agreed to the nth degreesamcdkey said:I wish your parents had shared these thoughts
Influencing children to become homosexual
- Thread starter D'ster
- Start date
Yes..thank you for making the point as to why governments are evil very clear. Also, if another want to do something similar as a result of these events , that is also natural selection. But governments have no motives for enforcing or even creating laws.D'ster said:
D'ster said:
I just don't get this part about homophobes: Do you really think it is somehow morally less reprehensible to sexually abuse a child if the abuse is heterosexual? Really, D'ster, what is your point? Are you pretending that only gay people abuse children? I can't wait to tell a friend that she's spent far too much energy in her life reconciling her daddy's "love".
Wonder what her sister, also "well-loved", as you would have it, would say?
Maybe at some point you can make clear to us, D'ster, through either one of these odd topics of yours, what it is you're after. We'll help you find it if we can, but this obsession with owning a child's sexuality is very, very unhealthy. I mean, look at the hideous standards you're now presenting: Please explain why you consider heterosexual abuse of a child as somehow less reprehensible--or perhaps you encourage it?--than homosexual. Please help us understand what warped vision of reality you're trying to detail. We're actually here to help, but we're very, very confused as to the origin and purpose of your obsession with children and sex.
Or are you a self-loathing gay who is looking for someone to blame for your own interior criticisms? Really, man, being gay is nothing to be ashamed of. Like I said, we're here to help, and we'll at least try, if you would trust us, to help you be more comfortable with who you really are, so that you don't have to look at yourself as something that people need to be "blamed" for.
D'ster
Perhaps you missed a recent post of mine: #1074408. The reason I mention this?
Why do so many heterosexuals ... or perhaps that's unfair. Look, should I be worried that a portion of represented heterosexuality that seems to despise homosexuality also seems to have no regard whatsoever for "consent"? You know, consent?
I think you're making a very good argument for encouraging homosexuality in children who show a gay disposition. I can't say that all gays honor issues of consent, but over the years it's only newspaper articles that reinforce that failure among gays. To the other, heterosexuals I encounter very often hold sexual consent between partners in very low esteem. Maybe you think rape is good for children, or as long as it's a heterosexual rape, but that's a huge argument in favor of refusing to stifle the homosexual child or youth.
So please, man, explain this idiotic comparison or at least tell us whether or not you think consent is important; judging by the link you posted, proper, non-exploitative consent is important to you, at least when looking to criticize homosexuality. Given your comparison, however, it would appear that consent is not, in fact, very important to you at all, unless you perceive it as a reason to criticize what you hate.
Try being rational, try being decent. I reiterate what I have already advised you, and this time more forcefully:
I think it would be more useful for all of us to understand your disregard of sexual consent; the alternatives are unpalatable even to me. In other words, the idea of snuffing this discussion on the grounds that its orginator is a hatemonger is not in anybody's interest.
Perhaps you missed a recent post of mine: #1074408. The reason I mention this?
D'ster said:
Why do so many heterosexuals ... or perhaps that's unfair. Look, should I be worried that a portion of represented heterosexuality that seems to despise homosexuality also seems to have no regard whatsoever for "consent"? You know, consent?
I think you're making a very good argument for encouraging homosexuality in children who show a gay disposition. I can't say that all gays honor issues of consent, but over the years it's only newspaper articles that reinforce that failure among gays. To the other, heterosexuals I encounter very often hold sexual consent between partners in very low esteem. Maybe you think rape is good for children, or as long as it's a heterosexual rape, but that's a huge argument in favor of refusing to stifle the homosexual child or youth.
So please, man, explain this idiotic comparison or at least tell us whether or not you think consent is important; judging by the link you posted, proper, non-exploitative consent is important to you, at least when looking to criticize homosexuality. Given your comparison, however, it would appear that consent is not, in fact, very important to you at all, unless you perceive it as a reason to criticize what you hate.
Try being rational, try being decent. I reiterate what I have already advised you, and this time more forcefully:
"Please note that I have not used my authority to ban that argument outright; there is still a remote possibility--which I am obliged to acknowledge--that one day someone will get around to showing how the "rape, pedophilia, and bestiality" argument isn't simple pinheaded hatred fomented by bigots and provocateurs alike without any decent consideration. In other words, you have the spotlight; either make the point or drop it."
To reiterate: You can use such a hateful argument all you want if you're capable of demonstrating even basic comprehension of its character. You have failed thus far to make that simple demonstration. Justify your comparison, explain to us why consent isn't important between sexual participants, or maybe even give your argument some thought and retract your apparent rejection of consent. Regardless, do not make me get out my green hat, please. All I am asking for is basic decency. If you cannot accommodate that request, then I will reconsider the remedies available to me, and undertake the one I consider most appropriate. But for once in my life, I would like to hear a hatemonger justify that ridiculous gay-bashing comparison. I think after hearing it regularly for sixteen years, I am not being excessive to wonder why such vigorous heterosexuals discount so greatly notions of sexual consent.
To reiterate: You can use such a hateful argument all you want if you're capable of demonstrating even basic comprehension of its character. You have failed thus far to make that simple demonstration. Justify your comparison, explain to us why consent isn't important between sexual participants, or maybe even give your argument some thought and retract your apparent rejection of consent. Regardless, do not make me get out my green hat, please. All I am asking for is basic decency. If you cannot accommodate that request, then I will reconsider the remedies available to me, and undertake the one I consider most appropriate. But for once in my life, I would like to hear a hatemonger justify that ridiculous gay-bashing comparison. I think after hearing it regularly for sixteen years, I am not being excessive to wonder why such vigorous heterosexuals discount so greatly notions of sexual consent.
I think it would be more useful for all of us to understand your disregard of sexual consent; the alternatives are unpalatable even to me. In other words, the idea of snuffing this discussion on the grounds that its orginator is a hatemonger is not in anybody's interest.
Perhaps because you're straight and can't imagine the strong attractions, sexual and otherwise, that some guys have for other guys.D'ster said:
You know how sometimes you meet that special woman who just makes you so happy, who you want to give your entire heart and being to, and who you want to have in your arms forever? Gay people feel the exact same thing towards that special person they meet, who just happens to be the same sex as they are.
You know how sometimes you have that deep-seated, primeval urge to just fuck with some hot woman? Some women feel that exact same deep-seated urge as well. And some men feel the similar deep-seated urge to just fuck with some hot man.
Again, it may be hard to put yourself in another man's shoes and imagine an attraction to other men. But you just have to accept that these attractions are similar to yours and are just as deep-seated and intense; the only difference is the object of those attractions.
Of course, I'm assuming that you aren't simply a homosexual in self-denial, in which case you'd know exactly how badly you need to hold another man in your arms – or conversely, be held – and to fuck his brains out – or be fucked – and in which case all this hype you've started would be subconsciously intended to distract from your true orientation. You might be in denial because you were taught, and fully believe, that homosexuality is icky; thus, you'd believe that you yourself are icky and that if you just wish hard enough, it will just go away and you'll be clean.
I think I'll just keep assuming, since it makes matters less messy.
Athelwulf--
As such, do we not owe D'ster our greatest compassion, that he might come to accept himself? Only when he comes to accept his own humanity will he be capable of properly reconsidering his poor disposition toward the humanity of others.
As frustrating as I find the rape-pedophilia-beastiality comparison to homosexuality, and regardless of how frightening it is to think that any representative proportion of heterosexuals holds sexual consent in such low esteem, we owe D'ster our best compassion if he's really caught up in a loathing of his self-identity. If he is already a tragic victim of bigotry, we ought to do our best to not fester those wounds any further.
It occurs to me that he may be unwilling to answer the issue of how that hideous rape/pedophilia/bestiality argument actually works because he is afraid to truly believe such things about himself. That he would rather be seen as a dangerously-bigoted heterosexual and hatemonger than what he thinks might be lurking in his skin is only a testament to what hate brings to a society.
Compassion, I suppose, is the more appropriate response than my prior threats to snuff the discussion.
And you know, Athelwulf, we all learn something every day. Hopefully I can remember this lesson of compassion, and not leave it looking like a stunt to get under that thick, frightened, hatemongering skin of his.
As such, do we not owe D'ster our greatest compassion, that he might come to accept himself? Only when he comes to accept his own humanity will he be capable of properly reconsidering his poor disposition toward the humanity of others.
As frustrating as I find the rape-pedophilia-beastiality comparison to homosexuality, and regardless of how frightening it is to think that any representative proportion of heterosexuals holds sexual consent in such low esteem, we owe D'ster our best compassion if he's really caught up in a loathing of his self-identity. If he is already a tragic victim of bigotry, we ought to do our best to not fester those wounds any further.
It occurs to me that he may be unwilling to answer the issue of how that hideous rape/pedophilia/bestiality argument actually works because he is afraid to truly believe such things about himself. That he would rather be seen as a dangerously-bigoted heterosexual and hatemonger than what he thinks might be lurking in his skin is only a testament to what hate brings to a society.
Compassion, I suppose, is the more appropriate response than my prior threats to snuff the discussion.
And you know, Athelwulf, we all learn something every day. Hopefully I can remember this lesson of compassion, and not leave it looking like a stunt to get under that thick, frightened, hatemongering skin of his.
tiassa said:
You are right; I'm guilty of making similar negative judgements based on what people write in their posts. I guess we're all discriminatory at heart - even the self-righteous prigs like me.
We just choose to discriminate against different people, that's all. I believe you are right that compassion and understanding are more effective than judgement.Thanks for the insight.
My honor, Samcdkey. In fact, I should at least disclaim that it was not my intention to seem to lecture Athelwulf or anyone else. Rather, that post is almost the realtime representation of how the implications of a small question began to settle in my conscience.
Ah, but rape, paedophilia, and murder can actually harm other people, and it is actually beneficial to society and species to prevent rape, pedophilia, and murder. Bestiality is only problematic for the animal, and could be considered animal cruelty, but is still illegal for reasons that it could cause societal and personal harm.D'ster said:
Homosexuality, however, is not particularly detrimental at all.
Well so long as it's not an act that's having an adverse effect on anyone else it certainly does make it hard to raise a valid complaint, now doesn't it?D'ster said:
Two people getting together to play patty-cake, that's hard to condemn, though if they were maybe agreeing to launch a missile, then those in the target zone might have something to say.
Objecting too two consenting adults getting together to have a relationship just makes you a character of a kvetching Jewish-mother. Trying to pass legislation against that relationship, well that just makes you a creepy stalker!
Nobody implied that it works with any act. If the act or behaior doesn't affect you, what right do you have in the matter? That's a very oppressive implication. Even by nature you would have no reason to condemn sexual acts between two women or two men. Or do you? Explain.D'ster said:
Parenting Issues
Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?
Are children reared by two individuals of the same gender as well adjusted as children reared in families with a mother and a father? Until recently the unequivocal answer to this question was "no." Policymakers, social scientists, the media, and even physician organizations1, however, are now asserting that prohibitions on parenting by homosexual couples should be lifted. In making such far-reaching, generation-changing assertions, any responsible advocate would rely upon supporting evidence that is comprehensive and conclusive. Not only is this not the situation, but also there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm.
Research data
Heterosexual parenting is the normative model upon which most comprehensive longitudinal research on childrearing has been based. Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.2,3,4 Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent. 5,6,7,8,9 Therefore, the burden is on the proponents of homosexual parenting to prove that moving further away from the heterosexual parenting model is appropriate and safe for children.
Risks of Homosexual Lifestyle to Children
Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. 10,11,12,13,14 Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. 15,16,17 Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed "committed relationships." 18,19,20,21,22 Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,23,24,25 substance abuse,26 suicidal tendencies,27,28 and shortened life spans.29 Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted.30 Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. 31,32,33,34,35 Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.36
Conclusion
The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50
Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?
Are children reared by two individuals of the same gender as well adjusted as children reared in families with a mother and a father? Until recently the unequivocal answer to this question was "no." Policymakers, social scientists, the media, and even physician organizations1, however, are now asserting that prohibitions on parenting by homosexual couples should be lifted. In making such far-reaching, generation-changing assertions, any responsible advocate would rely upon supporting evidence that is comprehensive and conclusive. Not only is this not the situation, but also there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm.
Research data
Heterosexual parenting is the normative model upon which most comprehensive longitudinal research on childrearing has been based. Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.2,3,4 Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent. 5,6,7,8,9 Therefore, the burden is on the proponents of homosexual parenting to prove that moving further away from the heterosexual parenting model is appropriate and safe for children.
Risks of Homosexual Lifestyle to Children
Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. 10,11,12,13,14 Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. 15,16,17 Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed "committed relationships." 18,19,20,21,22 Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,23,24,25 substance abuse,26 suicidal tendencies,27,28 and shortened life spans.29 Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted.30 Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. 31,32,33,34,35 Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.36
Conclusion
The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50
Future Child. 2005 Fall;15(2):97-115.
Gay marriage, same-sex parenting, and America's children.
Meezan W, Rauch J.
College of Social Work, Ohio State University, USA.
Same-sex marriage, barely on the political radar a decade ago, is a reality in
America. How will it affect the well-being of children? Some observers worry
that legalizing same-sex marriage would send the message that same-sex parenting
and opposite-sex parenting are interchangeable, when in fact they may lead to
different outcomes for children. To evaluate that concern, William Meezan and
Jonathan Rauch review the growing body of research on how same-sex parenting
affects children. After considering the methodological problems inherent in
studying small, hard-to-locate populations--problems that have bedeviled this
literature-the authors find that the children who have been studied are doing
about as well as children normally do. What the research does not yet show is
whether the children studied are typical of the general population of children
raised by gay and lesbian couples. A second important question is how same-sex
marriage might affect children who are already being raised by same-sex couples.
Meezan and Rauch observe that marriage confers on children three types of
benefits that seem likely to carry over to children in same-sex families. First,
marriage may increase children's material well-being through such benefits as
family leave from work and spousal health insurance eligibility. It may also
help ensure financial continuity, should a spouse die or be disabled. Second,
same-sex marriage may benefit children by increasing the durability and
stability of their parents' relationship. Finally, marriage may bring increased
social acceptance of and support for same-sex families, although those benefits
might not materialize in communities that meet same-sex marriage with rejection
or hostility. The authors note that the best way to ascertain the costs and
benefits of the effects of same-sex marriage on children is to compare it with
the alternatives. Massachusetts is marrying same-sex couples, Vermont and
Connecticut are offering civil unions, and several states offer partner-benefit
programs. Studying the effect of these various forms of unions on children could
inform the debate over gay marriage to the benefit of all sides of the argument.
PMID: 16158732 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Gay marriage, same-sex parenting, and America's children.
Meezan W, Rauch J.
College of Social Work, Ohio State University, USA.
Same-sex marriage, barely on the political radar a decade ago, is a reality in
America. How will it affect the well-being of children? Some observers worry
that legalizing same-sex marriage would send the message that same-sex parenting
and opposite-sex parenting are interchangeable, when in fact they may lead to
different outcomes for children. To evaluate that concern, William Meezan and
Jonathan Rauch review the growing body of research on how same-sex parenting
affects children. After considering the methodological problems inherent in
studying small, hard-to-locate populations--problems that have bedeviled this
literature-the authors find that the children who have been studied are doing
about as well as children normally do. What the research does not yet show is
whether the children studied are typical of the general population of children
raised by gay and lesbian couples. A second important question is how same-sex
marriage might affect children who are already being raised by same-sex couples.
Meezan and Rauch observe that marriage confers on children three types of
benefits that seem likely to carry over to children in same-sex families. First,
marriage may increase children's material well-being through such benefits as
family leave from work and spousal health insurance eligibility. It may also
help ensure financial continuity, should a spouse die or be disabled. Second,
same-sex marriage may benefit children by increasing the durability and
stability of their parents' relationship. Finally, marriage may bring increased
social acceptance of and support for same-sex families, although those benefits
might not materialize in communities that meet same-sex marriage with rejection
or hostility. The authors note that the best way to ascertain the costs and
benefits of the effects of same-sex marriage on children is to compare it with
the alternatives. Massachusetts is marrying same-sex couples, Vermont and
Connecticut are offering civil unions, and several states offer partner-benefit
programs. Studying the effect of these various forms of unions on children could
inform the debate over gay marriage to the benefit of all sides of the argument.
PMID: 16158732 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
D'ster said:
Nice try, but next time why don't you look at research from actual research instates or medical organizations such as the APA or AAP who have actually done the research, rather than political activist comities with anti-gay agendas.
Seriously, these people and their 4 year old organization don't even seem to have a very good grasp on the state of homosexual parenting today, they talk as if it's already prohibited, when in fact the number of laws in the US prohibiting same-sex adoption are limited, Florida being the only state that I can think of which bans it outright, and there's none that I know of which prohibit child-custody through other means (children from a previous marriage, artificial insemination, so on so on).
If you have enough intellectual honesty to actually do some research you’ll find that there’s plenty of data collected over more than half a century. I’m not sure, though where you can find studies which counter your group’s claim that homosexuals are icky yucky dysfunctional people, that, I suppose is a matter of opinion, but I’m glad they present it as if it’s some sort of researched fact, it makes their bullshit easier to smell.