Homosexuality

Remove all ads!

"How much blood has God (or the idea of him) spilt? Religion is inherently very conservative and therefore resistant to change, and so will never keep itself up to date."

Thats a very ignorant thing to say - Why blame religion on corrupt leaders? So G W Bush says this is a war between Good and Evil, does this mean that the war on Iraq (or even the crusades) is Gods will?

 

Absolutely true. As a former psychology student I concur. Wether you believe homosexuality to be a choice or not is not relevant, as parents are always rolemodels for their children. A boy's behaviour and persona *will* be strongly influenced by his father, as a girls will be influenced by her mother. Of course the parent of opposite gender has a balancing influence as well (believed to offer an example of the opposite gender for later in life, for example). So a boy who has two girly gay fathers will invariably assume this form of behaviour himself, and effectively become "gay" (at least in behaviour and way of thinking, if not sexual preference... and I believe those to be close enough to the same thing to eventually amount to sexual preference being affected as well).

But all this means nothing. As said, this all depends on wether or not you view homosexuality as a bad thing. Otherwise this would be comparable to a single parent raising children (outruling the obvious where the original parent of a child would raise theirs alone because of divorce or accident etc). As right now the society does not forbid single parents from adopting or raising their own children from scratch (through artificial insemination for example, if insemination is the right word in English), it cannot treat homosexual people any differently either. Unless it does indeed find homosexuals to be harmful.

I can't really comment on this. I find the idea of homosexuality repulsive, yes. But on logical grounds there really is no reason why they should be denied the right to have children. The best comparison I can find is the question about destroying handicapped embryos instead of allowing them to grow to babies and then grownup people, when you know what they're going to have to live with. And even this comparison sucks, because if homosexuality is not viewed as harmful, then they cannot be assumed to suffer the same amount of pain a handicapped person would.

So in the end there really is only one logical answer to this:

If there is any proof of homosexuality being actually harmful and not just a form of freedom like so many other bizarre things about humans, then they should not be allowed to raise children, and should in fact be put to treatment to get rid of this mental disorder (now even I don't see this happening). And if they are deemed ok by the society, but it is thought that children should have as normal a growth environment as possible, then ONLY a heterosexual *pair* should be allowed to take and raise children, and the only exception to this would be parents left single by outside causes. The third option then, would be to keep things the way they are, and allow homosexuals the full right to adopt children, on the same grounds as any single parent would.

 

You who disagree with homosexual couples being allowed to adopt do you prefer the children growing up in an orphanage somewhere? Sure the kid will probably be a bit odd, but who isnt? Sure the kid will probably catch a lot of flak from other kids. I still think it is preferable than to spend the first years of ones life chained to a cradle in an orphanage with 300 other kids and two nurses where you get a diaper change once a week and barely enough food to live.

 

And you who talk about the rolemodels of parents and the examples set by them for the offspring: your logic is fundamentally flawed in one aspect! You take a conventional father/mother rolemodel and then impose it on a gay couple. Naturally, you find some problems. You conclude that those problems originate from the fact that the couple is gay. But what about the rolemodel? Couldn't it be obsolete as well?

Scientifically speaking, we are glad whenever we find a contradiction, a gap between as is and to be. A careful and unbiased analyzation then leads us (ìn the best case) to new insights, understanding and knowledge. But in order to gain reliable results we have to be unbiased and start from scratch - we mustn't assume that our premisses are sound in any case and start without scrutinizing them. Do the psychological tests and investigations addressed above fulfill these criteria?

And, as an afterthought, to think all homosexuals are "girly men" is a cliché - and as such legitimate in some (prominent?) cases, but hardly applicable in all circumstances. There are soft heterosexual males and dominant heterosexual women as well.

Yirimyah: religion changes all the time. Todays christendom is hardly congruent to the one 2000 years ago. Otherwise, how could we have protestants, catholics, orthodox christs or whatever?

 

From Amaster:

False analogy to racism (skin colour and eyes/nose shape is a cosmetic detail affecting looks only; therefore much different from the dichotomous division between two varied genders). Calling names to relieve yourself from the need to give a thought to the enemy side's arguments. Implying the other side is emotional, thus capable of negative feelings based on instinct and no rational opposition (right or wrong regardlessly). In short, a very simplistic solution to your problems. That isn't going to work.

All people who came up with single line responses along the lines of "I couldn't agree more" fell in the same trap. I believe this kind of approach is not any different from a classic conservative mindset that closes mind to the opposition's arguments, deeming them collectively to be emotionally unstable or intellectually incapable, thus removing the need to consider them seriously. AMaster at least came up with what he wrote, so he gave it some thought. You people... didn't. That's about all I have to say, but it's not like anything more needs to be said here, anyway.

How is 'this "well they can't have kids and are harmful to society, etc, etc, etc" nonsense' any better than the "well they're just like any other couple if we don't consider gender" nonsense? I'm getting a feeling that nonsense is something with what you don't agree. And I'm getting a feeling that my feeling is true.

I don't really find the phrase "don't bother trying to argue against folks like that" (separate and very special consideration given to the "folks like that" part) proper in the mouth of a champion of equal rights, tolerance and understanding. In fact, that's the kind of phrase that I would expect from "folks like that".

From Fabius Maximus:

Agred, that isn't going to happen and on the religious side, most of the argument is spawned by dilemmas brought up by people who want ecclesiastic regulations to be struck down in favour of their wishes. However, so much as the church has the right to teach that e.g. fetishism or paedophilia or necrophilia is bad regardlessly of whether you are a believer or not, it has the right to teach that it's wrong for a state to accord marital privileges to same gender couples.

From Abomination:

Does the fact of depriving the child of proper father and mother figures on an egalitarian whim invalidate the concept of gay child adoption? Yeah. It does. Just like that.

Yeah, such as I would skip on a couple with alcoholic addiction, no matter that some alcoholics don't become aggressive or obscene when they get drunk.

As I will repeat later when I refer to Yirimyah's post, people who place their wishes to have a child above the child's welfare, they shouldn't really be entrusted child custody.

Agreed. I'm an example to that, myself, and I know of these problems first-hand. But at least I didn't get a male mother figure or a female father figure.

But the parent at least did his job supporting the child and giving a proper role example, instead of teaching the child the ways of the gay.

Plus, there's no reason to assume that one gay parent would stay home any more than a heterosexual parent would.

What about mother figure?

Screwing up the child's life is too serious a risk to allow carefree experimentation. Deficiency of a mother or father figure is obvious and the remaining figure is flawed by adopting a cross-gender sexual role. This is even less than one proper parent.

The church and state are separate. Dogma isn't voted in the parliament and laws aren't made by church edicts. As I said above, churches have the right to teach morals and ethics and current trendy issues aren't exempt from that. Just because someone's feelings or egalitarian zeal can be offended, doesn't mean the morality guardian's job is to refer to anything as right and proper when such is the wish of political or social activists. This is one of the aspects of separation of church and state.

From Ankiseth Vanir:

On social matters, there's always at least some value judgement. Even if there are objective facts, they will rarely be acknowledged as facts
by both sides of the arguments. You don't recognise my facts, I don't recognise yours. To some extent, either side's arguments are bound to seem unbased and groundless to the other side.

I haven't seen any statistics nor any remotely scientific data to support the claims for gay rights to child adoption. What bothers me is that legislators who allowed that to happen, hadn't seen any such data, either. They went for votes and according benefits to a part of society is the best way to secure its votes, simple as it is. That's how this thing works.

The problem of both mother and father being needed for proper development and the child being saved from influence of deviated standards has been nailed to death here. I would probably have to resurrect it to pound it to death again.

I do beg your pardon? I believe you might wish to rephrase. *blinks* I've never had people talk to me this way and I'm not about to start right now.

For about the Nth time it needs to be said that humans are male and female. The species is not complete without either gender. Neither is the family. Unless you're wishing for a totally lesbian (or asexual for that matter) world of parthenogenesis, a father figure is essential for the young individual to learn to function properly within the species. It has been proven that children deprived of either parental figure tend to seek contact with the same gender as the missing figure throughout their lives. With the parrent of own gender missing, it can stop at just friendship and not externally manifested feelings, it may grow to include the need for closeness and touch, it may ultimately extend to include the need for sexual contact. With opposite gender parent missing, it will deprive the child of experience in dealing with the opposite sex and may turn him towards his own sex for sexual needs.

It's already dangerous with single parent families. But at least the "gap" remains and there's no retouching of reality. In a homosexual family, an ilusion is being built of the gap being filled. It gives a warm and pleasant feeling that the problem is solved, so we don't have to bother with it anymore and everyone is happy. That is not true. The child still doesn't get either same sex experience or opposite sex experience.

Eh, I would really appreciate it if you rethought your phrasing for a longer moment, as I mentioned above.

Benan:

You see, the problem is not that a bunch of conservatives is trying to narrow the definition of marriage. The problem is that we have a definition of marriage and standing marital laws, and a group of interest wishes for the definition to be widened. Therefore, they are only "denied" anything in such a sense that what they demand is not given to them; not that anything is taken from them. That difference is substantial.

I've heard opinions that two people should be able to get married regardlessly of age (yeah, even on these boards). I've even heard opinions that animals aren't really full beings like humans, so consent should not be required as such, and therefore humans should be allowed to marry their chosen animals. Next, I've also heard that corpses have no feelings and can't be owned per se, so there's no reason to resent necrophilia. The way from one stage to the next is short and the more freedom we allow people, the more will be demanded. And there's no stop to that. Allow something to one group, another will pop up and want "equal" rights, thus widening your scope of what's right and proper ad infinitum. Of course, I realise the difference that comes from gay couples potentially being two validly consenting people, but the condition in which they are I view as a result of unfortunate confluence of undesirable happenings in their life, whether starting from genetic predispositions or not, and thus still as a deviation that should be struggled to overcome rather than submitted to. I favour compassion over condemnation, but I still can't accept the very carnal acts happening between two people of one gender as right and proper.

From Foradasthar:

Agreed. The child will be taught gay sexual behaviour, whether by indoctrination or by example, or from mere picking up from the parents. Regardlessly of the real orientation, so much as people can discover their gay orientation when they're already married and have children, a straight by default (because humans are straight by default) child can be embraced into the gay world and only really shown the gay way, learning that the "normal" thing is to be sexually intimate with persons of his own gender. That's undesirable to me.

I'd rather regard homosexualism as harmful than homosexuals themselves, but still. Accepting the fact that some people are homosexual is one thing. Accepting people being turned gay (whether as a matter of true orientation or just sexual habits) on my own eyes is a totally different thing.

 

Simple question chev: Does homosexuality have a negative effect on society? If so, how?

 

You're mistaken.

It's very simple: as far as I'm concerned, you're attempting to defend an untenable position. I've no more desire to debate you than I have to debate, say, a member of the KKK.