Posts
I wasn’t born to drink beer. In fact I couldn’t quite stand my first taste. But as I aged I grew to LOVE it especially with Hot Wings. I wasn’t born to enjoy smoked sausage either. But the older I got and the more I smoked the sausage, the more I grew to love it!
I wasn’t born sexual at all. In fact I didn’t have much of a clue about sexual attraction until I approached puberty. I was exposed to some playful heterosexual activities and found I quite enjoyed girls. I didn’t give homosexuality any thought while I was developing my first crushes on the cute girls in my 5th 6th and 7th grade classes. I was never exposed first hand to homosexual experiences so maybe that’s why I never chose that road but must admit that today I am simply repulsed by the idea of sex with a man though I love many of them.
If I had to have sex with a man to make a baby, I simply would have no children. I couldn’t do it. I wonder why many so-called born homosexuals are able to create babies by stifling a similar repulsion to the gender with which they do not sexually associate attraction. Could it be they were actually born heterosexuals acting on suppressed primal instinct?
Some people never experience beer so never grow to love it. Some even believe religiously that it would be down right wrong to consume such a thing contributing to their lack of exposure. However, some go against the wisdom of the “elders” and “sinfully” choose to tip one back anyway just to see what it’s like.
I’ll spare us all the gory details of the other side of this analogy and hope you get the idea.
I think it has more to do with environmental exposures during sensitive periods of human development prompting choice and less to do with born programming.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
I'm not buying it.
I know a family with 5 boys and 2 girls. They were all raised basically the same. But everyone in the neighborhood and everyone in that family knew Matt was as gay as ass-less chaps from day 1.
Very similar upbringing, very similar environment, very dissimilar results.
Was there some unseen environmental factor? Perhaps. But this guy was gay at 5, talking about the cute boys at school with his mom and big sister.
This guy was effeminate from day 1. Unless you are an actor, you couldn't pretend to be gay like this kid if you wanted to. Nathan Lane in The Birdcage comes to mind.
Evolution has nothing to do with it. Recessive genetic trait and a little environment.
Bluto, this is ridiculous. I don't know where to start, so I'll just pick your points at random and go through that way.
1) Your assertion that homosexuality, if completely genetic in causation, would have been bred out of the population is patently false. There are a great number of genetic diseases which are terminal and which strike children, killing them before puberty. They are genetic in nature, but they continue to strike our population. Genetic inheritance isn't always as simple as, "I have blue eyes, so my kids will too, the end." There are genes which lay dormant for generations, there are genes which skip every other generation, there are alleles that are recessive and only show up a small percentage of the time when the genetic mix between mom and dad's DNA donation is JUST RIGHT. There are mutations that happen regularly, perhaps because of environmental factors, but that nevertheless effect the fetus, GENETICALLY, IN UTERO. There are so many levels that you completely failed to recognize, that I...I'm SHOCKED!
2) Much of your argument rests on the assumption that in order to be "born gay," a person would have to have a GENETIC basis for his or her sexuality. This is a false premise, and yet another way that your argument false on its face before it takes its first step. As I just mentioned, environmental factors, chemical or otherwise, can effect the child.
You mentioned that you weren't born sexual, yet you were born with a sex. You were not born male because the X-Y combo caused you to grow a dong, but rather that the X-Y combo creates a certain hormonal atmosphere of heavy androgens like testosterone, and one consequence of that atmosphere is that the genitalia grow outward, and later in life this hormonal situation prevents breasts from growing on your chest. Genes are not the only way that the hormonal situation could be effected, (in reptiles TEMPERATURE determines sex), nor are hormones the only way that the development of an unborn human fetus could be permanently altered. There are so many ways that this assumption is wrong that my head is spinning right now. I can't believe you even SAID this.
3) Putting aside the previous two points, why would you even bother trying to make a point if that point was clearly built on a logical fallacy of false dichotomy; Either ALL homosexuals are born gay or ALL homosexuals were molded by culture? Psh. Ignorant. What is the basis for the assumption that sexuality is determined solely by one or solely by the other. What else in life is this the case for? You weren't born to like beer, but you body chemistry causes you to have certain, inescapable effects. You like sugar, yet there is absolutely no reason that the sugar molecule MUST taste sweet. Alter your physiology slightly and sugar tastes bad, or has no taste. We evolved to like it, probably because it was a good source of quick energy when energy was hard to come by, and recognizing this source was crucial. We weren't born to make music, yet there is a part of the brain that actually grows in response to musical training as though it was there for that purpose, and hearing music can elicit amazing emotional responses in people, even causing them to riot. The fact that people like certain colors is even likely to have BOTH genetic AND cultural causes. Language is a beatiful example how something can be shaped and transmitted through cultural phenomenon, yet there are genetic limitaions and genetic boons to our abilities. We are even genetically destined TO SPEAK. The same could be said of religion. What can you possibly present to me that isn't a product of environmental AND native causes?
4) The fact that you are repulsed by the idea of sex with men would be a clear indicator that you are not gay, or that you would be far to one end of a gay to straight spectrum. You wouldn't simply just "try" sex with a dude...because you aren't gay. If you would try it, then you are at least somewhat gay, because you have homosexual tendencies. You got this part BACKWARDS. Doing gay things doesn't make you gay, BEING gay compels you to do gay things. How did you miss that?
5) You have suggested elsewhere (HJnews) that gay men are effeminate and that this shows that homosexuality is cultural. Yet you failed to recognize that the men THAT YOU CAN TELL ARE GAY are effeminate, because THAT"S HOW BLUTO CAN TELL. I assure you that you have been in the presence of gay men and not been aware of it, because they did not act in a manner that fit your mental stereotype of what a gay man is. Anyone who fits your stereotype is identified easily, but anyone who does not fit simply slips under your radar (gay-dar) undetected.
If your aim was to show that homosexuality is learned, you didn't just fall short, you never got off the ground in the first place.
Hey Manical Fool! Read what I wrote and respond to IT.
"Either ALL homosexuals are born gay or ALL homosexuals were molded by culture?"
Where did I even imply that? What I concluced my position with follows:
I think it has more to do with environmental exposures during sensitive periods of human development prompting choice and less to do with born programming.
So much emotion! Is that an effeminate trait with which you were born? Easy cowboy...just playin'!
"You have suggested elsewhere (HJnews) that gay men are effeminate and that this shows that homosexuality is cultural."
When did I suggest such a thing? In fact I'm about to go there with TH ... Stay tuned ...
Horny Toad Blower,
What's not to buy? Because you are familiar with ONE effeminate youngster you know how to spot gays just like that? I argue that no 7th kid is raised "basically the same" as any 1st kid (I assume that since EVERYONE in that family knew this kid was gay he must have been the youngest). First, parents age and change strategies. Second, the older kids tend to play an ever increasing roll in the development of their younger siblings with each knew visit from the stork.
Are all gays effeminate? So becuase this boy was effeminate from DAY 1 everyone around him treated him like he was gay. Sounds like an argument that supports my claims of environmental influence.
You describe his behavior and expect it to stand as evidence of homosexuality. Are you born to speak with a certain accent or to use certain body language? Was Fitty Cent a natural born thug destined to abuse the English language with his speach patterns?
If you've ever spent a lot of time with someone who speaks with a Southern Drawl, you might notice you begin to pick it up a bit. My sister moved to NY and now her speech patterns have altered a bit.
The... Man...,
You offered, "There are a great number of genetic diseases which are terminal and which strike children..." Good point. But, are they on the rise? Autism is but as yet we don’t know if that is in-the-womb environmental conditioning or recurring genetic mutation. I think most genetic diseases afflicting children are still widely regarded as extremely rare. Homosexuality is becoming very common place IF homosexuality were strictly a recessive genetic trait(as TH put it) one would not expect to see its passing on the rise though the flaw would still present itself until science found a way of preventing it.
IF science comes up with a "fix" for this more and more common mutation, should they fix it?
You are arguing as if it's a proven forgone conclusion that homosexuality has nothing to do with choice and that all people are born one way or the other. Of course then there are Bi's ... Nevertheless, though there is much study on the topic, I have yet to read the BREAKING NEWS story that says scientists have proven all gays were born that way.
Sure I'd expect that some of this confusion that is same sex attraction might come from pre birth conditions.
I think more often it comes from being treated as if you’re gay by an entire neighbor hood or family because you behave effeminately or being exposed to sex first by a member of the same gender at a tender age or simply having a very close friend of the same gender reject you at a tender age causing a sort of crush to develop out of said rejection.
There are hundreds of simple environmental conditions that seem innocent but could actually lead to this.
Again, I’m startled by TH’s assertion that everyone knew this dude was gay before he new what sex was. I find it a bit off for a mom to discuss cute kindergarten boys with her son. Freud blames dominant mothering for homosexuality. It would take a certain type of mom to discuss cute boys with her kindergarten boy for sure!
What say you when it comes to accepting my repulsion of the same sex (sexually) as proof of my heteroness, yet more than once gays on the HJ have argued that they don't know any gays who hadn't had sex with both genders?
(argument used to justify a passing of genetic traits)
By the way, this particular piece is offered as evidence that environmental conditions and choices are commonly involved in sexuality.
I never stated that genetics must never be a factor.
One more thing Theicidal,
Certainly more ridiculous than my analogy of "tipping one back" is your reference to genetic disease.
If a kid is born with a terminal illness or defect, he doesn't have any choices. The effects of the "mutation" will manifest themselves no matter what.
Yet all humans can choose whether or not to have sex in the first place (and thus with whom to do it), whether or not to behave monogamously, or whether or not to save themselves for "the one".
Your genetic or “in utero” conditioning is more like wondering why some people like cooked carrots and some don't than why some unfavorable genetic dispositions continue to rarely manifest themselves in our species.
Also, you claimed I had something backwards, “You wouldn't simply just "try" sex with a dude...because you aren't gay.” You are right. But there is no telling what one would do or try as puberty approaches. Why would a homosexual EVER try the opposite gender? Maybe most gays have straight tendencies?
“Doing gay things doesn't make you gay, BEING gay compels you to do gay things.” Well, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one! Doing gay things might just lead to an acquired taste. Some people just get off on doing things they're “not supposed to do”. It’s the whole forbidden fruit lure , which is not strictly reserved for the religious. Some Cleptos, for instance, get off on the thrill of getting away with it. During adolescence this sort of personality might give homosexuality a try just because someone told them they weren’t supposed to.
I was never exposed to homoness and maybe it’s because my parents instilled in me what they perceived as valuable advice: Boys don’t kiss boys. My dad was certainly a walk like a man sort. If my hair was getting too long he’d tell me I looked like a girl and cut it all off. I don’t treat my son EXACTLY the same, but still, I do and will treat him like a heterosexual. I will not buy him Barbies. I will point out pretty girls on TV and my wife will not discuss “hot dudes” with him. Pink is for girls and blue is for boys. Yep. I admit there will be some programming that suits my moral compass even though that compass is not directly tied to any religion. I think I am a little more subtle than my father was, but the programming is certainly there much like the programming I’ve done to get my girl to enjoy math and reading.
Which gets to the crux of the matter. The pro gay movement has to argue that homosexuality is not choice. If they don’t, they have to admit my father’s behavior in raising me, and my strategies in raising my own kids are justified rather than freakishly absurd and abusive. If gay is choice, then parents are justified in presenting the environmental programming necessary to achieve alignment with their own moral compasses. Just like alcohol. Some parents teach their kids at very early ages that not only is alcohol bad for you but it’s down right wrong. That is every parent’s prerogative.
But the pro gay movement wants to paint my style of parenting with the same brush as it could if I was trying to beat my lefty kid into being a righty.
You want to use science to beat up on people who think the way I do. The science is not conclusive at this point. I am not wasting my time when I try to teach my kids abstinence nor am I wasting time to teach my boy to be a man and my girl to be a lady. If I fail, I will still love them and do what I can to protect them. It’s my nature.
But I will not stand back while my kids are asked to wrestle with the choice of being straight or gay. That is where the pro gay movement leads if gay is not a born trait. The gay movement will ask parents like me to back off and let every kid simply choose for themselves. The pro gay movement is more anti-family value and anti-parenting than it is pro anything if you ask me. Agony loves company so they inadvertently recruit by pumping the notion that gay is no choice down the throats of parents trying to instill morality in their own children. Perhaps this is part of the reason we never see homosexuals and their supporters around here argue that gay is a choice.
If proven a choice, will the pro gay movement change so as to teach us how we should be parenting? Wait, they probably already do that. If proven a choice, then gays have to look those who are disappointed with them over the choices they’ve made straight in the eye and reconcile that disappointment as would an LDS kid who falls away from the church and chooses a lifestyle of coffee, tea and beer.
Autism isn't necessarily on the rise. That's never been shown to be true. What has been shown is that autism DIAGNOSIS rates are on the rise, and that people are often MISdiagnosed. My best friend has a son who they thought was autistic for several years. He was diagnosed, medicated, hell the parents even got money from the state because they needed to have a special care provider to look after him. Turns out, though, that the kid never had autism. He was just a little different. He's 9 now, and completely normal...more to come later
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=204
"McCain’s Autism Gaffe"
Well TM,
I guess you'd say that homoness is not on the rise but rather its diagnosis.
I'd say there are many factors adding to its rise: Single parent families, a growing "civil rights" movement leading to general acceptance of gayness where once there was none, an increase in the number of child molesting predators and an overall defiance of society to conservative parenting.
Blower,
What are you? My Blog's version of the drive-by media?
You're the hit and run commenter who seems to have little time to engage in discussion yet plenty of time to make one quick criticism of everything I write. You must figure your first post is so entertaining that no banter is left in order!
I'm posting this comment on a couple other strings just in case you actually check back on one again, Mr. "Who is this Bluto and why doesn't he make enough posts on his Blog..."
Yeah bluto, I actually wouldn't be able to think of much of a reason why homosexuality would be on the rise, as a percentage of the population, rather that you are seeing more homosexuals be open about their sexuality because
a) it is more cultural acceptable for them to express their sexuality, and
b) there is a considerable amount of "in your face" homosexuality due to a denial of what they see as their rights (marriage and the attached legal benefits)
I also would think that less people would be suppressing their homosexuality now that they know they are less likely to be blackballed (so to speak) or burned at the stake or whatever.
I admit I like the data to support this, although I also imagine that there isn't much in the way of data to support the claim that sexual molestation is a significant factor in later homosexuality. I used to believe that, but I read a study about that some time ago which seemed to show that there wasn't a significant correlation, but I can't remember where or when so we may as well throw that out for now, and realize that, thus far, we are both only conjecturing.
I will of course acknowledge that molestation has profound effects on a person's later (and EARLY) sexuality, but I would think that this may manifest more in the form of PROMISCUITY than in sexual preference.
I felt like I might have straw-manned your position a little bit at first, but pouring through what you wrote, I think that my interpretations are pretty on-point. You didn't EXPLICITLY say (except for in your attention-grabbing headline) that there can be NO genetic component to homosexuality, but I certainly think it is implicit in what you have written.
And I will ABSOLUTELY stand by the claim that just because a genetic trait may remove some carriers from the gene pool, that the genetic cause of that trait will be evolved out. It CAN happen, but there is certainly no guarantee, and no end to the examples of cases where this does not happen.
I do, of course, see little room for "choice" in the equation to become homosexual, because I think that in order for that to even SEEM like an inticing option, regardless of surroundings, one must have the inclination toward it somewhere inside already present. I doubt that you and I are going to solve the nativist/environmentalist debate on this post, so yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Note - I wrote "I like the data to support this" but what I actually meant to write was "I LACK the data to support this."
- josh
I also wanted to elaborate on my statement that "less people would be suppressing their homosexuality now that they know they are less likely to be blackballed (so to speak) or burned at the stake or whatever." I think that the fact that they are seeing this more in the culture around them doesn't necessarily point to a purely cultural CAUSE for the expression of their homosexuality, but rather that they see that they have more options in expressing things about themselves that would have previously been taboo or simply too private. I see it as though they have more options available to them to express who they already are, not necessarily more options to try something that they never would have thought of. Homosexuality doesn't require complex culture like what humans have. Plenty of dumb life forms do gay stuff.
Well,
I wonder how many people are actually born strictly homosexual with a resilliant repugnation toward the opposite sex and how many are simply born BI. Perhaps my belief could be reworded to claim perhaps we are born bi rather than non-sexual waiting for experiences to guide our choices.
I lean toward a belief that most are born bi or non sexual. This is conjecture as you stated and based in conversations I've had in these arguments where it seems most gays have at least tried both genders whereas most straights have tried only one.
Obviously the BI's have to make a choice. Much like some find alcohol wrong, who am I to hold it against someone who thinks CHOOSING gay is wrong.
Lots of gays (ie Catholic church) simply remain celebate. That's ok too isn't it?
I don't want to see my boy kissing another boy but if after my subtle efforts to nudge him toward manhood fail to raise a heterosexual, I will handle it.
I hate to see this entire movement find itself in public schools in the form of daddy, daddy, child, child illustrations for what is in a family.
If you are born repulsed by the opposite sex, it follows that breeding is simply not in the stars for you. To this extent, I guess I do discriminate quite loudly. Homosexuality has no place in family values as it pertains to raising children. I also believe neither does divorce.
I could agree to varying degrees, with much of what you said above, with a few exceptions.
1) Your final paragraph commits the logical fallacy of naturalism: Something IS the case, therefore it SHOULD BE the case. Because homosexuals can not breed together, they should not rear children together.
But I think that you would agree that people who are exceptional breeders don't always make good child-rearers, and vice versa. Some people are sterile for whatever reason, but make great adopted parents. Some people have many children whom they've neither ever seen nor ever supported. Some people are physically unattractive, to the point that I have a hard time believing that ANYONE would EVER copulate with them, yet this says very little about their ability to instill values in others.
2) "I hate to see this entire movement find itself in public schools in the form of daddy, daddy, child, child illustrations for what is in a family" ... why? Is this just a matter of personal taste (and if so should your personal preferences be the yardstick by which our education system is judged?), or do you think this would be a poor education policy (enough to justify telling kids from non-traditional households that their "families" aren't legitimate or valid, thereby ostracizing them)?
Good parents or bad, I think largely the best results come from a dad and a mom raising their own children together. That is what I value and don't live under the illusion that somehow what I value will be valued by others or somehow worked into MY PLAN for society. I shudder at the thought of such tradition being regarded as less than "normal".
I am not sure lessons on family belong in Kindergarten or public school at all. Social programming like this should be done at home ... like religion or the lack thereof or Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
If "family" is to be taught in public school at all (especially early grade school), then it should never get into complications like divorce, his, mine and ours, single parenthood or adoption no matter the reason or the adopters. Marriage and its traditions are certainly fuel for ostracization of kids whose parents never wed or were divorced. I am not sure what would be the intention of talking "family" and "what's in one" to Kindergartners in the first place. The only thing that begins to make sense is for it to represent a precursor to sex ed. which I'm not sure belongs necessarily in public schools either (though I am not adamantly opposed). Kids know who mommy, daddy, sister and brother are by the time they get to grade school. They SHOULD anyway.
Parents should be handling this stuff at home for their own kids.
I think kids should learn about families because that is a good way to do social studies. You have to understand how society organizes itself, and right now, OUR SOCIETY is doing it in more ways than Mommy+Daddy=babies.
While you think that "the best results come from a dad and a mom raising their own children together" I have to wonder WHY that might be. Is it the mother/father duality diversity? If so, then PLURAL or interracial marriages would be better.
But perhaps the results of a traditional mother/father parenting team are "best" only in the context of a society that only values that particular family paradigm. We are no longer in that society. It's time to move forward, I think.
"Bluto serves low and hard to maniac's forehand, OOOhhhh, a hard smash up the line back to Bluto who picks it up with a brilliant pitching lob.
Maniac returns softly into the front zone and here comes Bluto to the net for a double grip backhand. What a match, folks. Bluto's "Gay-Is-as-Gay-Does" and "I could never sustain an erection long enough to rape Richard Simmons" arguments a gaining traction ... but wait! Here comes maniac with his Human Genome Project research and raised pinky finger.
Will they agree to disagree? Will they get together and share quiche? Will they meet in a Minneapolis Airport bathroom stall?
O' the humanity.
Im sorry TM,
If you are a kid, you have parents who should teach you about YOUR family structure. It's ridiculous to expect public school to address every possible "structure" or lack there of a kid might find themselves in.
Why is Mom, Dad and baby better? Because it is without certain complications.
Any other structure involves a situation that can easily lead to counciling.
Single parenthood results from divorce (troublesome), death (tragic), or out of wedlock pregnancy (irresponsible).
Now divorce can result from abuse (I hear the councelor again), falling out of love (total copout not putting the kids high enough on the priority list...stick that one out), or cheating (what are we teaching our kids with that one?).
Do we really need to get into this sort of counceling in Kindergarten with our neighbors kids?
Adoption is better than abortion or a decade of institutional living, so under certain circumstances I suppose a steady monogamous gay couple can present a wonderful alternative, but the best alternative is for couples to responsibly produce children with forsight.
It seems common sensicle to me! None of the complications need addressing in school. The single parents can teach their kids why they're single and why their kids should avoid being a single parent. The Gay couples can teach their own kids why they had kids but then fell out of love with mommy and married uncle Ed. The adoptive parents can choose when or if to tell their kids they were adopted.
It really is still part of our society. I don't understand where you think that somehow the decay of our youth is somehow favorable.
In fact are you not using the same fallacy you accused me of?
"...the results of a traditional mother/father parenting team are "best" only in the context of a society that only values that particular family paradigm. We are no longer in that society. It's time to move forward..." It IS that way so we SHOULD move forward? What?
Bluto,
I feel like you didn't respond to much of what I said, but you threw so much out there with thus recent post that I feel I must respond point by point. Buon apetito:
If you think that schools should not try to define "family" for kindergarteners, well I guess you agree with me! The schools shouldn't be defining "family" as MommyDaddyBabies, because it ignores the majority of what American families ARE. Definitions aside, understanding the ways that humans organize is an important aspect to understanding HUMANS, and in understanding how elder humans TEACH CHILDREN. That SHOULD be taught as part of any good social studies program (not typically available to kindergarteners). I would think that this should suit both of our interests.
"Why is Mom, Dad and baby...without certain complications?" "Why would other structures [necessarily] lead to counciling" (sic, dubious claim). Perhaps it would be because we are in a society that is desperately clinging to the old, failing paradigm of "traditional family," unwilling to see value in other viewpoints, and unable to see that the old system is already a relic.
Single parenthood results from causes that you mentioned, but for reasons that you failed to, like RESPONSIBLE, CONSCIOUS decision making by well-informed, prepared adults. It is also not relevant to the specific topic at hand.
"Adoption is better than abortion." I disagree, and you have offered nothing in the way of support of this premise for me to evaluate. The assumptions are too grand, and they cannot support any following conclusion. I will say, though, that in light of the looming population crisis that we are facing, perhaps within our lifetime, and the sort of societal collapse that has ALWAYS followed such a crisis throughout history, I'd say that abortion is an excellent recourse at our disposal! Far superior to adoption. But even if I grant you your controversial premise, shouldn't you then conclude that adoption by a gay couple is more desirable than in-utero death by coat-hanger? Going from your premise, shouldn't you be IN FAVOR of the types of families that I am advocating?
But I don't grant you that premise, nor can I grant, unchallenged, the assumption that non-traditional families represent the "decay of our youth," to quote you directly. It may very well be the decay of a system based on "traditional family" units, but that is a very different thing the decay of our youth. Besides, if this system was so superior, then how would you explain its utter rejection?
Also, I am not committing the naturalistic fallacy, which is to say that because something IS that it therefore SHOULD BE, because I am not arguing that:
*because alternative families exist that therefore their existence is morally just.*
What I am arguing is that we shouldn't PRETEND that the reality is one way, when it is actually quite different, and then teach our children untruths. This is based on the idea that information and honesty are good, and that exclusion and ostracision are bad.
Understnad that this sort of topic is my bread and butter, and criticism does not necessarily equal contempt. If you grow tired of this thread, simply say the word...you do have a blog to run, after all.
I quite enjoy the topic, too.
First, "We are no longer that society, it's time to move forward" sounds an awful lot like "families" practicing alternative lifestyles exist THEREFORE we should accept them.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not you committed the naturalistic fallacy.
Second, maybe you didn't, can't or won't quite understand my point and this is why you feel I skirted your post.
Mom, Dad, Baby is the way ALL of us are born. Some Dad's or Mom's bail out on the other before the baby is born or soon afterward. That's a complication that requires a deviance from the norm. Even if that deviation has gone so far as to put mom, dad, babies into a minority group (I'd like to see proof of this rather than your conjecture including just when the change occurred) it doesn't make it best for society. A claim of correlation can certainly be made that because the family structure has failed to keep RESPONSIBLE, CONSCIOUS people from having or making children they don't intend to rear that more kids are on the streets sooner. More kids are in day care (not necessarily a loving environment) More kids are on drugs, in gangs and dropping out of school than ever before.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed052108b.cfm
http://books.google.com/books?id=PlSMLbnyDUkC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=drug+rate+broken+families&source=web&ots=2ZkhuLFEkB&sig=sb8C2OpHk52kx0NR5fScAlXm-zs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA106,M1
Certainly a gay couple can provide a loving environment for a kid who is victim of some family breakdown. However, I stand by my assertion that the kid is better off without the breakdown in the first place.
"RESPONSIBLE, CONSCIOUS decision making by well-informed, prepared adults" does not lead to any of the situations I listed in the first place and a child victim of any of those scenarios I listed will need counseling whether it be professional or many conversations with the remaining, foster or adoptive parent to explain to them why their life was altered at an early age, or why they never met their daddy, or why they are black and mommy and mommy are white, or which daddy's tummy did he come from ... etc. I'm sure you get the picture.
There is only one scenario where "conscious, responsible" gays
might rear children without necessarily a "breakdown": surrogate parenting. Even that comes with complications, though!
...and of course I'm not saying homosexuality should never occur nor am I saying necessarily that homosexuals should be prevented from raising their own children or adopting needy kids ...
I am saying kids are better off if they are not needy in the first place. I am saying kids are better off if two loving, conscious, responsible adults with a steady, traditional lifestyle and income conceive them and rear them while staying together.
I offer adoption as preferable to abortion for the kid in Kindergarten being taught that mommy, mommy baby is a perfectly normal family without complication and in need of no further explanation for why other kids have a mommy and a daddy. Abortion would leave the kid without life in the first place. I'm not as drab as you and not open to any "better off dead" explanations save maybe very extreme and painful situations.
Also, even if one parent dies and this is why a kid is in a single parent family, that kid would be far better off if a loving, conscious responsible parent hadn't died.
You missed it. That is exactly why I mentioned adoption over abortion in the first place. Sure it's better if a needy child is adopted by a responsible gay couple than if he (assuming good to decent health) were aborted, but as I just re explained, the more desirable approach would be to avoid the complication of undesired pregnancy in the first place.
I don't blame you for missing anything. I was hammering away, doing no proof reading and writing poorly while slightly intoxicated. I stand by my points, however.
I meant the following sentence to lead my last post ...
Lastly "...shouldn't you then conclude that adoption by a gay couple is more desirable than in-utero death by coat-hanger?"
Still writing too fast and quite poorly:
Correction from the first post:
A claim of correlation can certainly be made between traditional family structure failing to keep RESPONSIBLE, CONSCIOUS people from having or making children they don't intend to rear and more kids on the streets, on drugs or in some other sort of trouble.
"Alternative families exist therefore we should acknowledge that they do" is not the same as stating that "alternative families exist, therefore it is morally just that they OUGHT TO exist." The latter is the naturalistic fallacy, the former is what I was saying, and is logically permissible.
Here's an example of the fallacy, using your argument, and, where possible, your quotes:
A) Mom, Dad, Baby is the way ALL of us are born. (This is the norm)
B) Any other structure represents a "That's a complication that requires a deviance from the norm."
C) Therefore it is wrong (this is approximately my understanding of your bottom line conclusion)
This argument ONLY holds up on the unstated premise that IS equals OUGHT, that the "natural norm" = "the morally correct scenario."
That premise is an exact definition of the naturalistic fallacy
TM,
You weren't just ACKNOWLEDGING that they exist. You said quite vaguely that "we should move forward" ... and then went on a rampage about "traditional" not mattering much anymore. To me moving forward would be to acknowledge that tradition is disappearing and is causing harm. To you it seems tradition is disappearing so let's embrace it's loss by acknowledging it and "moving forward" to the extent that teaching the very basic principles of "family" to 5-year-olds should now include the possibilities that a little girl might someday marry a princess and have babies.
I was acknowledging that gays repulsed by the opposite sex will not make babies therefore it makes no sense to depict them raising children in a traditional looking family setting. I wasn’t making a moral statement.
Here I will make a moral statement: homosexual marriage, legal or not is still alternative. I see no reason to spend anytime teaching children about alternative lifestyles. They can learn that at home. Very little time should be spent on family structure in Kindergarten anyway however if families are represented in stories or lessons they should stick to traditional married heterosexual coupling. Divorced and remarried, single-parent, or homosexual alternatives should be left for a more mature audience.
I'm not saying right or wrong as single parenthood or other alternatives are concerned. I'm saying tradition is certainly preferred. It is certainly preferred by my children that neither my wife nor I die while they are children. It is certainly preferred that my wife and I stay together while my children are still children (probably even adults). It is certainly preferred that if my wife and I are not in a stable relationship we do not have children in the first place ...
And what of identical twins, separated at birth with radically different upbringings in different cultures with different languages - becoming the same person.
There's the identical twin kids from Bengal, one raised in Turkey on his uncle's ranch - the other on Sri Lanka with his wealthy, pacifist mother.
As the boys grew up, they both showed an interest in math, science and athletics as youths. Both went on to college, both dropped out and went to work as civil servants. Reunited at 58, one was a police chief and the other was a fire superintendent.
I'll wager dollars to donuts that, if one of those boys was a switch hitter, his other would also love the cock.
If one were an American Evil Knievel, his other would be an Armenian tightrope walker.
If one were a pigeon-shit eating Madden2009 fanatic stranded on a tiny Mediterranean rock somewhere, his other would be Dubya.
But were he a shaven-chested, switch hitting, Cock-tail slave at the "In-Between" lounge in Battle Creek Michigan, you had better believe his other would be a niblet corn-gulping twink hairdresser from Fort Wayne Indiana with "Aim High! Air Force!" tattooed his coccyx.
If I am born gay, I can also be born black. It would be wrong, and against the law, to discriminate against either.
If I am born a musical genius, I go to Genoa and Brussels. If I am born 7-foot-2 with exceptional dexterity, I go to the Sacramento Kings.
If I am born a violent psychopath with narcissistic rage, I rape your son with a forelimb removed from your dead dog and choke your wife to death with her own uterus —
and make you watch.
There are some who say killing the kid, dog and wife are a good thing. Speeds up traffic on the freeway. Shortens the lines at Disneyland. Filters weak kids, dogs and moms out of the gene pool. Though it is safe to say they are in the extreme minority.
But if you say "I was born this way, and my choices and actions are not my own, but simply in my nature" then you can not prosecute, discriminate or otherwise stand in judgment of the violent psychopath with narcissistic rage.
Asphyxiation by uterus is just in his DNA, and he deserves all the same rights and protections as those who prefer to asphyxiate the regular way.
no bold blowjab,
you're not buying it? why? did you have a dominant mother who laughed when you enjoyed playing with dolls? did your friends laugh at you too? i think you have a problem with your own sexuality. you haven't decided if you like boys or girls. bluto's on to something and you mock him with your lisping psycho babble. go admit yourself into a state mental hospital as it's obvious you're unbalanced. it's obvious you've been programmed by a dominant mother. nothing evolutionary about you. get some therapy so you can have normal relationships.
Wow, I missed out on this one! I'm a little late in posting this, but oh well.
Now, if someone approached me with "I've always FELT gay (or different), therefore I AM gay," I would respond with "I've always FELT homosexuality was wrong and deviant behavior, therefore it is."
I have a cousin who "went gay" after being married to a manly man and having four beautiful children. He was somewhat abusive, according to her, so she divorced him and proceeded to date other men. Then she went to work in a hospital where a group of lesbians eventually tried to recruit her. They made all sorts of promises. This cousin even came to me and asked if I thought she should "try" that lifestyle! Of course I told her absolutely not! Run away as fast as you can! Quit your job and get out of that environment!
Well, she did give it a try. Fifteen years later she is a full-blown lesbian who has had MULTIPLE relationships with other women, exposing her young children to them constantly, with at least 10 different women moving in and out of her house. This lady used to be a doting mother and role model to me, with a family that had so much potential. Now her life and mental health are messed up, her kids' lives are COMPLETELY screwed up, and we're all left shaking our heads at how one person's selfishness can affect so many people.
That's just one story of extended family members "going gay." So from this personal experience and others like it, it seems to me that people decide at some point whether or not to be gay, regardless of their effeminate tendencies. Like Bluto says, I've yet to see real scientific evidence that disproves homosexuality as a choice.
I think your cousin represents more of the norm than the acception to the rule of born homosexuality.
We are born with impulses and desires, perhaps. What we choose to do with those is entirely choice and we must reap what we sew.
Thanks Red!
Post a Comment