Gay Marriage in Canada

Remove all ads!

And how, exactly, does the involvement of the groups you name totally invalidate this research? How, exactly, is the research methodology skewed?

I mean, certainly science can have a bit of bias. But you've neither 1) given any concrete examples of this bias, nor 2) proved that this bias is sufficient to invalidate their conclusions.

Besides your shadowy CWP and CLGC, and your conspiracy of Gay and Lesbian studies departments, you're also talking about the American Psychological Association here; if positions generally accepted by the APA are "joke research", then pretty much psychology as a social science is joke research. I mean, the APA has been at the center of US psychology since pretty much the beginning; it's past presidents have included William James, Hugo Muensterberg, John Dewey, etc etc etc, guys among the founders of the field, and up to today it reads like a who's who in US psychology. This isn't at all to say that every position taken by the APA is infallible, it's just to say that you'll have to go further than attributing some kind of conspiracy theory to debunk their position...

 

There's an old saying: "It takes a community to raise a child." So, even assuming that Tal is right about this (which I doubt he is) it would take an entire gay community to affect a child enough to 'turn' him/her. And considering the infertility of unassisted gay couples, I doubt that it will ever happen.

[rant]
I mainly don't understand how people find gays and lesbians (or a number of other things) so offensive to their beliefs. What makes anyone think that these people are capable of defying God's will? If He didn't want there to be gay people, there wouldn't be any, pure and simple.
[/rant]

 

Felinoid --

I have to disagree with you here. While I do not hold a degree in psychology, it's a pretty well known and documented fact that parents imprint on their offspring quite strongly and at a very early age. Some well documented examples of behaviors passed along: Violence or sexual abuse -- when the child witnesses it and it happens for years --the child ends up thinking that it's normal, before he can logically figure out it isn't. Other examples -- drinking, smoking,swearing and any number of positive behaviors as well -- it goes on and on. The most critical environment to a child is his HOME environment -- whatever behaviors or norms that the parents possess will most likely be passed on to the child.

 

Yeah, but what behaviours are we worried about being passed on? Homosexuality? I thought that wasn't a learned behaviour.

I still think that most homosexual parents would probably be no worse than most heterosexual parents. There are so many terrible heterosexual parents but we can't stop any of them having kids.

 

By behaviors, I merely meant anything that a child can see and mimic -- actions....but call them what you will.....2 people of the same sex kissing looks a good bit different than 2 people of opposite sex. (i.e. 2 mommies kissing, etc....you get my meaning.)

 

You've done well citing the Law of Moses, but according to the New Testament, it was fulfilled with the life, mission, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Ten Commandments and the prohibition of Homosexuality, incest and Beastiality remain however. The Apostle Paul in a couple places in the New Testament condemned any and all Sexually impure practices.

Some of the people here will not allow the faithful any credibility in defending Religion, then the Gay Community ought be allowed the same credibility in defending their way of life. A bit sarcastice? Maybe, but their conclusions may be tainted by their agenda.

When you have an axe to grind, the first blunt edges ground away would be fairness and accuracy. But it's a case of Science being used to support one groups vain agenda. This may be just as offensive to some as using the Name of God to justify some vain attrocity (like 9/11)...

IIRC, Many mental illnesses are attributed to biological (neurochemical) causes, which is irrelevent to who raises you, be they straight or gay. That also is not the issue. The concern is what would the child be learning. From hearing the children speak, one set of fears is coming true--the erosion of morality!

We, as people have the freedom to choose our actions. We are told in the Bible that Homosexuality is wrong, but we have to choose to obey the law. We are still free to disobey God's law, and violate His will.

And this is one of the big reasons some of us don't want homosexuals (or drug addicts or perverts) raising children. It teaches things that are morally wrong to be acceptable and okay.

As Bion pointed out, Homosexuality was removed from the DSM in the early 1970's. This means that Homosexuality is not a mental disorder, therefore it must be a learned behaviour.

Yes, but we must do what we can to raise the bar for parenthood wherever possible--including empowering the state to remove children from abusive situations (including severe substance abuse) and placing them where they can be fostered in safety.

Exactly. There are people that don't want children subjected to that in their formative years. I am one of them. There are many of us that believe that the 21st century can and must include a morality that hasn't really changed in over 2000 years...

 

But who can define morality for us?

 

Try researching countries outside of Europe. Before the advent of Christianity I think you'll find that Japan in particular, India to a degree, and to a lesser extent China, all had social exceptance of homosexuality. Look at some of the historical figures (like Gilgamesh). Hardly primative society's as they were far more advanced than Europe at the time.

 

What about straight couples - can you imagine how it affects a child to witness their father looking at hardcore pornography? Much worse than catching your parents 'at it'. The parents could also be swingers and have strange people come over for 'a wee bit of fun' - also something that would be damaging to a child.

So it hardly matters on the parents sexuality, just how they bring up the children.

 

Gnarff, there are people - including me - who don;t think children should be exposed to your kind of religious fundamentalism in thier formative years. So which one of us should have the right to make laws that define wht kind of family the other is permitted to have?

Amen. HB said it several pages ago, and I'm sure others have repeated it since: there are many, many hetero people who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children. But God forbid we do anything whatsoever to take away their basic biological right, even if it's for the good of the children. Consistency, please.

 

@Rally:

Speaking of consistency, there is some difference between biological parentage and adoption. While I agree that many, many heterosexual parents should never have had children (hey, what about breeding licenses!), it's still different from fetching a ready child on demand. Adoption exists for the sake of the children, not to make childless people feel better, let alone people who would never physically be able to have children, regardless of fertility issues.

Next, the fact that there are many hetero people who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children, which is a real fact, still doesn't make it any better on the homosexual side. I'm not saying that homosexuals should be kept so far away from children as possible, but I am saying that homosexualism and homosexual behavioral patterns, as well as acceptance of homosexual behaviour, should.

In short, I don't want children to be exposed to any kind of "gay is okay" talk. True, I can think of thousands of other things I don't want children to be exposed to, but this still doesn't do away with the issue at hand.

@Cesard:

Right. But daddy bringing a guy home or mummy bringing a girl home, let alone two daddies or two mummies is not something any child should experience in life. The fact alone that someone is attracted to his own gender doesn't automatically make him a bad parent. Nonetheless, exposure to homosexual behaviour in the formative stage, is not going to affect the child in any positive way. Even if it will not push the child into seeking homosexual experience, which I doubt ("Hey! If we can adopt children legally, we are free to bring them up as we damn well please! We are gay and we want our children to be gay!"... imagine. Same way as it was with marriage: "We can marry, so we're just like any other couple, so we should be able to adopt children."), it's still going to fill the child's head with wrong ideas. Homosexuality needs to be treated, not accepted.

@Carcaroth:

Sorry, but I can't find any male anal in Gilgamesh. Come to think about it, there is no male oral in there, either.

I'm not sure if I would agree with the thesis that Japan, India and China were more advanced than Europe, but this is besides the point, anyway. What's important is, were gay couples accorded the same legal status as normal marriages? Were they allowed to adopt children?

Finally, not in response to anyone's words in particular, what we see at gay pride parades demanding rights, surely should make us think twice about letting any of those people have children. Two daddies or two mummies is already bad, but what about those guys who walk around almost naked in some pink thongs or cross-dressed or wearing BDSM gear? That's not just same sex attraction. Those people are full-fledged perverts and they are too fixated on their own sick sex drive to focus on anything, let alone children.

[ July 04, 2005, 13:24: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Right. Adoption IS about what's best for the child - and as an adoptee, I think I have a little experience in the matter. All I'm saying is that being hetero doesn't automatically make someone fit to be a parent, and being homo doesn't automatically make someone unfit. All prospective adoptive parents still have to go through the same assessment criteria as before - that hasn't changed. The only thing different now is that other homosexuals are legally protected to be allowed to enter the process.

Do private agencies with established criteria still have the right to reject someone on the basis of sexual orientation? If the government takes away that right, I do think tyhey're wrong. But that's only for private agencies, not public ones.

@Chev - You're obsessed with the human body and other people's morality. Ditto my comment to Gnarfflinger, above.

 

It always has to be about sex with you doesn't it!
Well you're also the one who goes on about it being different with a wife.

Translation based on the "standard" Akkadian "edition"

From Gilgamesh's mother to her son:

Refering to Gilgamesh and Enkidu

They then do a lot of hand-holding, for example:

Your thoughts from a different thread

Gilgamesh at Enkidu's deathbed:

Stated? no, implicated? certainly.

Japan:

http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/homosexuality.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Japan

couple of sources, there are many more if you look.

China:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_China#Ancient_China

"Advanced" is a difficult concept to measure, Europe had it's Dark ages where most of the knowledge and understanding were lost and the East was certainly more advanced during that period. I believe the East also has a longer history of culture (Art, Writing, Music) than Europe does, although you could argue it didn't progress as fast. It certainly can't be said they were primative, which Tal was clearly stating had to be the case for homosexuals to be accepted.

 

Or, perhaps homosexuality is both innate and not a disorder?

Sigh. You realize you're just assuming this to be true, without having any hard evidence, right?

And without citing any specific objection, it seems to my your objection is basically a non-objection. Are you accusing all these groups of fixing the data? Of making up their studies out of thin air? Some of the journals cited in bibliography are top-line journals in the mainstream of psychology (as opposed to specialized journals): these journals are carefully peer-reviewed. Sure, errors can still happen, but gross fraud or poor methodology isn't going to make it through, I guarantee that.

In fact, the paper cited here describes its methodology, points out when it thinks its sample sizes are too small, and is careful in saying that more extensive, long-range tests are needed. So I could imagine an objection saying, "hey, look, the sample sizes for these tests are too small, perhaps if a larger test were done, we'd see that, perhaps, children raised by gay parents are a little more likely to become gay." And I could see the possibility of that; I mean, for one thing, having not been raised in a homophobic environment, they'd be less likely to be closeted if they were born gay. But to say that all of it must have been made up, and that people can simply pursue whatever adgenda they'd like in the social sciences without any regard for empirical results, seems to me to be ignorant of how the social sciences are done.

Not that I think that this should have any bearing on social policy, but here goes:

"The least of these commandments"? Seems a little vague to me. It couldn't be the least of the 10 Commandments could it? I had no idea that there was an order. Perhaps it's the least of the *any* of the commandments in the Old Testament, in which case, from where exactly do you pull out the idea that Jesus is referring specifically to homosexuality and incest? In fact, after this point (and note the attack on those "pharisees" who would be overly legalistic in their use of the bible ), he just brings up the issues of 1)anger against one's brother and 2) adultery, in thought as well as deed.

I still hold that people are being incredibly selective when they try to say that condemning homosexuality is a core position of the new testament. Especially as Jesus clearly has so much raw venom against the wealthy, against being wedded to private property, and against claiming the ability to judge others based on an interpretation of the law...

 

If not disorder, then what? Perfectly normal viable alternative way designed by nature? Sorry, that's ridiculous. Homosexuality is no more natural than tuberculosis or cancer. Or broken bone. Whatever.

How does that pertain to the subject?

BTW, sorry to break it to you but homosexuality is sexual attraction to the other gender, so it has to be about sex. Otherwise, it would be called friendship. Like beer buddies, you know. No humping, just drinking beer and talking.

Sounds awfully clear, doesn't it? It's poetry and one from thousands of years ago, while the passage is highly symbolic. There's nothing about having sex with him, let alone adopting children together. Heck, it might even just be a reference to friendship as in:

Kissing is a standard greeting for friends in many cultures. In the ancient East, kissing was a normal greeting between friends, even on the mouth. Myself, I remember kissing male family members on the cheek.

Holding hands is gross for guys in our culture, but it's normal even in these times in Middle Eastern cultures. It would happen in Europe up to WWI or maybe even WWII in some sentimental situations. Surely it would make me feel weird if a guy tried that on me but it doesn't have to be sexual. Come to think about it, fathers and young sons hold hands around here and brothers occasionally do.

He said "some", IIRC. Primitive communities, as a rule, have the one man and one woman model.

But that way one could say David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers. I actually remember that gay Episcopalian bishop trying to prove Jesus was gay from passages about Jesus and John the Apostle.

Sounds pretty gay, but I'm sure the symbolics could be explained otherwise.

 

What is impure with two people making love? Whether or not homosexual love is impure is pretty much a matter of perspective. And subject to personal bias.

Things that are wrong according to your personal moral code. Thats a far cry from being morally wrong.

That cant be quite right. If homosexuality is indeed learned behaviour, then from whom did the homosexuals learn it during childhood? Certainly not from their heterosexual parents. Proof enough a child wont take after its gay/lesbian parents in matters of sexuality. At most they will be gay-friendly - a gloomy concept for some, I reckon.

You do realize the gay parades are not exclusively populated by people who are into SM practices? Rather that they represent a fraction of the gay community? That SM isnt a sexual variant typical for and dominant among homosexuals either?
Hence my failure to see how this can be connected to homosexuals and their ability to be proper parents to a child.

And why would that be true?

 

I never said there weren't. All I've ever said is that homosexuals WHO WOULD MAKE GOOD PARENTS should have an equal opportunity to become parents.

 

Exactly my thoughts on the Bible.

It seems to me quite funny to hear people otherwise deeply suspicious of evolution basing their dislike of homosexuality on the biological necessity of reproduction. And by the way, the idea that social behaviors are also evolved, and that groups work together to ensure the evolution of a species (not just individuals) is very well-established. Think of the swarming behavior of birds (groups of smaller birds throwing themselves at predator birds, thus putting themselves individually in dangers, to confuse the preditor and drive it away), or of camouflage patterns in zebras (so that when zebras run as a herd, it makes it harder for predators to pick out individuals). And generally the more complex the species, the more highly evolved the social practices.

But the main point is this: how can anyone say with a straight face that a child will be more traumatized to be raised by caring, affluent gay parents than left an orphan, especially in a third world country. Do you know what kinds of lives orphans have in third world countries? Have you seen, say, street kids in India, forced at a young age into begging or even prostitution? And it's not like gay couples would be depriving hetero couples of children to adopt; unfortunately, there's a ready supply. Look at the story of Lisa I posted above; would you really rather that she would have stayed with her cocaine-addicted birthmother? As a result of being adopted by gay men, she will go to college and have a successful life, things that most likely wouldn't have happened otherwise. So I say: good for her.

 

Not more ridiculous then your comparison. Nature does not design. Neither is it a book on morality.
From biological perspective neither cancer nor tuberculosis should be treated, since it allows for less resistant/more susceptible genotypes to spread through population, weakening the overall resistance.
Similarly, infertile heterosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt, since they cannot produce any offspring and, after all, you're not going to get any out of infertile heterosexual couples alone.

And Taluntain, if you're still wondering about the lizards, it's just a group of species in which homosexuality increases the amount of offspring produced. Unproductive quirk?