children, but I forgot the details and where to find it. If anyone has info for me to go to the source, please do. I don't think this one addresses homosexual couples.
By my memory, the best situation -> worst, moving down:
Children who have two parents in their first marriage.
One parent lost by death, never remarried.
Divorce without remarriage.
One parent lost by death and other parent remarries into another stable marriage.
Divorce with a single stable remarriage.
serial marriage, relationships
I forget where 'single and never married' fits. The study, if I remembered correctly, was based on how the kids emotional needs were being met. Are there exceptions? Of course. These are statistics, not individual cases. But statistical evidence is a tool we need to use when making policy for society. I am given to understand that even when the parents don't have an optimal relationship, staying together is better for the children, unless the situation is high conflict. *stops rambling*
Back to the point: a stable marriage is the best situation for children. This isn't a moral statement, it is a statement proven by studies. A stable marriage most likely to occur when a person prepares for it from the time they are a child. When they commit themselves to a future spouse as young teens, and refuse to engage in sexual activity except with their spouse, who they may not even have met yet, they are already praciticing being committed and faithful in marriage. They've already sacrificed pleasure for the sake of a greater benefit. All of this is one of the reasons I believe you should not have sex before marriage. Being more likely to be 'sexually adventurous' as a teen is less likely to produce those ideal results. They also have a greater risk of STDs and pregnancy. Sexual education can reduce those risks, but those girls are still engaging in higher risk activities than those who remain virgins. How is this neutral to society?
And last, I would like someone to address my previous argument that if we do make homosexual marriage legal, then why shouldn't we also allow polygamy?
edit: I am aware that my post doesn't even begin to address the emotional ramifications of these things to homosexuals, and I do not mean to negate this aspect. Their feelings, needs, desires are very real and human. I think that they could very well find a niche in society in which they can contribute, and I'd like to address that later on, but I have to go now and don't have time.
posted
This guy is hilarious; He doesn't prove or show anything except that he's a homophobe. He must not understand that the same unity can be shared by gays as can be shared by straight people. Putting all retardedness aside, he still doesn't back up at least one of his comments with support, but then again it would be difficult to back up "Gays are like penguins." With every word he contradicts the one before it, and it seems as though he's in need of some serious therapy. Gays should definitely not prevent YOU from enjoying YOUR marriage with YOUR wife. Gays have nothing to do with it, and this truly proves how stupid discriminating against them is. Posts: 1 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, Amka, thank you for once again responding thoughtfully to the questions at hand, rather than spouting knee-jerk statements based on nothing more than prejudice and tradition, as others have.
Is it possible to explain that I agree almost all that you've said, except for the first part? "Marriage is a contract with society for the purpose of creating a safe and stable environment for children." For what it's worth, I agree with this. But marriage is also a contract with society to establish a stable relationship between two people. Marriage at its best encourages responsibility, dedication to each other, and offers companionship to two people so they will always have someone to support them, to help them, to love them. It is in society's interest that people be paired off and faithful; for their own emotional stability, to reduce the amount of promiscuity, to help keep society itself going.
My support of civil unions and gay mariage stems from a few simple beliefs.
I don't think there is anything inherently evil or sinful about homosexuality. I believe that there will always be a certain percentage of homosexuals in any society. I believe that providing homosexuals with a social structure that encourages stability and discourages promiscuity will have a positive effect on the society in general.
Allowing gay marriage offers such a structure to people who have previously felt they were outside society, outside the community, and therefore may not have had the loyalty or sense of belonging that the rest of us have had. Allowing gay marriage does not affect the goals of marriage as you have stated them, as they won't be producing their own children, and surely children they adopt will be better off than in a state-run facility.
In short, I see a class of people who desperately want to legally wed and join society as productive members without lying or being untrue to themselves.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have just read the last 4 pages of posts and feel a bit too overwhelmed to respond as I would like. However, I will say a couple of things:
1. It seems clear that the only objections people can come up with to gay marriage boil down to "because it's against God's rules". This includes the expression of fears that it will "promote the lifestyle", etc., which totally begs the question of why "the lifestyle" is inherently bad. (Not to mention what "lifestyle" exactly you are talking about. All kidding aside, other than who they sleep with, there are as many variations of 'lifestyles' among gays as there are cultural differences in the world.)
2. If you're LDS and have homosexual thoughts and/or tendencies, I cannot stress to you how important it is to resolve these feelings completely before you involve yourself deeply in a heterosexual relationship. Clearly, I cannot say how many homosexuals in the LDS church have been successful in hiding this tendency and maintaining successful(?) heterosexual marriages, but I do know of dozens of homosexual LDS men who have married LDS women and later in life either their marriage had ended in divorce or they were actively engaging in homosexual activity unbeknownst to their spouses. I myself was told that I should get married and that my tendency to be tempted with homosexuality was not a topic that I needed to "burden" my wife with. Now that has to be the most irresponsibly dangerous and dishonest advice I have ever heard escape the mouth of a religious leader. I hope anyone who gives this advice will one day have to answer to all the women who become victims of it.
3. There are a few specific posts I have some choice words of reply to, but I've been civil thus far and don't want to break my streak. Thankfully there have been others on this forum who have supplied appropriate rebuttals, so I'll judiciously hold my tongue.
EDIT: to add, regarding point 1 above, please feel free to correct me if I missed an arguement that doesn't fit this summation.
posted
Ralphie-Your right undesirable element is strong wording. However I mean that a homosexual unions do not create a positive environment for raising children, do not create children, and offend many people. These unions have no positive contribution to society. So in fact they are undesirable. I know lots of gay people too. So I have nothing against them personally.
Fugu- I am a sinful person. However when I sin I understand that I am in error. I do not try to force others to sin with me, I do not make my sin into a lifestyle, and I come to repentence.
Chris- The issue is natural laws. Certain truths that are self evident. Is there a reason that heterosexuality is the dominant form of sexuality? It is because it is natural. The human genitalia is suited best to heterosexual sexual contact. It is natural. That is why it has become repugnant even to people without religion.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
"I know lots of gay people. It's not personal - I just find there most personal practices to be repugnant, offensive, unnatural and damaging to society. But hey, don't call me a homophobe! I have, like, heaps of gay friends!"
posted
Ryan, the natural argument is so hideously flawed even the strongest opponents of homosexuality have largely abandoned it.
There are two primary flaws: one, homosexuality is very natural. Many animal species practice it regularly, oftentimes about as much as het sex. Secondly, there are many things that are natural which are generally agreed upon to be bad/wrong. Such as going around naked (you think that's immoral, right?).
Either of these two counter arguments completely invalidates the natural argument.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, even if every "fact" about homosexuality you have stated were true, your statement about homosexual unions adding nothing to society would be false. Society is based on stability. If homosexual people are prevented from entering into stabilizing relationships similar to marriage (and a homosexual person entering into a het marriage would be both wrong and very unstable), the stability of society is undermined.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That most definetly is not my web page. I disagree with that guy on all counts except the one about only sex within marriage.
Fugu- A homosexual union does NOTHING to increase the stability of society. If anything it decreases stability.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
If a couple decide they'll be together for life, how does it destabilise society for them to have official recognition of that decision?
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
It probably would destabalize society by providing a poor environment to raise children. And what about AIDS? It is PROVEN that homosexual intercourse has a higher chance for AIDS infection. That disease ravages the planet.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, its proven that anal sex has a higher rate of HIV transmission. That's not actually an exclusively homosexual act, you know.
However, incidence of AIDS in the West is, to my understanding, dropping. It is in African countries where AIDS is primarily transferred between heterosexuals that the diseased is the most "ravaging".
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pure speculation on your children idea, excepting of course the previous concept that having an open mind regarding sexuality is a problem in and of itself.
I'm personally of the opinion that a homosexual couple would be every bit as good parents as a hetro - and let's face it, as the article points out, we don't exactly do too well even in hetro marriages these days. I can't remember the last time I dated a girl whose parents were still together.
You're right, unprotected anal sex does have a higher chance of infection with AIDS. But this point itself hardly leads to the downfall of society, if a gay couple are - a couple, then they're not out infecting other people. Even if you do use the rusty old "gay people spread AIDS" tripe.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
In debating this, I've often seen reasoning that since a homosexual marriage doesn't produce offspring, it is against the natural order?
I assume that a lot of folks using this argument are thinking mainly of homosexual relationships among two men and forgetting the lesbian side of the equation.
In lesbian relationships, it's quite easy for one or both to choose to become pregnant and pursue such. Hence, children.
And in this day of surrogate births, production of children is not barred from a two-male partnering.
Welcome to the modern world. A donor and a turkey-baster is about as high tech as it has to be.
But let's get down to it, when most people are arguing against homosexuality, they are arguing against two men having sex together because that's what seems to creep them out on such a deep level.
Homophobia is mostly directed against gay men and certainly in it's most rabid forms is oriented that way.
To paraphrase Bobcat Goldthwaite: "I'm gonna beat ya up little queer boy because you're queer... (whispered) and because I'm really attracted to ya deep down inside."
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Comedy gold.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
of course!
