from the gay marriage threads

[damiano]

Originally posted by: Jzero

why are you people trying to change the subject ?

Changing the subject? I posed a perfectly reasonable counter-analysis to your analysis of the article linked earlier in this thread.

you do not stick to the matter...
the problem is gay parents not successfull women

 

[Jzero]

so why do having gay parents makes that you have more chances to be gay yourself?

By choice or otherwise, you seem to have missed the following paragraph:

It?s true that the people raised by lesbian parents were not more likely to be gay in the sense of identifying themselves as homosexuals in adulthood. That was the question the original studies asked. But their sexual identities do seem more open-ended. And the new study does seem to show that, as Barnard women?s-studies professor Ann Pelligrini says, "queer families are going to produce queer kids. By ?queer,? I mean kids who can resist thinking in cultural norms. Kids with a sense of difference who have the capacity to be critical of ?common-sense notions? of what families should be."

 

[Jzero]

you do not stick to the matter...
the problem is gay parents not successfull women

You have reading comprehension problems, eh?
The article says that kids raised by gays are less likely to conform to gender stereotypes and less likely to be sexually repressed.

This is on-topic. I fail to see why these "results" of gay parenting are bad things.

 

[damiano]

Originally posted by: Jzero

so why do having gay parents makes that you have more chances to be gay yourself?

By choice or otherwise, you seem to have missed the following paragraph:

It?s true that the people raised by lesbian parents were not more likely to be gay in the sense of identifying themselves as homosexuals in adulthood. That was the question the original studies asked. But their sexual identities do seem more open-ended. And the new study does seem to show that, as Barnard women?s-studies professor Ann Pelligrini says, "queer families are going to produce queer kids. By ?queer,? I mean kids who can resist thinking in cultural norms. Kids with a sense of difference who have the capacity to be critical of ?common-sense notions? of what families should be."

well i call what you call sexual experimentation sexual deviation
and experiementing gay sex is NOT a good thing! and all this "sexually open minded" is not a good thing either

 

[Jzero]

well i call what you call sexual experimentation sexual deviation
and experiementing gay sex is NOT a good thing! and all this "sexually open minded" is not a good thing either

Well, we see the results of being sexually closed-minded right now, and I don't see how it's any better.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: damiano

Originally posted by: Jzero

so why do having gay parents makes that you have more chances to be gay yourself?

By choice or otherwise, you seem to have missed the following paragraph:

It?s true that the people raised by lesbian parents were not more likely to be gay in the sense of identifying themselves as homosexuals in adulthood. That was the question the original studies asked. But their sexual identities do seem more open-ended. And the new study does seem to show that, as Barnard women?s-studies professor Ann Pelligrini says, "queer families are going to produce queer kids. By ?queer,? I mean kids who can resist thinking in cultural norms. Kids with a sense of difference who have the capacity to be critical of ?common-sense notions? of what families should be."

well i call what you call sexual experimentation sexual deviation
and experiementing gay sex is NOT a good thing! and all this "sexually open minded" is not a good thing either

Ah....we're back to "I think this is bad. Therefore, it is bad."

Please explain how gay persons have a negative impact on modern civilization in 300 words or less. Thanks.

 

[damiano]

Originally posted by: Jzero

well i call what you call sexual experimentation sexual deviation
and experiementing gay sex is NOT a good thing! and all this "sexually open minded" is not a good thing either

Well, we see the results of being sexually closed-minded right now, and I don't see how it's any better.

MY PROBLEM IS NOT WITH THE FACT OF BEING GAY (ONCE AGAIN, EVEN IF I DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT, I DO NOT REJECT IT .. PEOPLE CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT)
JUST DO NOT MIX CHILDREN WITH WHAT IS NOT A NORMAL WAY TO RAISE THEM

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: damiano

Originally posted by: Jzero

well i call what you call sexual experimentation sexual deviation
and experiementing gay sex is NOT a good thing! and all this "sexually open minded" is not a good thing either

Well, we see the results of being sexually closed-minded right now, and I don't see how it's any better.

MY PROBLEM IS NOT WITH THE FACT OF BEING GAY (ONCE AGAIN, EVEN IF I DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT, I DO NOT REJECT IT .. PEOPLE CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT)
JUST DO NOT MIX CHILDREN WITH WHAT IS NOT A NORMAL WAY TO RAISE THEM

You're contradicting yourself. You say it's okay to be gay, but not to raise children around them because they might turn out gay. But I thought you were okay with gayness? See the problem?

 

[damiano]

and just as a thought I had PMs from a few people that say they agree with me but are too affraid of posting in this thread because of their fear of the general opinion and of being labeled as homophobes
i will not say who they are... (btw I think it's sad to be affraid of what you think)
I am just glad to see some at least believe the same things I do

 

You think its wrong for gays to adopt children because then it will desensitize them to homosexuality.
It is glaring obvious from your post that you discriminate against homosexuals.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: damiano
ok
my time now.
Did you guys ever read Freud and the all the basics of our modern psychology?
specially during early stages of growth the parents' figure (father and mother) are very important:

The conflict, labeled the Oedipus complex (The Electra complex in women), involves the child's unconscious desire to possess the opposite-sexed parent and to eliminate the same-sexed one.
In the young male, the Oedipus conflict stems from his natural love for his mother, a love which becomes sexual as his libidal energy transfers from the anal region to his genitals. Unfortunately for the boy, his father stands in the way of this love. The boy therefore feels aggression and envy towards this rival, his father, and also feels fear that the father will strike back at him. As the boy has noticed that women, his mother in particular, have no penises, he is struck by a great fear that his father will remove his penis, too. The anxiety is aggravated by the threats and discipline he incurs when caught masturbating by his parents. This castration anxiety outstrips his desire for his mother, so he represses the desire. Moreover, although the boy sees that though he cannot posses his mother, because his father does, he can posses her vicariously by identifying with his father and becoming as much like him as possible: this identification indoctrinates the boy into his appropriate sexual role in life.


If you guys are unaware of that, a same sex parents couple can produce deep repercussions on the child's mental, psychological and emotional growth.

Apparently, you are not as well-versed on Freud as you thought. From http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html:

Sigmund Freud's basic theory of human sexuality was different from that of Ellis. He felt that all human beings were innately bisexual, and that they become heterosexual or homosexual as a result of their experiences with parents and others (Freud, 1905). Nevertheless, Freud agreed with Ellis that a homosexual orientation should not be viewed as a form of pathology. In a now-famous letter to an American mother in 1935, Freud wrote:
"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too....

"If [your son] is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency whether he remains a homosexual or gets changed...." (reprinted in Jones, 1957, pp. 208-209, from the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1951, 107, 786).

 

[damiano]

Originally posted by: Fausto

MY PROBLEM IS NOT WITH THE FACT OF BEING GAY (ONCE AGAIN, EVEN IF I DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT, I DO NOT REJECT IT .. PEOPLE CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT)
JUST DO NOT MIX CHILDREN WITH WHAT IS NOT A NORMAL WAY TO RAISE THEM

You're contradicting yourself. You say it's okay to be gay, but not to raise children around them because they might turn out gay. But I thought you were okay with gayness? See the problem?

another good point!

the thing is
If they are gay, i don't care (once again even if I still do not understand why people are gay..doesn't make sense to me)
I think children should be raised by a father a a mother and if they turn out gay...that's life (even if I believe it is made by education a social pressures and not by genetics or something like that)
the prob is they have more chances to be made gay by their parents

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: damiano
and just as a thought I had PMs from a few people that say they agree with me but are too affraid of posting in this thread because of their fear of the general opinion and of being labeled as homophobes
i will not say who they are... (btw I think it's sad to be affraid of what you think)
I am just glad to see some at least believe the same things I do

Uhuh......and now you're making things up to support your position. I can't say I've ever seen someone "afraid to post for fear of being labeled a homophobe" here.

 

[damiano]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: damiano
ok
my time now.
Did you guys ever read Freud and the all the basics of our modern psychology?
specially during early stages of growth the parents' figure (father and mother) are very important:

The conflict, labeled the Oedipus complex (The Electra complex in women), involves the child's unconscious desire to possess the opposite-sexed parent and to eliminate the same-sexed one.
In the young male, the Oedipus conflict stems from his natural love for his mother, a love which becomes sexual as his libidal energy transfers from the anal region to his genitals. Unfortunately for the boy, his father stands in the way of this love. The boy therefore feels aggression and envy towards this rival, his father, and also feels fear that the father will strike back at him. As the boy has noticed that women, his mother in particular, have no penises, he is struck by a great fear that his father will remove his penis, too. The anxiety is aggravated by the threats and discipline he incurs when caught masturbating by his parents. This castration anxiety outstrips his desire for his mother, so he represses the desire. Moreover, although the boy sees that though he cannot posses his mother, because his father does, he can posses her vicariously by identifying with his father and becoming as much like him as possible: this identification indoctrinates the boy into his appropriate sexual role in life.


If you guys are unaware of that, a same sex parents couple can produce deep repercussions on the child's mental, psychological and emotional growth.

Apparently, you are not as well-versed on Freud as you thought. From http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html:

Sigmund Freud's basic theory of human sexuality was different from that of Ellis. He felt that all human beings were innately bisexual, and that they become heterosexual or homosexual as a result of their experiences with parents and others (Freud, 1905). Nevertheless, Freud agreed with Ellis that a homosexual orientation should not be viewed as a form of pathology. In a now-famous letter to an American mother in 1935, Freud wrote:
"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too....

"If [your son] is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency whether he remains a homosexual or gets changed...." (reprinted in Jones, 1957, pp. 208-209, from the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1951, 107, 786).

on the contrary
this makes my point
if their development is not right
they will become gay!

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: damiano

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Jzero

you people have been brainwashed by the modern gayism of our society.

Apparently it's better to be brainwashed by "modern gayism" than "archaic Freudianism."

i cannot believe that no one here is a little bit more traditional in that sense
or most probably too affraid to express their thoughts about it because of the fear of not fitting with the rest...

Gays getting married doesn't affect me one bit, so why would it bother me?
And until someone can provide actual case studies where a child raised by gay parents is any more or less fvcked up than any kid raised by straight or single parents, I'm not buying it. I'm an intelligent, educated, thinking, reasoning person. I don't form my beliefs and ideas on unfounded, unproven fears and superstitions.

Here's a study for you I just found.... not backing it one way or another.

Gay Parents = gay kids

It doesen't matter. Who are you or I to say that it is wrong? Of course being raised by gay parents is going to change the way the kid grows up, but who are you to say that it is wrong? Of course they're going to be more open to experimentation, etc. Who are you to say that is wrong?

What is wrong with being more open minded?

You know what I think? I think you're a closet homophobe.

i think he just believes like me that a kid should grow up in a NORMAL family and decide for himself later if he wants to be GAY...
not be enclined by gay parents to be gay himself !
what are you doing now ELI wanting all kids to be gay and produced be science so homosexual relationships are not necesasry anymore and just disapear
I think you are the one ELI who is heterophobe
edit: or a not out of the closet homo !

Uh, I was talking to you, not him. You're the closet homophobe. He clearly stated he was just throwing the article in here for us to discuss.

And I find your accusation that I'm a "heterophobe" VERY insulting. I have a girlfriend of 2 years, you fscking dumbsh!t. I'm a heterophobe because I don't believe in discrimation due to sexual preference? Way to go!

Anyway, back on topic.. What is "normal"?

Just like beauty, "normal" is realitive.

What the HELL are you talking about? I want all kids to be gay?

Being raised by gay parents doesen't make them "enclined" to be gay. Besides, EVEN if it does, who are YOU to say that it is wrong? The kids still have the same free will whether they are raised by "normal" or *gasp* gay parents.

You are full of sh!t. You're also a homophobe. It is very clear.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: damiano

Originally posted by: Fausto

MY PROBLEM IS NOT WITH THE FACT OF BEING GAY (ONCE AGAIN, EVEN IF I DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT, I DO NOT REJECT IT .. PEOPLE CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT)
JUST DO NOT MIX CHILDREN WITH WHAT IS NOT A NORMAL WAY TO RAISE THEM

You're contradicting yourself. You say it's okay to be gay, but not to raise children around them because they might turn out gay. But I thought you were okay with gayness? See the problem?

another good point!

the thing is
If they are gay, i don't care (once again even if I still do not understand why people are gay..doesn't make sense to me)
I think children should be raised by a father a a mother and if they turn out gay...that's life (even if I believe it is made by education a social pressures and not by genetics or something like that)
the prob is they have more chances to be made gay by their parents

What about music? Movies? Books? TV? Magazines? Better keep all those things away from your kids as well as they would increase the poor kid's likelyhood of turning out gay, right?

 

[Jzero]

the thing is
If they are gay, i don't care (once again even if I still do not understand why people are gay..doesn't make sense to me)
I think children should be raised by a father a a mother and if they turn out gay...that's life (even if I believe it is made by education a social pressures and not by genetics or something like that)
the prob is they have more chances to be made gay by their parents

I've already pointed out that the article posted, which is so far the only remotely solid proof of your theory, does not actually say that the kids are "more likely" to be gay.

 

[Crypticburn]

There are a few issues raised by this thread which I'd like to discuss.

The first issue is the issue of "same sex marriages". The only objection which holds any water is: "god does not accept this practice". BUT we run into a serious problem with this objection: mainly that this country is not a theocracy (I hope), and as such, its policies should not be determined soley on religious grounds. I will defend the rights of the conservatives to not allow homosexual marriages in their churches/synagogues/mosques/etc., but I will also defend the rights of homosexuals to be treated fairly and equally in the eyes of the government. It is ignorant to continue this government endorsed discrimination based on sexual preference, leave that to the churches.

The second issue is that of same sex partners adopting children. This issue has a vast number of other issues entwined with it, including the adoption process, unwanted children of heterosexual relationships, and the "health" of the child. Homosexual and Heterosexual couples are equally equipped in modern society to provide a healthy environment for the child to grow. The study linked above represents a tiny fraction of the population and thus could not generate any meaningful statistics (4/3 of statistics are made up anyways =&THORN, and thus I would like to see other studies supporting/refuting these findings.

The adoption process is long and requires commitment and a safe and supportive environment for the child to be adopted, if anyone (including people not in a relationship) can provide such an environment and commitment to a child, they should be allowed to do so. A homosexual relationship basically must jump through this hoop to have a family, while heterosexuals can just make a baby (without any requirements on their suitabillity as parents). This does not mean that people need to be "authorized" to have children, but rather to point out that it takes dedicated people to adopt children, and thus are more likely to be suitable as parents.

I'm sure I didn't cover all my topics, nor did I completely cover all my bases... but hopefully I will garner intelligent responses rather than people refering to Freud (ack!)

Crypticburn

 

[damiano]

well I knew it would be a delicate subject to talk about.
and I am happy I made my thoughts known
I am just sad the people who agree with me do not have the b@lls to post !!!
let's all be GAY (happy)

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: damiano

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: damiano
ok
my time now.
Did you guys ever read Freud and the all the basics of our modern psychology?
specially during early stages of growth the parents' figure (father and mother) are very important:

The conflict, labeled the Oedipus complex (The Electra complex in women), involves the child's unconscious desire to possess the opposite-sexed parent and to eliminate the same-sexed one.
In the young male, the Oedipus conflict stems from his natural love for his mother, a love which becomes sexual as his libidal energy transfers from the anal region to his genitals. Unfortunately for the boy, his father stands in the way of this love. The boy therefore feels aggression and envy towards this rival, his father, and also feels fear that the father will strike back at him. As the boy has noticed that women, his mother in particular, have no penises, he is struck by a great fear that his father will remove his penis, too. The anxiety is aggravated by the threats and discipline he incurs when caught masturbating by his parents. This castration anxiety outstrips his desire for his mother, so he represses the desire. Moreover, although the boy sees that though he cannot posses his mother, because his father does, he can posses her vicariously by identifying with his father and becoming as much like him as possible: this identification indoctrinates the boy into his appropriate sexual role in life.


If you guys are unaware of that, a same sex parents couple can produce deep repercussions on the child's mental, psychological and emotional growth.

Apparently, you are not as well-versed on Freud as you thought. From http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html:

Sigmund Freud's basic theory of human sexuality was different from that of Ellis. He felt that all human beings were innately bisexual, and that they become heterosexual or homosexual as a result of their experiences with parents and others (Freud, 1905). Nevertheless, Freud agreed with Ellis that a homosexual orientation should not be viewed as a form of pathology. In a now-famous letter to an American mother in 1935, Freud wrote:
"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too....

"If [your son] is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency whether he remains a homosexual or gets changed...." (reprinted in Jones, 1957, pp. 208-209, from the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1951, 107, 786).

on the contrary
this makes my point
if their development is not right
they will become gay!

You clearly have no point . . . (or a clue either)

if the child is raised only by foster parents or in an orphanage - is NEVER adopted - their development will also not be "right".

In at least a couple of states, it is already legal for a single parent - even a gay person - to adopt a child.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: damiano
well I knew it would be a delicate subject to talk about.
and I am happy I made my thoughts known
I am just sad the people who agree with me do not have the b@lls to post !!!
let's all be GAY (happy)

Very few people agree with you. Only the people insecure in their own sexuality.

Discrimination is discrimination, and YOU have no right to discrimiate because of sexual preference, and our government DEFINATELY has no right to discrimiate because of sexual preference.

That is THE bottom line. How can you argue with that?

If you argue with that, you are saying discrimination is OK. Do you believe that?

Should we go back to segregation? Do we need a bathroom for gays, and "normals"? Do we need a drinking fountain for gays, and "normals"?

Get real, man.

 

He felt that all human beings were innately bisexual, and that they become heterosexual or homosexual as a result of their experiences with parents and others (Freud, 1905).

Freud is a fraud. His "studies" were horribly biased.

Forming an argument based on 100 year old data is fairly foolish. That's like taking medical advise from the same time period and applying it to today.
Where are these very recent articles about the development of the human brain and sexuality?
They have much more scientific basis than anything freud has ever done.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SammySon

He felt that all human beings were innately bisexual, and that they become heterosexual or homosexual as a result of their experiences with parents and others (Freud, 1905).

Freud is a fraud. His "studies" were horribly biased.

Forming an argument based on 100 year old data is fairly foolish. That's like taking medical advise from the same time period and applying it to today.
Where are these very recent articles about the development of the human brain and sexuality?
They have much more scientific basis than anything freud has ever done.

Look them up . . . google is helpful.

ALL the latest SCIENTIFIC studies and opinion support gay parents adopting children with no harm to the children (period).

Only bigots support the opposite view. Forming an argument based soley on your own opinion is way beyond "fairly foolish".

 

[Rias]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: damiano
and just as a thought I had PMs from a few people that say they agree with me but are too affraid of posting in this thread because of their fear of the general opinion and of being labeled as homophobes
i will not say who they are... (btw I think it's sad to be affraid of what you think)
I am just glad to see some at least believe the same things I do

Uhuh......and now you're making things up to support your position. I can't say I've ever seen someone "afraid to post for fear of being labeled a homophobe" here.

He was not making anything up. I was one of the people that PM'ed him. The reason I did not post my comments here is not that I was afraid to be labeled as a homophobe, but more that I don't have the time nor the energy to discuss this right now. I lurk normally because I want the distraction from my work sometimes.

What I wrote to damiano was for him to just bring up the single argument that noone really could argue with and that is that people in gay relationships aren't able to have kids on their own. This is how humans evolved, if a gay couple was supposed to have the ability to have kids evolution would have taken care of it LONG AGO.

That is all I have to say and I will read responses but will likely not reply. There is no reason to believe people in gay relationships aren't able to raise a child perfectly fine. etc.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Rias

Originally posted by: Fausto
Uhuh......and now you're making things up to support your position. I can't say I've ever seen someone "afraid to post for fear of being labeled a homophobe" here.

He was not making anything up. I was one of the people that PM'ed him. The reason I did not post my comments here is not that I was afraid to be labeled as a homophobe, but more that I don't have the time nor the energy to discuss this right now. I lurk normally because I want the distraction from my work sometimes.

What I wrote to damiano was for him to just bring up the single argument that noone really could argue with and that is that people in gay relationships aren't able to have kids on their own. This is how humans evolved, if a gay couple was supposed to have the ability to have kids evolution would have taken care of it LONG AGO.

That is all I have to say and I will read responses but will likely not reply. There is no reason to believe people in gay relationships aren't able to raise a child perfectly fine. etc.

So...you don't think there are variations in evolution? You think that every creature that is born is of perfect genetic structure?

Now, I am FAR from calling homosexuality a mutation of humas. I am merely pointing out that it is a variation, much like blond hair or hairy back or baldness.