spectrum, I don't get it.

[Priam]

I gotta say, as an extension of Guin’s point, that if I had been asked 4 years ago whether being gay was immoral/sick/whatever, I probably would’ve said “yes”. Not because I was an asshole. Not because I was stupid. I would have said it because I lacked any knowledge on the subject and my knee-jerk reaction would have been purely based on the slurs I knew in society. For the decade before that I lived in a Catholic world where the subject was frowned upon in a silence that made it quite clear that “nice people” simply didn’t go there. Ever. This was something my parents never really considered worth contradicting (though now it seems likely they would’ve disagreed had it occured to them).

If I had posted that and then spectrum had rushed in with a vitriolic post ranting about how I was Hitler, it would merely have offended me and shut me off from any further dialogue that probably would’ve made me reconsider.

[yosemite]

@Priam

If I had posted that and then spectrum had rushed in with a vitriolic post ranting about how I was Hitler, it would merely have offended me and shut me off from any further dialogue that probably would’ve made me reconsider.

Yes, yes, yes, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying too.

People are ignorant or sheltered or just didn’t have to face these issues. They parrot what they are told or just don’t think about it too much. If their first exposure to a gay person is someone who is going ballistic, what are they to think? They haven’t had much exposure to gay people before. All they’ve heard are stuff from other people about how gayness is bad, and then they get shrieked at by some frothing-at-the-mouth gay person. How is this going to help them see the issues with clarity?

[Polycarp]

@spectrum

Nonsense. And surprising to read from one of the only people on this Board I would actually consider a real Christian.

There are millions of Chrisitans who “follow Christ’s teachings” and who are gay, and actively gay, with a partner or a family, and to imply that that’s not possible, as you appear to do here, is just as reprehensible as bodswhatever’s attack on the ability for gays to be parents.

A gay person can be a Christian just as well as any straight person.

A gay person can be a parent just as well as any straight person.

My apologies, spectrum. You are of course 100% correct, and my post, as worded, wrong. What I was trying to get out, in my long-winded way, is that, if Christian X believes the Bible to condemn gay sex under any conditions, what Scripture teaches is that he himself should abstain, etc., and not judge gay people. It came out distorted, because I was trying to herd too many subordinate clauses together, and you’re most justified in your criticism of it. Thanks for the catch!

[Guinastasia]

Perhaps then, instead, we should say it is an assholish position, but the person holding it may or may not be an asshole-they may simply need further persuasion to change their views. It may take a long time, but I would say it is worth it.

[bodswood]

Studies into homosexual and heterosexual parenting are notorious for problems with their sampling (often non-random), their bias (depending on the viewpoint of the researcher and/or the funding agency) and their overall lack of rigour. Depending on who you choose to read (and this will likely be determined in advance by your own prior position), you will or will not conclude that children raised by homosexual parents are placed at risk; that they are more apt to experience gender and sexual confusion; that they are more apt to become promiscuous; that they are at greater risk of losing a parent to AIDS, substance abuse or suicide; that they suffer more depression and other emotional difficulties.

This excerpt from an article in Fox News makes the point clearly:

’Politicization’ of Research

David Murray of the Washington-based Statistical Assessment Service and co-author of It Ain’t Necessarily So: How Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality, agrees that most of the research on homosexual parenting is politically contaminated. He blames it on a fear of “arousing the dog chained on the left side and arousing the cat chained on the right side” of the political spectrum.

“We have allowed the politicization of this issue to erode our capacity to see clearly and to effectively decide policy issues,” Murray said.

“It’s all about the politicization of the academic community, the federal grant-giving community and news reporting on these issues — they’ve all failed to provide good information about these important issues of social change,” he said.

As a result, he said, most of the research conducted until now tells us “squat” and only speaks to battling agendas. It has brought the public and the scientific community no closer to knowing the truth about such hot button issues, he said.
Rabbi Daniel Lapin, the President of the conservative public advocacy group Toward Tradition added that “flawed science is not new, right now it’s swirling around the controversial area of sexuality.”

But he said that science ultimately may not be able to resolve the fundamental questions some people have about controversial issues, including gay parenting and gay marriage.

*“We all have to acknowledge that when push comes to shove this is not an issue that is solved by science,” he said. “It will be decided, based on beliefs and convictions.” * [italics added]

You can read the entire article at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,29901,00.html

As for any concern I might have about being ‘nuked’ by anyone on this Internet chat room, my feelings are well summed up in the words of an English MP after listening to the invective aimed at him by an opponent:

“Being attacked by the Right Honorable gentleman is like being savaged by a dead sheep.”

[Excalibre]

Am I the only one who’s confused by bodswood’s article? What point are you trying to make? Some guy says there’s no good research on whether the kids of gay parents grow up all right. Is this the best you can do to support your point? Are you expecting us to say, “There’s no research, so we better play it safe and stick with what bodswood says”?

After all, this is just one guy’s opinion. And given that the article later says that science can’t tell us anything about the issue, well, science could tell us if the kids commit more crimes, or are more likely to need treatment for mental health issues or drug addictions. Those would be a good start. The thrust of the article seems to be “We don’t like science. Let’s talk some more about our own personal opinions.” Who is this guy, bodswood’s father? I mean, how did you find a public figure who acts exactly like you? He waves his hands to make all the nasty science goes away, and then goes back to talking about his feelings - just like you!

Christ, I thought it was bad when he did nothing but come up with unsupported, meaningless opinions, but now he’s citing meaningless, empty writings to go with them. :smack:

[Dunderman]

bodswood, take a long hard look at yourself. Are you truly looking for the truth? Are you really interested in finding facts? Or are you merely interested in finding whatever seems to fit your already taken stance? To me, it sounds like the latter. You’ve been provided with a plethora of studies and papers showing no negative results of gay parenting; in fact, some of them show positive, which isn’t a bit surprising to me. The differences listed in the Fox News article aren’t new, secret, or hidden, they’re stated quite clearly in several of the links I provided to you, as you would have known, had you bothered to read the evidence you demanded. Children conforming less to gender stereotypes isn’t a bad thing in anyone’s eyes but a troglodyte’s, it’s a good thing.

Then some conservative rabbi says the issue won’t be solved by science. Of course it won’t. But science gives us, and will continue to give us, the tools with which to solve it. Gay parenting isn’t new or weird anymore, it’s happening. We know the children involved. We have the statistics. Reading statistics is mechanical; there’s no politics or hidden agenda in it. Read the links I provided after much unjustified whining from you. If you reach the same conclusion as the Fox News article, come back and tell us why.

This is how debating works, something you have yet to learn. If you make a claim, as you have done here, you have to back it up. It’s not up to us to show that your claim is false, it’s up to you to show it’s true. Were this not the case, debating would be pointless. You’d make a claim and demand that I find evidence for the opposite. I’d make a counterclaim and demand that you find evidence for the opposite. And there we are: deadlock.

Try to take a step back and look at all this. Can you honestly say to yourself that you are looking for hard facts?

[AHunter3]

I’d give him a modicum of off-topic board-generic credit for at least coming up with a cite.

bodswood, Fox News isn’t a news channel in the same sense that NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, BBB, etc., are. Neutrality-wise they’re as inclined to have an agenda on these matters as AirAmerica Radio is.

But taking them at face value for the moment:

Fox’News’:

A significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers say they have experienced sexual intimacy with a partner of the same sex. They were not, however, statistically more likely to identify themselves as gay or lesbian.

• That doesn’t seem like an undesirable finding, certainly no reason to be reluctant to allow gay or lesbian people to adopt. Methodologically, to demonstrate cause and effect you’d have to control for attitudes and belief systems of the parents in the study group and the control group. If some of the hetero parents have attitudes akin to yours with regards to homosexuality, an attitude unlikely to be present among adoptive gay parents, that’s going to skew the results (i.e., the children would be less homophobic and therefore more likely to experiment not because their parents are gay but because their parents haven’t taught them to be homophobic).

Fox’News’:

Young girls raised by lesbians are more likely to be sexually adventurous and active than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. However the sons of lesbians exhibit “an opposite pattern” and are likely to be less adventurous and active than boys raised by heterosexual households.

• And that one sounds like a net positive. Girls are more inhibited, and boys less cautious, than they should be, by and large.

Fox’News’:

• Lesbian mothers reported that their children behave in ways that do not conform to “sex-typed cultural norms.” And the sons of lesbians are reportedly less likely to behave in traditionally masculine ways than those raised by heterosexual couples.

• And that one’s an overwhelming, unmitigated positive. Obligatory and rigid sex role conformity is one of the biggest social problems we’ve got. I was previously only inclined to see no problem with it, now I see that gay adoption is actually addressing social problems and I’m inclined to say we should do what we can to promote and encourage it.

[Genghis_Bob]

@bodswood

. . . *“We all have to acknowledge that when push comes to shove this is not an issue that is solved by science,” he said. “It will be decided, based on beliefs and convictions.” *

Damn’ straight; beliefs and convictions are all we have in this discussion.

Beliefs and convictions like:

. . . We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. . .

Not much argument to that one, I don’t reckon. I don’t think you need to be an American to find some favor with the sentiment. For my part, I’m glad to live in a country that comes right out and says such a thing out loud for everyone to hear; and I look forward to the day when I live in a country where people don’t have to fight for the same inalienable rights enjoyed without question by their countrymen, and don’t have to ask permission of their fellow citizens to exercise those rights in their fullest measure.

[Excalibre]

@AHunter3

bodswood, Fox News isn’t a news channel in the same sense that NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, BBB, etc., are. Neutrality-wise they’re as inclined to have an agenda on these matters as AirAmerica Radio is.

Now you’re going a little far. I mean, I wouldn’t trust Fox News to cover a birthday announcement without bias, but that’s a judgment on my part. They’re not the same as WorldNetDaily or the Washington Times, which don’t even purport to carry real news. (Well, the Washington Times might claim to do so, but in their case, it would be considerably more outlandish than even Fox’s “Fair and Balanced”.) They’re a real news source, even if they’re not exactly the BBC.

[Greathouse]

At one time I was terribly bigoted against homosexuals. I did not care what happened to them. As a matter of fact, I didn’t think that homosexuals were entitled to the same rights that I took for granted on a daily basis. I saw absolutely no use for it. I saw it as a choice that they had made, and if they chose to be homosexual then they fully deserved any bad shit that comes thier way.
Now then…

As a direct result of threads such as this one I have changed my views. I understand that it isn’t a choice. I also understand that allowing equal rights for gays does not affect my rights in the least. My views on this topic are totally 180 degrees out from what they were. I guess because I had never actually thought about how I would feel if I were denied the same rights.

I still have to deal with the “ick” factor, but that isn’t a big deal. It won’t prevent me from establishing friendships with homosexuals or voting in favor of thier equal rights, if given the chance. My predjudices were preventing me from doing those things.

I really do not express my thoughts or feelings well, so I don’t post many messages on here. As you can tell by my post count I usually just lurk (but I do lurk everyday for extended periods of time). But I felt the need to pop my head in here and thank matt_mcl, Sol, gobear, spectrum …Hell, Thanks to everyone. Be aware that people are listening and you are able to change peoples views every once in a while.
:: I feel the need to apologize to someone for all of the hurtful and ignorant things I said and did over the years simply because someone may have been gay :: :wally

[Miller]

@matt_mcl

My guess: no, for the same reason there aren’t any people who live in Paris but not in France.

I would not be a true Doper if I did not point out that a lot of people live in Paris, Texas, who have never even been to France.

[Polycarp]

@Greathouse

At one time I was terribly bigoted against homosexuals. I did not care what happened to them. As a matter of fact, I didn’t think that homosexuals were entitled to the same rights that I took for granted on a daily basis. I saw absolutely no use for it. I saw it as a choice that they had made, and if they chose to be homosexual then they fully deserved any bad shit that comes thier way.
Now then…

As a direct result of threads such as this one I have changed my views. I understand that it isn’t a choice. I also understand that allowing equal rights for gays does not affect my rights in the least. My views on this topic are totally 180 degrees out from what they were. I guess because I had never actually thought about how I would feel if I were denied the same rights.

I still have to deal with the “ick” factor, but that isn’t a big deal. It won’t prevent me from establishing friendships with homosexuals or voting in favor of thier equal rights, if given the chance. My predjudices were preventing me from doing those things.

I really do not express my thoughts or feelings well, so I don’t post many messages on here. As you can tell by my post count I usually just lurk (but I do lurk everyday for extended periods of time). But I felt the need to pop my head in here and thank matt_mcl, Sol, gobear, spectrum …Hell, Thanks to everyone. Be aware that people are listening and you are able to change peoples views every once in a while.
:: I feel the need to apologize to someone for all of the hurtful and ignorant things I said and did over the years simply because someone may have been gay :: :wally

Three things, Greathouse

1. It takes a very big man to step up and say something like that.

2. It is posts like this that make Internet debate worthwhile – they do work changes, one heart at a time.

3. On behalf of all the gay Dopers and all of us who sympathize with them, Thank You.

[bodswood]

I attach a link to an article by Paul Marston entitled ‘Christians, Gays and Gay Christians’. It might be of particular interest to Christians on the board. Dr Marston teaches at the University of Central Lancashire in England.
http://www.fmcuk.org.uk/social%20issues/homosexuality.htm

Here are snippets from the article:

‘As various European Governments now sanction same sex partnerships, they fail to tell us why polygamy remains illegal. It can surely only be a matter of time before someone goes to the European court of human rights to demand the right to be polygamous. A key issue, then, is this: “Is there a logical ‘stopping place’ that specifies monogamy but not heterosexuality?”’

(With reference to Leviticus 18 and 20) ‘Homosexual acts were regarded as sins for Gentiles as well as Jews. They were not, of course, regarded as particularly “special” or heinous sins as homophobics make out – but they were considered sinful.’

'We may note, then, Jesus’ view of marriage here:

God made them male and female. So a man leaves his parents (a new family relationship is forming, the action is public and socially recognised). The husband and wife “cleave” (“cleaving” involves emotional and social identification - as with Ruth and Naomi). They form a sexual as well as a social union – a “one flesh” relationship. The union is not only a human arrangement, but God has joined them in one. Humans can terminate this God-made union, but should not.’

‘In more general life, Christians should stop regarding homosexual orientation (as they often have) as in itself some kind of special perversion, or gay-sex as a special category of sin. The Bible does see it as wrong, but it is no bigger deal than fornication, greed or covetousness. Homosexuals should be able to receive love and support within the Christian community without any of the homophobia that has sometimes characterised past dealings. Someone facing and resisting such temptation should receive all the compassion and help which fellow Christians can give, and should never be afraid to seek confidential counselling in a spirit of love. If the problem persists, he may be advised to avoid situations of particular temptation. But this is based on sense, not on some hysterical “branding” of him as a creature set apart. If he (or she) should fall into the temptation and then afterwards repent, what then? When the adulteress confessed Jesus as “Lord”, the sinless Christ replied, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again”. Homosexual activity is not a special sin, and God’s forgiveness and cleansing are available.’

I will attempt to find what Paul has to say about homosexual adoption.

[Guinastasia]

Polygamy is illegal, mostly because of the nightmare of benefits and registrations and things like that-(from what I gather, trying to sort out spousal benefits and inheritance rights would be a clusterfuck).

And once again, you’re only using sources that are biased in your favor, instead of taking the time to examine what we have also given you.

Sorry, try again.

[AHunter3]

Well, you could continue to have laws against polygamy because they do not discriminate against any individual (unless it were to turn out that some people are born wired for polygamy or something, which seems unlikely).

Now, me personally, I’d mostly like to see marriage lose all legal recognition, and its various legal functions covered by an array of specialized contracts specific to different areas (co-parenting, property-in-common, inheritance, “next of kin” status, etc.) so people could seek out only the legal contractual arrangements they want (and if they want to have them for a polygamous group of seven, that’s fine) and leave off the ones they don’t want. Meanwhile, churches could recognize and celebrate whatever it is that they consider special and sacred, and insofar as it would have no legal status the government would not be intervening in any fashion.

But if we’re going to continue to have marriage, which I think is a dismal institution, then I think gay people have as much right to suffer its miseries as straight folks do.

[SolGrundy]

@Greathouse

As a direct result of threads such as this one I have changed my views. I understand that it isn’t a choice. I also understand that allowing equal rights for gays does not affect my rights in the least. My views on this topic are totally 180 degrees out from what they were. I guess because I had never actually thought about how I would feel if I were denied the same rights.

I still have to deal with the “ick” factor, but that isn’t a big deal. It won’t prevent me from establishing friendships with homosexuals or voting in favor of thier equal rights, if given the chance. My predjudices were preventing me from doing those things.

It takes stones to say all that, Greathouse (and earlier, Ellis Dee). And I’m really glad you did. Not as a representative of the Gay Rights Movement, and not because I’m looking for converts, and not because I feel vindicated. Just because I went through a similar thought process – although I had more of a personal investment, obviously – and I know how cool it is just to be able to take a step back and see things for how they really are.

I bet that I had similar or probably even worse prejudices. I realized that you can’t choose to be or not to be gay, but you could choose whether to acknowledge it. I thought the whole thing was tiresome. Why can’t people just go for five minutes without reminding us that they’re gay? Is that the only interesting thing they have to offer? Why do they have to turn everything into a “gay issue?” Why are they so quick to label everyone else as a homophobe? Why do they talk about “pride” when they didn’t do anything to be proud of? I thought, I’m nothing like that; I have nothing (well, almost nothing) in common with those people.

What did it for me was finally meeting a guy who was genuinely comfortable with it all. Openly gay, but not into being an advocate. Not ashamed of it, but not humorless about it, either. After talking with this guy for a couple of hours, I felt like a huge weight had been lifted off my shoulders. And this isn’t about my coming out, either – I had already pretty much figured out I was gay and it wasn’t going to change – it was about just being comfortable with it. And realizing that it simply doesn’t have to be that big a deal.

The “ick factor” isn’t probably going to go away any time soon if ever. And really, I don’t even know if it needs to. There are plenty of things that give me the “ick factor,” but that doesn’t stop me from seeing people as people. Most of my friends are straight, and I never imagine them having sex; that’s their own business. It should be the same for everyone else. Being comfortable with homosexuality doesn’t mean you have to be attracted to the same sex, or even be able to conceive of being attracted.

So kudos to you guys. You weren’t obligated to step forward and say anything, and it’s pretty damn cool that you did.

[Dunderman]

OK bodswood. It’s obvious that you are indeed not looking for facts or truth. You have a stance and you’ll stick to it no matter what. You refuse to engage in debate, preferring to post excerpts from articles that aren’t even about the same thing. You have no interest in debating or learning. You would do well to listen to Greathouse, who’s worth all the kudos we have, but you probably never will.

I really hope your daughter rebels, finds a girlfriend, and gets away from you as soon as possible. From you, she will only learn condemnation of the innocent, intellectual dishonesty, and the celebration of malice, lies and blind prejudice.

[SolGrundy]

I promised I wouldn’t get back into this argument, more for my own sake than anyone else’s, but I’m strangely compelled to respond to this. I don’t think bodswood deserves all of the vitriol he’s getting here, since I’m taking his words at face value and assuming that he is making at least a token attempt to come up with arguments. I really hope I’m not being manipulated.

@bodswood

In more general life, Christians should stop regarding homosexual orientation (as they often have) as in itself some kind of special perversion, or gay-sex as a special category of sin. The Bible does see it as wrong, but it is no bigger deal than fornication, greed or covetousness. Homosexuals should be able to receive love and support within the Christian community without any of the homophobia that has sometimes characterised past dealings. Someone facing and resisting such temptation should receive all the compassion and help which fellow Christians can give, and should never be afraid to seek confidential counselling in a spirit of love. If the problem persists, he may be advised to avoid situations of particular temptation. But this is based on sense, not on some hysterical “branding” of him as a creature set apart. If he (or she) should fall into the temptation and then afterwards repent, what then? When the adulteress confessed Jesus as “Lord”, the sinless Christ replied, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again”. Homosexual activity is not a special sin, and God’s forgiveness and cleansing are available.’

This is, in essence, “love the sinner, hate the sin.” Which we talked about a few pages ago. It’s also a repitition of the idea that homosexuality is a choice. It’s worded very eloquently, and designed to make it sound as if it’s a compassionate viewpoint. I want to believe – I have to believe, because the alternative is just too dismal to think about – that the people who say this really believe that it’s a message of tolerance and simply don’t realize that what they’re doing is condemning homosexuals to lonely, loveless lives.

You have to realize that homosexuality is not the same as greed, covetousness, or even “fornication.” It simply cannot be turned off. It can be supressed; a gay person can “resist the temptation,” and go through his life without engaging in gay sex. Many gay people do. But even the most die-hard proponents of so-called “reparative therapy” will concede, under duress, that what little success they do have is “helping” gay people supress this desire, not turning it into heterosexual desire. In effect, it’s rendering gay people completely impotent.

Is having a “normal” but asexual marriage of two people of different genders so much more preferable than a same-sex marriage where the two participants are passionate about each other? If, for example, a straight woman marries a “formerly gay” man who has no physical attraction to her, is that fair to her? How is that any better?

[QUOTE=Priceguy]
I really hope your daughter rebels, finds a girlfriend, and gets away from you as soon as possible./QUOTE]
I really, really hate to sound sanctimonious here, but in my own opinion, that’s not appropriate. Not because I think homosexuality is so bad I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. But because it’s not an act of rebellion or vengeance or poetic justice or anything; it’s just something that happens.

[bodswood]

Sol wrote: ‘This is, in essence, “love the sinner, hate the sin.” Which we talked about a few pages ago. It’s also a repetition of the idea that homosexuality is a choice.’

Paul Marston does indeed hedge his best re choice/innateness. It’s there in his article (elsewhere). I think that’s his way of dealing with what he must consider is the true situation - I believe he ascribes the condition to the fall. Personally, I believe that it’s a choice, because I have difficulties with God allowing a person to be born with a certain disposition (even allowing for fallout from the fall) and then saying no sleeping with men.

But his stuff on the Bible verses re homosexuality is good.

Incidentally, he and Roger Forster have written a book called Reason, Science and Faith (its first version appeared without the Science in the title), in which he argues for theistic evolution.

So he can’t be all bad!