Salient ....
I do not understand how men can be attracted to men or women to women. I am aware things such as environmental ubringing and personal experiences that may have significant effects on an individual. Some say that it's in the genes, I'm not quite sure what to believe. But one thing that I know, men were created for women. It's logic. That's how things work. Opposites attract, no questions about it. The world is a cycle...
First and foremost, let me state that when I take issues, I have none with this paragraph, and which is telling in its own way toward those issues I present.
I would not personally discriminate against gay peope but I do believe that there's something not right about it.
While I get what you're after, it's worth noting that the separation of hetero and homosexual is, in its own right, a form of discrimination. This is not, however, the discrimination in question. (Separating vanilla and chocolate is discrimination at this level, so it's not an issue in and of itself.) Your next sentence, however, gives me some sense of tone and perspective on the prior.
Allowing, a child to adopted into a gay environment, will increase chances of psychological damage on the child.
That's both definitive and assumptive.
* Definitive: "... will increase chances ..." Well, okay. I'll meet you halfway: while I charge that "will increase" is too definitive to be accurate, I also understand restricting the idea to the chance or odds of damage. At this level, however, I must remind that allowing a child to be adopted into a religious environment increases the chances of psychological damage and dysfunction. (Consider that in Christianity we have symptoms for which people applying a different form are institutionalized: on the cruel assessment, hallucinations, voices, imagined friends. To this end, recall an episode of
The Simpsons when Marge is on trial (I think for shoplifting). While in court, Marge begins to pray, whereupon the judge asks, "Mrs Simpson, who are you talking to?"
The gist of which being that Marge was talking to an invisible person who is everywhere and sees everything. For the humorous point, the jury found this to be a condemning notion.
But not just to pick on Christianity: on the one hand, any coherent idea that demands the idea before the person runs this risk.
A difference worth noting, of course, is that ideas like Capitalism, Libertarianism, or any paradigm that becomes defining of a person, is a choice. I've watchd dogs have gay sex in the yard, and I've seen video of female apes performing something that looks suspiciously like cunnilinguis. So in the case of homosexuality, I don't accept the "choice to be gay" argument to be any more significant than whether you prefer chubby or twiggy, blonde or brunette,
ad nauseam, in relation to your own tastes.
Hence, as I see it, any psychological damage comes comparatively in the face of social bigotry. The psychological damage of being young in a gay household comes from children of heterosexuals who tease, beat, and otherwise harass kids. The psychological damage comes from learning to obsess on the guilts assigned the differences 'twixt people. Is the evidence of harm if a child enters sexual activity and ends up with a partner of common gender? What if that child grows up into a hetero wife-beater? Is that more healthy?
It's just that given all the psychological harm we inherently do to children, I don't accept focus on a stress that arises from such artificial sources as bigotry. Would you rather your 13 year-old son kiss a boy or get dragged into the public spotlight after knocking up his schoolteacher? Which is more damaging?
* Assumptive: Please show the "harm" inherent to a gay-parented family. It seems you're assuming the harm.
If you wanna be gay, be gay, but don't involve an innocent life into it.
In what context do you mean this? In the mundane sense that an innocent child is hurt by the presence of gay people, well, it's a crock. In the more severe sense of visiting sexuality upon a child ... if your daughter is ever raped by a man, will you be thankful to God that at least it was that, and not your son being taken by a man? Seems to me that having sex with a child of either gender is pretty stupid, and whether it's with a chld of your own or the opposite gender doesn't really change a whole lot.
Don't rob them of a chance grow in the 'right' kind of environment.
What is the "right" environment, and why? I mean, what ... we could look at the proportion of child molestations and then laugh at the assertion (made by Phillip Ramsdell of the OCA in 1992) that 95% of child molestations are committed by gay men. Let's see ... if a male rapes a female, he must be homosexual? In that sense, then, how many children are being sexually corrupted by their heterosexual parents?
What is the "right" environment? Is the gender of the parents the only criterion?
And honestly? My opinion on gay people goes like this:
They're people. Get over it.
A little straightforward, but it's nine years since a ridiculous homophobia debate in Oregon served as someone's justification to firebomb a house and kill two people for the crime of being gay. I well understand that homophobia in society manifests itself in diverse degrees of separation, but I personally think that the social prejudices against homosexuality are one of the last bastions of the out-of-hand, post-Victorian nightmare of comparative morality. Homophobia employs the notion of morality as a weapon to hurt people.
Some maintain that homosexuality is a choice. So is it a choice to subscribe to a philosophy that promotes social division and hatred. Consider the decisions of, say, hundreds of thousands of Oregon Christians to revoke the civil rights of gays in the state: they're only being hypocrites for denying people self-determination.
I'm
not going to tell you to reserve your judgements until you go out and have gay sex; that's kind of a ridiculous standard. But I would hope that you would be a little more tolerant, trusting, and accepting of people in practice than your rhetoric indicates.
Or could I instead ask that you demonstrate the consistency of psychological damage that results directly from the fact of homosexual parentage? I honestly think that when you enumerate it, you'll find two relevant trends: those damages that are common to all families in various manifestations, and those damages that come only from a person's choice to damage another. In other words, a gay-parented family will have many family stresses common with their heterosexual neighbors, as well as those family stresses that are induced by those who would choose to create stress, such as the homophobic bigots who would look a person in the eye and say that the latter individual does not deserve to be a member of society based on issues that the former will not discuss openly. (To this last point, let me invoke again Mr Ramsdell, who once published a list of sexual fetishes including coprophilia, watersports, rimming, and other practices in the 1992 voters' guide; only the homophobes were shocked by the list--they were the only ones who it had not occurred to that heterosexuals do these things too, and it was generally held to be a non-issue since what everyone was worried about was the gays.)
thanx,
Tiassa