Do you guys think it is OK for parents to try to influence their childern to become homosexual?

Do you guys think it is OK for parents to try to influence their childern to become homosexual?

This poll makes no sense. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce ( with each other), presumably all homosexuals come from heterosexuals.

Unless you are stating that sexuality is learned behavior or alternately, that we are all bisexual and choose our sexuality according to "influences".

In addition since it is only recently that homosexulas started adopting (please correct me if I am wrong), it is in heterosexual families where homosexuals are born. So do you mean to say they were influenced by their parents? How? Why?

Please clarify if I misunderstood your premise.

Your question is virtually meaningless since people cannot be influenced to become either hetero- or homosexual. They're born that way. What they can be influenced to do is to be honest with themselves and their families and accept their own homosexuality if that is what they were born with.

If someone has a kid who they suspect is gay, it would be a kindness to urge them to disover whether in fact they are gay, rather than influencing them to live a sham life of pretend heterosexuality. I know a couple of people who went through that. When they finally figured out what was wrong with their lives in their 20s or even their 30s, an awful lot of people got hurt.

So your question should be restated: Is it OK for parents to influence their children to accept their sexuality, whatever it is?

The answer to that question is yes, and it applies to both straight and gay parents of both straight and gay kids.

It is no more or less inappropriate to advocate homosexuality in a child than it is to advocate heterosexuality. I personally think that the kind of predestination attempted in such legendary quotes as Madonna saying she wanted to adopt, wanted a boy, and he would turn out gay is ridiculous; to the other, so is the use of homosexuality as an intimidator of children, e.g. "Don't do that, you look like a queer!"

Bottom line is that there is only so much energy parents should devote to their children's sex lives. Beyond that, it just gets creepy.

What a rediculous poll.

Do you guys think it is OK for parents to try to influence their childern to become homosexual?
It is 100% legal. We must be open-minded and tolerant of all legal actions, even if we disagree or would not choose them for ourselves.

Frankly, I cannot vote on this poll.

It's like asking :
Are you still beating your wife?
1. Yes
2. No

What if I'm not beating my wife? How do I answer?

Well if you're not beating your wife, what the hell is wrong with you?

The best way to combat Islam is to raise a bunch of fags. Fags with good fashion sense and the guts to tell other people to kill Muslims.

It is your patriotic duty to raise homos.

Actually, Roman, no need to invoke the killing of Muslims. See, even in "middle America", where "family values" reign supreme, the children are subject to what is described as the "Whore Wars". The conspiracy theory on the Whore Wars is essentially that a bunch of homosexual fashion designers exact their revenge on a puritanical American bigotry by compelling young girls to dress up like sluts. Add to that the accusation that the pop record industry represented in, say, the Billboard Top 200, is largely subject to the whims of a small number of homosexual men parading pretty boy-toys and virginal sluts in front of the American audience. In the end, economy will do more to undermine the anti-Americanizing sentiments in any region of the world than death.

I cannot vouch for either the Whore Wars conspiracy theory or the Top 200 scandal, as both come to me by word of mouth and with varying but incomplete weight of credibility. In other words, it sounds interesting, but I've never bothered to look it up.

Point is, you don't have to kill them. How did Christianity survive and even flourish from the post-Roman dark age through industrialization and enlightenment into modernity? The gnostics still unknowingly survive in the form of grasping theologies in the modern world. A "personal Jesus", or a "personal relationship with God" are very unorthodox ideas in the history of Christian orthodoxy and establishment, and verge on the heretical. Point A, Point B: how? Perhaps major themes can be identified to explain the transition that are also general enough terms to redefine in consideration of the Muslim experience. This is a fertile period in which a new seed of understanding may yet germinate among the Muslim cultures. Look to it with hope, not fear.

And please, don't make me get out my green hat. Enough with the "guts" to advocate killing. Some folks don't get the humor, you know. But, for the record, that is a witty li'l post of yours.

Patriotic, indeed.

Well if you're not beating your wife, what the hell is wrong with you?

The best way to combat Islam is to raise a bunch of fags. Fags with good fashion sense and the guts to tell other people to kill Muslims.

It is your patriotic duty to raise homos.

Well actually, if all you want is to kill Muslims, I could do it much more easily by killing myself, as I am one :D . Or you could inform these "other people" who are led by homosexuals. And since I have good friends who are "fags" as you so eloquently put it, I'd hate for them to have it on their conscience. Plus, since I am not American ( nor Arab, nor Middle Eastern nor even a fag myself), well the patriotic duties lie elsewhere, I'm afraid. :o

Oh and its hard for me to beat my wife because I am a woman. I do beat my husband though, if that helps, but only occasionally and I ALWAYS apologise after :rolleyes:

Assumptions assumptions
(I'm shaking my head here, patronisingly)

P.S. I have to add, I always did have a soft spot for the chest thumping types. I love you.

Do you guys think it is OK for parents to try to influence their childern to become homosexual?

no the child should be able to make its own choice

The question of this poll is whether a set of people should promote the idea they believe in unto a developing person. Human adaption is also a factor that depends on how good the ideas of humans and their beliefs are copied unto the youngsters. Therefore the question is whether homosexuals really have the power to influence the young human to accept the beliefs they are led by. And the obvious answer is: NO. Otherwise this world would have died of long ago.

How much power do you hold to pass on your beliefs to the future?

No, it's not okay for parents to try to make their kids gay. Besides, it's not like they'd succeed any more than parents could at trying to make their kids straight.

It is okay, however, to let the kid know that any orientation (even heterosexuality) is okay, and that whatever their orientation, they will be loved all the same.

Frankly, I cannot vote on this poll.

It's like asking :
Are you still beating your wife?
1. Yes
2. No

What if I'm not beating my wife? How do I answer?
I interpret the question with attention focused on the word "try". To me, the question doesn't explicitly assume that one's orientation can be influenced, even though I admit it does imply so. To me, it's only asking if it's okay for parents to try to make their kids gay.

This poll makes no sense. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce ( with each other), presumably all homosexuals come from heterosexuals.

In addition since it is only recently that homosexulas started adopting (please correct me if I am wrong), it is in heterosexual families where homosexuals are born.
How is that relevant? :confused:

Point is, you don't have to kill them.

But it makes for faaaaaar better Tv. And rhetoric. And when killing em doesn't go so well, the antics we act to destract form our piss poor performance with guns and killing (let's face it, the American public doesn't like a dead body, even if it's some raghead slut) are grrrrrrreat! Like frosted flakes! Like Amendments to my constitution that forbids fagdom! Like dense fucks who don't get hyperbole! Please eat my asshole, you muslim whore!

No, it's not okay for parents to try to make their kids gay. Besides, it's not like they'd succeed any more than parents could at trying to make their kids straight.

Exactly


I interpret the question with attention focused on the word "try". To me, the question doesn't explicitly assume that one's orientation can be influenced, even though I admit it does imply so. To me, it's only asking if it's okay for parents to try to make their kids gay.


Then it should have been asked in a way that makes it clear; the way the poll is worded gives the implication that it is possible and all that remains is the intent on the part of the parents.

How is that relevant?

I noticed the term parents does not clarify the sexual preferences of the parents. I believe there are homosexuals who have adopted children. I have friends who are homosexual and I know heterosexuals who believe that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt as they can influence the child's sexual preference. What I am trying to point out is that if the heterosexuals could not do it, how can the homosexuals?

It is a real simple question.

My point is I see all the time the majority of parents doing things that are hetrosexual in nature in guiding there children behaviour.

Boys on the average are givin more masculine activity's and roles in life while girls are givin more feminie activity's and roles in life. I know plenty of parents that do many different natural things it try to influence there children into a hetrosexual way of life.

And I think that is a good thing to do.

So my question is simple:

Do you guys think it is OK for parents to try to influence their childern to become homosexual?

It is a real simple question.

My point is I see all the time the majority of parents doing things that are hetrosexual in nature in guiding there children behaviour.

Boys on the average are givin more masculine activity's and roles in life while girls are givin more feminie activity's and roles in life. I know plenty of parents that do many different natural things it try to influence there children into a hetrosexual way of life.

And I think that is a good thing to do.

So my question is simple:

Do you guys think it is OK for parents to try to influence their childern to become homosexual?
Ok. It's been shown that, excluding things like traumatic abuse, parental "guidance" and behaviors have almost no effect on the life outcome of the child. What counts is the genetic tendencies that the parents so kindly gave the child (represents about 50% of the variation in behavior) and the external influences that the child encounters throughout life (the other 50%).

Boys and girls are NOT given roles. In independent trials encompassing thousands of children and decades of time, boys overwhelmingly choose the trucks to play with, and girls choose the dolls. This is established fact. You can no more "influence" you child to be more same-gender oriented than you can influence him/her to grow a third eye.

Edit:

Please, for gods sake, don't infer that my statements about boys vs girls is an absolute. The tendencies are overwhelmingly gender-correlated, but certainly not 100%.

superluminal,
As soon as the child is born so does the parents path of influence begin, the parents are making choices for that child, color of room, type of toys, clothes and all and any personal interaction with the child as the child grows and matures, all in hopes of infuencing this childs behaviour.

superluminal,
As soon as the child is born so does the parents path of influence begin, the parents are making choices for that child, color of room, type of toys, clothes and all and any personal interaction with the child as the child grows and matures, all in hopes of infuencing this childs behaviour.
Yes, exactly. "all in hopes of infuencing this childs behaviour". Unfortunately that is all it is. This is not my opinion. It is supported by behavioral research. All of the parenting advice given over the years (and still given regularly) is, in the words of one researcher, "flapdoodle".

You may not like it, but you can't change the facts. Studies of:

- Normal siblings
- Fraternal twins
- Identical twins
- Adopted siblings

all raised together and apart and with similar or widely varying environments show this. Sorry. Your best hope as a parent is to provide a warm, loving, supportive environment and trust that your (and your spouses) genetic legacy is a good one.

So you think that a parents influence can in no way change a child ways of behaviour?

So you think that a parents influence can in no way change a child ways of behaviour?
I already told you. This is not what I think. It's a demonstrated fact. The basic behavioral set of a child is affected to a degree of virtually ZERO by parental influences, barring, as I said, traumatic abuse.

You do understand the concept of research results, yes?

I already told you. This is not what I think. It's a demonstrated fact. The basic behavioral set of a child is affected to a degree of virtually ZERO by parental influences, barring, as I said, traumatic abuse.So what your saying is that only "traumatic abuse" can change the "basic behavioral set of a child".

But any positive reinforcment put forth from a parent to a child would have "to a degree virtually ZERO by parental influences" effecting the childs behaviour?

You do understand the concept of research results, yes?
I understand these are your personal feeling, as you have provided no links.

Find your own links, lazy bones.

Google on:

Judith Rich Harris
Steven Pinker
David C. Rowe

for starters.

it's a known fact that environment plays an important part in a persons behaviour so yes, a parent can influence a childs behaviour.

it's a known fact that environment plays an important part in a persons behaviour so yes, a parent can influence a childs behaviour.
Please read my post just a few inches up your page:

SL:
What counts is the genetic tendencies that the parents so kindly gave the child (represents about 50% of the variation in behavior) and the external influences that the child encounters throughout life (the other 50%).

Why yes! I agree with you. Environment plays an important part in a persons behavior. About 50% even. Imagine that. Read the research. Basic behaviors of children are influenced to a virtually negligible degree by parental manipulation.

Here is some research:

J Adolesc. 2006 May 31; [Epub ahead of print] Related Articles, Links

Parental communication and youth sexual behaviour.

Aspy CB, Vesely SK, Oman RF, Rodine S, Marshall L, McLeroy K.

Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 900 NE 10th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA.

The role of parental communication and instruction concerning sexual behaviour were studied in a community-based sample of 1083 youth aged 13-17 (mean age of 15 years; 51% girls, 49% White). The Youth Asset Survey was administered along with items measuring demographics and youth risk behaviours. After controlling for demographic factors, multivariate analysis revealed that youth were much less likely to have initiated sexual intercourse if their parents taught them to say no, set clear rules, talked about what is right and wrong and about delaying sexual activity. If youth were sexually active, they were more likely to use birth control if taught at home about delaying sexual activity and about birth control. Having only one sexual partner was associated with having an adult role model who supports abstinence, being taught at home about birth control, and being taught at home how to say no. If parents reported talking with youth about birth control and sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention, youth were significantly more likely to use birth control. Our conclusion is that parents have the opportunity and ability to influence their children's sexual behaviour decisions.


Comments?

you must remember that the vast majority of motor pathways are formed in early childhood even though it continues throughout life.

and don't you agree that a parent can alter a childs behaviour by altering the childs environment? this is what i meant.

Hang on everyone. I'm talking about basic behaviors. If the child is aggressive. If the child is shy. If the child is same-gender attracted. If the child is lazy, If the child is intelligent. Etc.

Clearly parents can teach children many things, including safe or delayed sexual practices. We teach our children the language we speak. But we can't influence much at all whether the child likes to wack off to males or females, or if he will use his language to promote conservative or liberal ideas. This appears (according to research) to be genetically determind by about 50% and peer/external environment influenced by about 50%.

I already told you. This is not what I think. It's a demonstrated fact. The basic behavioral set of a child is affected to a degree of virtually ZERO by parental influences, barring, as I said, traumatic abuse.

You do understand the concept of research results, yes?

I agree. They do these studies on twins that were seperated by birth, each child raised under households with different view points about the world and even intellectual abilities. For instance, the IQ seems to differ by no more than about 4 points (ballpark figure, but I racall it wasn't all that large of a gap).

twins do not make up the majority of the population
also the research base is going to be very low if only twins are used.

they use twins to eliminate the effects of genes ( twins are genetically identical).

So, if you use identical twins, same household = gene+environment influence

identical twins, different households (adopted or fostered) = environmental influence

fraternal twins, same household = genetic influence ( any differences are due to difference in gene, since in the same household they would have similar environments)

i am not sure if it is relevant to the discussion but i found the following on antisocial behaviour:

Dr Essi Viding says: "Our research has important implications. The discovery that psychopathic tendencies are strongly heritable suggests that we need to get help for these youngsters early on. Any behaviour is influenced by multiple genes and an unlucky combination of genes may increase vulnerability to a disorder.
"However, strong heritability does not mean that nothing can be done. Children are open to protective environmental influences early in life and these influences can buffer the effect of genetic vulnerability.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=25078

Hmm...

I would say that genetics provides the possibility for weaknesses in the aspects that makes up your biology and psyche, the part which controls your mood, your motivation, your ability to delay gratification. But how those raw materials are used is dependent to a very large extent on environmental factors.
e.g. you may be genetically prediposed to cancer, but if you eat a healthy diet, exercise, go for regular check ups the probability of your getting the cancer is significantly reduced.

Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too. But we know that only about 38% of the time is the identical twin brother homosexual. Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average, they do not force people into homosexuality. This conclusion has been well known in the scientific community for a few decades (e.g. 6) but has not reached the general public. Indeed, the public increasingly believes the opposite.

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html

Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too. But we know that only about 38% of the time is the identical twin brother homosexual. Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average, they do not force people into homosexuality. This conclusion has been well known in the scientific community for a few decades (e.g. 6) but has not reached the general public. Indeed, the public increasingly believes the opposite.

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html
Holy mother of god.

Does the ratio of 50% genetic variation to 50% environmental variation mean nothing to you gentle readers?

In addition since it is only recently that homosexulas started adopting (please correct me if I am wrong),

Actually homosexuals, non-romantically involved same-sex couples, and of course single parents have been raising children for all of human history. For as long as there has been disease poverty war and other human hardships there have been kids without biological parrents and as such family units which go outside of what we've very recently come to think of in the US as the "traditional" family unit. Admittedly there has been an increase in openly homosexual couples adopting children, but this has simply come along with there being more open homosexuals, and the way society has been changing since the early 70s to be more accepting of homosexuals in general.

It has never been Illegal in the US for Homosexuals to have custody or to adopt children, at least not nation wide, though a few (perhaps only one or two) states currently have very recently passed laws barring homosexuals from adopting. I know that Florida does this but I'm not entirely certain of where else - Alabama and Ohio both come to mind, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

Boys on the average are givin more masculine activity's and roles in life while girls are givin more feminie activity's and roles in life. I know plenty of parents that do many different natural things it try to influence there children into a hetrosexual way of life.

What? Man I don't know who told you about the birds and the bees, but let me assure you that it's got nothing to do with base-ball and monster trucks. It's all about who you're attracted to and that's that.

Maybe you're confused, maybe the only portrayal of gay people you've ever seen is on Will & Grase, but we're not all show-tune singing fops, and frankly the vast majority of us still act just as stupid and macho as straight-guys, some to fit in, but of course most because hey, we're guy's too and we like football and we like fast cars, and hey we just happen to like guys to!

Growing up I wasn't sitting around playing with dolls (no, they were Action figure! Spiderman != Barbie) I played war with my friends, using sticks as guns because my mom wouldn't let us have actual toy guns, and we beat each other up, and fell out of trees and came home with scraped knees and elbows from trying to take our bicycles off of make-shift ramps. I was in the boyscouts, too, and in fact every gay man that I have dated and maintain contact with today was in either boyscouts or cubscouts at some point in their youth as well (I'm honestly starting to think that there may be some sort of connection!). I love guns, and target shooting and have an almost encyclopedic knowledge of military arms throughout the 20th century, and now and again I come home and fall asleep with the History Channel on and never wonder if perhaps there were more to history than war - it's just fun to learn about!

On the other hand we're used to persecution, we're used to morons like you who think that we should all be lisping sissies, and at the same time we've all had to go through the trauma of admitting to first ourselves and eventually others that yeah, though they may like it our sexual desires run along different lines than those of most people, and we know we can get away with seeming slightly less masculine now and again because people already think that about us anyhow, so who gives a shit. We're not like the straight guys who have to get in a fist-fight every time someone sneers at them for getting a manicure now and again (though even I have to admit that that's pretty gay).

So why don't you learn a little bit before you open your big mouth and announce to everyone how utterly clueless you are on this topic. You don't raise a kid to be straight or gay, you just raise 'em, if he's a boy he gets a cowboy hat and a toy gun, and if you're a girl you get a skirt and a dolly because kids are dumb and don't care anyway, they'll figure themselves out later in life, and it's got nothing to do with whether or not you took 'em to football practice or taught 'em how to light a fire.

And finally a question: What parents, exactly, do you think are raising their kids to be gay? And how exactly does one go about that? Ask 'em "So little Johnny did you kiss any boys at school today? No? Better get on that, Son!" For some reason I just don't see that happening. Try to keep in mind that it's evangelical Christian nut-jobs who are trying to force their values and way of life on anyone, not the other way around - most of their opponents just want the freedom and peace to be left alone and do things the way they see fit.

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html

You're citing Narth? Narth isn't a research instiution, they're a socio-political instituion dedicated to push an anti-gay agenda. That's what they were founded for by some self-hating closet cases who later ran off and married eachother! HA! That's like citing the Family Research Institute on Scientific studies - guess what they're not a scientific organization, they're a rabbidly biased political activist comitty. Oh but wait you have cited them in other threads, haven't you? Guess you're as good as cherry picking and choosing your numbers as they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARTH Just give a little look throug here, pretty simple, they're a bunch of quacks and nutters who are too religious to be serious psychologists or functioning human beings. Haha, on a closer read through i can see that this wikipedia artical is insanely biased in favor of NARTH and their views, but I think the bullshit is so steamingly obvious that I still invite you to have a smell.

calm down mystech there's no need to get your panties in a bunch.
i would be willing to bet that most of the anti-gay posters in this thread have never been to a gay bar nor do they have any gay friends.
to be honest i am not exactly pro gay nor am i anti gay
i have, or had, gay friends and i have been to gay bars
i have even been to gay bars posing as a date for one of my gay friends
the fact of the matter is that homosexuality is not some new fad. it has been around since ancient times.

calm down mystech there's no need to get your panties in a bunch.
i would be willing to bet that most of the anti-gay posters in this thread have never been to a gay bar nor do they have any gay friends.
to be honest i am not exactly pro gay nor am i anti gay
i have, or had, gay friends and i have been to gay bars
i have even been to gay bars posing as a date for one of my gay friends
the fact of the matter is that homosexuality is not some new fad. it has been around since ancient times.


I have gay friends too, of both sexes( can I say that?); there's more to a person than his sexuality. My friends are my friends and its none of my business who they choose to sleep with (though I reserve the right to nag them anyway).

Our conclusion is that parents have the opportunity and ability to influence their children's sexual behaviour decisions. Comments?Sexual behavior, yes. But not sexual orientation. That is built-in.

We all agree that parents can indoctrinate gay children into believing that being gay is immoral and into trying to assimilate and behave like straight children. Since the slight enlightenment of the past few decades many of us have met gay people who lived their early lives masquerading as straight people, even to the point of thinking they were straight and just needed to expunge themselves of the "sins" of their gay "thoughts."

If you gay-bashers don't think that was a horrible fate, just imagine yourselves with the roles reversed. You grew up in a gay-majority community, with gay parents (okay so they used AI or adopted you from Romania), and were taught from birth that homosexuality is the only right way to live and that any thoughts you might have to the contrary were evil. And no self-respecting child of theirs would even have those thoughts so you couldn't exactly discuss it with them. You dated other gay people of your own sex, just like everybody else. You kissed them, let them fondle you, tried your best to engage in romances. Eventually you married one of them and either before or after the wedding you had homosexual relations with them.

Do I need to continue or are you already throwing up?

THIS IS HOW THOSE PEOPLE FELT FOR ALL THOSE CENTURIES!

Of course it's possible to affect people's behavior. People make overwhelmingly painful sacrifices all the time in order to do what society or their parents tell them is right.

But it does not change who they are.

Any "scholar" who trumpets a study proving that parents can make their gay children act like straight children is no scholar at all.

while i agree that a person cannot change their genes a persons environment can, does, and will have a significent effect on not only your behaviour but also your IQ

What? Man I don't know who told you about the birds and the bees, but let me assure you that it's got nothing to do with base-ball and monster trucks. It's all about who you're attracted to and that's that.

Maybe you're confused, maybe the only portrayal of gay people you've ever seen is on Will & Grase, but we're not all show-tune singing fops, and frankly the vast majority of us still act just as stupid and macho as straight-guys, some to fit in, but of course most because hey, we're guy's too and we like football and we like fast cars, and hey we just happen to like guys to!

Growing up I wasn't sitting around playing with dolls (no, they were Action figure! Spiderman != Barbie) I played war with my friends, using sticks as guns because my mom wouldn't let us have actual toy guns, and we beat each other up, and fell out of trees and came home with scraped knees and elbows from trying to take our bicycles off of make-shift ramps. I was in the boyscouts, too, and in fact every gay man that I have dated and maintain contact with today was in either boyscouts or cubscouts at some point in their youth as well (I'm honestly starting to think that there may be some sort of connection!). I love guns, and target shooting and have an almost encyclopedic knowledge of military arms throughout the 20th century, and now and again I come home and fall asleep with the History Channel on and never wonder if perhaps there were more to history than war - it's just fun to learn about!

On the other hand we're used to persecution, we're used to morons like you who think that we should all be lisping sissies, and at the same time we've all had to go through the trauma of admitting to first ourselves and eventually others that yeah, though they may like it our sexual desires run along different lines than those of most people, and we know we can get away with seeming slightly less masculine now and again because people already think that about us anyhow, so who gives a shit. We're not like the straight guys who have to get in a fist-fight every time someone sneers at them for getting a manicure now and again (though even I have to admit that that's pretty gay).

So why don't you learn a little bit before you open your big mouth and announce to everyone how utterly clueless you are on this topic. You don't raise a kid to be straight or gay, you just raise 'em, if he's a boy he gets a cowboy hat and a toy gun, and if you're a girl you get a skirt and a dolly because kids are dumb and don't care anyway, they'll figure themselves out later in life, and it's got nothing to do with whether or not you took 'em to football practice or taught 'em how to light a fire.

And finally a question: What parents, exactly, do you think are raising their kids to be gay? And how exactly does one go about that? Ask 'em "So little Johnny did you kiss any boys at school today? No? Better get on that, Son!" For some reason I just don't see that happening. Try to keep in mind that it's evangelical Christian nut-jobs who are trying to force their values and way of life on anyone, not the other way around - most of their opponents just want the freedom and peace to be left alone and do things the way they see fit.
Why are you gay dudes always so dramatic?

If you guys would allow me I would like to ask this question:

Would you guys think it is OK for parents to hope their children will be homosexual?

Would you guys think it is OK for parents to hope their children will be homosexual?
I wouldn't recommend it, since if their child turns out heterosexual, their disappointment could damage their relationship with their child...

Same goes for disappointment in gay children, of course.

If you guys would allow me I would like to ask this question:

Would you guys think it is OK for parents to hope their children will be homosexual?

Do you have a personal interest in this? Because this is a really strange question.

Anyway I know someone who had 3 sons and wanted a daughter, then had a fouth son. ( This is in a rural Asian country so no American values apply). So she dressed her son in girls clothing till the age of 3 when he went to preschool and discovered that boys wear different clothes; he used to wear masculine clothes in school and feminine clothes at home till age 5 after which his father stepped in and everything went back to normal. Since he is a friend he confessed that though he did not like the clothes he had to wear them for his mother.

So he was "forced" into an "unnatural" situation.

But it had no effect on his sexual preferances and he is happily married with 4 children. And no he does not wear his wife's clothes at home.

Because this is a really strange question.
I find this interesting because I realize, that no one want's anyone to be homosexual.

well that's because everyone including homosexuals realize how hard it is to be accepted in society

I find this interesting because I realize, that no one want's anyone to be homosexual

What are you talking about?

Most Men Like Other Men!!! In Fact, 95% Of All Males Are Homosexual!

What are you talking about?If anyone would want to influence their child in anyway to be homosexual.

Did you vote yes or no?

well that's because everyone including homosexuals realize how hard it is to be accepted in societyMaybe thats because homosexuality is negitive action and not a good for socity?

Maybe not.

Check the poll, the votes are in.

Maybe thats because homosexuality is negitive action and not a good for socity?

Maybe its a response to the burgeoning population of the world, i.e. nature's way of saying, hey that's enough!!
If you look at it in that sense, then it isperfectly natural.

After all when lemming (e.g.) populations increase beyond control, a very large group of them jump into the sea and commit mass suicide. That' snot good for lemming society either, is it?

In fact homosexuality in animals is found to a greater extent in those animals who are relatively safe from predators and hence able to multiply with ease, e.g. penguins and sheep.

I believe there is a genetic basis for homosexulaty; because sex is, by definition, a process of transmission of genes to the next generation.

...After all when lemming (e.g.) populations increase beyond control, a very large group of them jump into the sea and commit mass suicide. That' snot good for lemming society either, is it?
Sorry, but that's a myth perpetrated by over-eager nature filmmakers (in the 50's I think).

Most Men Like Other Men!!! In Fact, 95% Of All Males Are Homosexual!
Bollocks.

Sorry, but that's a myth perpetrated by over-eager nature filmmakers (in the 50's I think).


oooh god I am so dated; sorry should have checked out the facts; a little busy today :)

D'ster:

If anyone would want to influence their child in anyway to be homosexual.

Did you vote yes or no?

I voted "No".

I would also have voted "No" to the question: "Should parents ever try to infulence their children to become heterosexual?"

This shows the importance of framing your poll questions carefully. That way, you'll test opinion on the subject you really want to know about, rather than some other thing which is much less interesting and controversial.

D'ster:
I voted "No".

I would also have voted "No" to the question: "Should parents ever try to infulence their children to become heterosexual?"

This shows the importance of framing your poll questions carefully. That way, you'll test opinion on the subject you really want to know about, rather than some other thing which is much less interesting and controversial.
Well lets hear how you would have "framed" the question.

As far as I'm concerned the poll revealed excacty what I thought it would.

who the hell said it was ok, are you brain-dead

Bollocks.
romans qoute was sarcasm directed to buddha threads in which buddha claimed that 95% of men prefer other men for sex.

but i agree it's bollocks

I think it's interesting that while some people may disagree about whether children should be influenced towards heterosexuality, almost absolutely NO ONE wants the parents to influence children towards homosexuality ( see D'sters other thread)

samcdkey,
You got it, just look at how many people try to claim that homosexuality and heterosexuality should be treated the same. But, when people are asked just one simple yes or no question, you can see that people can not treat both groups in the same way, in fact it's not even close.

What else I found interesting is that people seem to not want to vote on the other poll as much, I sence denile from this group.

The one vote in favor for homosexuality was just to spite the rest of us.

Step forth one homo voter and lets debate this.

I think it's interesting that while some people may disagree about whether children should be influenced towards heterosexuality, almost absolutely NO ONE wants the parents to influence children towards homosexuality ( see D'sters other thread)
Children shouldn't be influenced towards homosexuality because children shouldn't be influenced towards any sexuality.

You got it, just look at how many people try to claim that homosexuality and heterosexuality should be treated the same. But, when people are asked just one simple yes or no question, you can see that people can not treat both groups in the same way, in fact it's not even close.
You are misinterpreting the results. You can't say, based on these results, that people try to claim that heteros and homos should be treated the same but secretly want children influenced towards heterosexuality.

You should ask everyone why they voted the way they did. That's the only way you can know the reasons behind the votes.

If people voted "no" for this poll and "yes" for the other one, my guess would be that they think heterosexuality is somehow better or more favorable than homosexuality. I further conjecture that these people actually don't claim that heterosexuals and homosexuals should be treated the same.

To put it bluntly: Use your brain, if you got one.

What else I found interesting is that people seem to not want to vote on the other poll as much, I sence denile from this group.
This poll has twice as many votes. It's also twice as old. Give the other poll time. Don't expect everyone to flock to it, and don't expect immediate results.

I won't wait for you to ask me why I voted the way I did. I'll just go ahead and answer.

I voted no, because you shouldn't influence a child either towards or away from any sexual orientation. Let them grow up to be whatever they will grow up to be. Let them know that whatever they are is okay.

Unlike some other people, I claim that heteros and homos should be treated the same, and I actually do treat them both the same. ;)

As I've said before, not that it appears to matter, but there is strong evidence that the very idea of trying to influence someones sexuality is about as effective as trying to influence the growth of a third eye.

And of course Athelwulf is completely correct.

As I've said before, not that it appears to matter, but there is strong evidence that the very idea of trying to influence someones sexuality is about as effective as trying to influence the growth of a third eye.
Totally correct.

And of course Athelwulf is completely correct.
Thank you. It's always reassuring to see other people have a brain too. :)

D'ster:

Well lets hear how you would have "framed" the question.

Well, if you want a neutral question which does not presuppose an answer, you could ask: "Should parents ever try to influence their children's sexuality (i.e. to be homo- or hetero-sexual)?"

Of course, this is as uninteresting as your question, even if less biased, since I think most people could predict the responses to this one.

A more basic and interesting question would be "Do you think parents can influence their children to become homosexual?"

This, I think, would attract a more diverse range of responses. You may find the results interesting.

As far as I'm concerned the poll revealed excacty what I thought it would.

It certainly revealed exactly what I thought it would - i.e. nothing much.

Do you guys think it is OK for parents to try to influence their childern to become homosexual?Once again, no influence, biological. I was never given the talk or any of that by my parents, and I am inexoribly heterosexual. It didn't start with an influence, it started naturally.

The point is that no one wants there child to be homosexual.

A more basic and interesting question would be "Do you think parents can influence their children to become homosexual?"

This, I think, would attract a more diverse range of responses. You may find the results interesting.

They may try, and they'll probably find that children who are influenced will tend to engage more readily in homosexual relationships, but won't find it influences them in choosing their sexual preferences.

The point is that no one wants there child to be homosexual.
So what? Is that suprising? Do your parents want grandchildren? Not going to happen if you're Gay/Les.

So what? Is that suprising? Do your parents want grandchildren? Not going to happen if you're Gay/Les.Did you know that people can create a child without having sex?

Did you know that people can create a child without having sex?
*sigh*

Yes. What's your point?

The point is that no one wants there child to be homosexual.

That's not true. Many people are very comfortable with the fact that their children are homosexual.

That's not true. Many people are very comfortable with the fact that their children are homosexual.
That would be after the fact.

NOBODY is "very comfortable with the" idea of wanting or hoping for others to be a homosexual.

Sure they are.

NOBODY is "very comfortable with the" idea of wanting or hoping for others to be a homosexual.
i will agree with this but i believe it is due to my religious upbringing and the fear of the unknown.

homosexuality has been with us for ages d'ster. it isn't some new fad.

you probably feel like i do, how can a man love another man?

Sure they are.You must be the ONE yes vote.

you probably feel like i do, how can a man love another man?I understand how a man could love another man, but I can't understand any sexual interaction between two men.

I voted "No", as I explained previously.

Do you guys think it is OK for parents to try to influence their childern to become homosexual?
It's impossible for someone to be influenced into become homosexual. They are born that way.
I voted "no", because the poll question makes no sense.

Why did someone completly change the question that starts this thread?

Because there were two threads, this one and out about heterosexual influence, with almost the same subject and it was hard to distinguish the two.

Why are you gay dudes always so dramatic?

Why are heteros so emotionally disconnected and spiritually dead?

I find this interesting because I realize, that no one want's anyone to be homosexual.

I find it interesting that ignorance could be so powerfully compelling.

For instance, do I want my daughter to be homosexual? I could care less, as long as she finds happiness. Do I want my daughter to be heterosexual? I could care less, as long as she finds happiness.

Uh-oh. I don't proactively want my daughter to be gay. I must be a homophobic nut like you?

Think of it this way: Hetero men who have problems with homosexuality are generally driven by self-loathing and jealousy. They are so afraid of being gay that they don't want to be hit on by men. To the other, they get upset that a woman doesn't want to have sex with them. A heterosexual woman who says no, as the old joke goes, is a bitch. A homosexual woman who says no to a guy is, well, a bitch.

(The old joke: What is the difference between a slut and a bitch? A slut has sex with everyone; a bitch has sex with everyone but you.)

Don't be so anxious to reaffirm machismo through sublimated hatred.

In the meantime, my advice is that people should stop coveting their children's sex lives.

For instance, do I want my daughter to be homosexual? I could care less, as long as she finds happiness. Do I want my daughter to be heterosexual? I could care less, as long as she finds happiness.
Hey thats great, really. This shows how emotionally connected and spiritually alive you are.

But the question is, what would you choose for your daughter IF you could?

Even after someone compleatly tried to change the question, the poll numbers speak for themselfs.

Change:
Influencing children to become homosexual

Old Question:
Do you think it is OK for parents to try to influence their children to become homosexual?

Big difference

Do you guys think it is OK for parents to try to influence their childern to become homosexual?

Yes.

I agree most people are inclined toward heterosexuality and a smaller group of people are inclined to homosexuality. The natural facts surrounding every human being in the world create enough influence, you don't need to brainwash a kid either way. Simply tell them each lifestyle is chosen because of innate preferences and their are natural consequences for both. It is up to the child to make the choice themselves.

Influencing by brainwashing them to be a homosexual or hetrosexual is something I disagree with, but I'm not into legislating preference based parenting. So, if a kid has to endure brainwashing of anysort in terms of sexual preference, it's just the bad luck of that kid. They'll still make it to emacipation where they will have plenty of time to be exposed to other ideas that aren't so controlled.

The question actually reads:

"Should parents ever try to infulence their children to become homosexual?"

I assume you're referring to the thread title change. The old title was "So do you guys think it is ok" ... and that was it.

The thread title was changed for two reasons:

1. It was completely uninformative about the content of the thread.
2. There was another almost identical thread with an almost identical title.

Back to the topic.

It is interesting comparing this thread with the other one. At this point in time responses are as follows:

1. Should parents ever try to influence their children to become homosexual?
Yes: 2 votes. No: 29 votes.

2. Should parents ever try to influence their children to become heterosexual?
Yes: 10 votes. No: 10 votes.

This smacks of inconsistency to me, assuming that some of the same people voted differently in the two threads.

Would one of you like to explain to me why it would be ok for a parent to influence a child to become heterosexual (presumably against his or her "natural" inclination), while it would not be permissible to encourage a child to become homosexual?

Seems like a double-standard to me. I can only assume it is based on fear and prejudice. But I could be wrong.

It depends on what the conditions are. If a parent's child wants to be homosexual, then why wouldn't you encourage it? And if they don't, why would you?At this point it is doin no damage to the future of the human species. We are starving, so maybe it's better that reproduction doesn't happen with some. Also, there are many, many orphins out there.

James, why not suggest (or even create) a new thread that is more balanced? I guess the main problem with this and the other poll is that is assumes one can even influence children in the first place. I suppose we could assume one can for sake of argument, but the debate as to whether or not is is possible would need to be posted elsewhere, philosophy or human science.

I do not want to create this new thread, assuming one needs to be created, as I do not care enough to actively discuss the topic(s) at length.

This smacks of inconsistency to me, assuming that some of the same people voted differently in the two threads.Why don't you just change the title of the thread maybe that will get the poll the way YOU want.

OOOO yea, you already tried that.

Would one of you like to explain to me why it would be ok for a parent to influence a child to become heterosexual (presumably against his or her "natural" inclination), while it would not be permissible to encourage a child to become homosexual? What sicko would WANT their children to be homosexual? Were just supposed to tolerate homosexuality,

not hope for it.

Seems like a double-standard to me. I can only assume it is based on fear and prejudice. But I could be wrong.It is based on common sence, homosexuality and hetrosexuality are two different things, so are the standards. Do you believe the two are the same?

James R,
Would you be just fine with a couple that was trying to encourage their child to be homosexual?

What sicko would WANT their children to be homosexual? Were just supposed to tolerate homosexuality,

what is it that you consider homosexuality 'sick'?

if homosexuality is 'sick' why has it endured for ages?

you are beginning to sound bigoted and biased which is not good to an objective discussion.

I still don't understand what this "influence" looks like. Is it "influencing" a child to not interrupt their natural course? When I was five, I held hands with and even kissed a girl I knew, and everyone thought it was cute. Should they have shamed me if it was a boy? What of my daughter? Should I lecture her and shame her and punish her if she holds hands with and kisses another girl? (This is, of course, a couple years away, at least, so I have the luxury of preparing, you see.)

To the other, I was riding to a football game once with my dad, a friend of his, and the friend's two boys. The younger of the boys somehow got green ink all over his hands. Instead of worrying about the interior of the car, staining clothes, or other practical concerns, the father snapped that the boy looked like a goddamn faggot leprechaun. Should I make homosexuality a basis for demeaning disciplinary language with my daughter? ("You look like a f@cking indigo girl!")

Should I reward and encourage her first forays into the world of boys? ("Are you going to spread for him, dear?" Or, "What's wrong? Why don't you like him? Are you a f@cking dyke?")

How would anyone suggest that I mold my daughter to be either hetero- or homosexual? The most apparent way is negative reinforcement, a method I find excessive to vice in all but the most serious issues.

How, aside from cheering slatterny or patronizing the "cuteness" of a prepubescent crush, might I reinforce heterosexuality as proper? Perhaps with condemning, baseless bigotry against gays?

Is it really proper to raise your child specifically to be a bigot?

what is it that you consider homosexuality 'sick'?I did not say homosexuality was sick, I said a parent WANTING there child to be homosexual was sick.

if homosexuality is 'sick' why has it endured for ages?So has rape, pedofilia, beastiality and murder.

you are beginning to sound bigoted and biased which is not good to an objective discussion.And now a little name calling, nice.

Look, the point is that no one wants their child to be homosexual.

And now a little name calling, nice.

Look, the point is that no one wants their child to be homosexual.
well first of all i said beginnig

second i am not homosexual so i am ill prepared for this discussion.
but i can say this, i wouldn't want my child to be maladjusted.
in all honesty i wouldn't want my child to be homosexual because it is not quite acceptable. if i knew for sure that my child would not be ridiculed and shamed for being homosexual i would not have a problem with it.

i think the question we need to be asking is "does homosexuality pose a threat to society?" and what threat might that be.

i have had friends that were homosexual, they seemed no different than you and i.

like i said earlier i cannot fathom loving a man like i do a woman.

Look, the point is that no one wants their child to be homosexual.

As compared to what? Your point is an empty one. If it matters so much to parents to hold proprietary influence over their child's sexuality, what the hell is wrong with the parents?

So has rape, pedofilia, beastiality and murder.

What has this to do with anything? Don't tell me we're suddenly revisiting the tired, hateful comparison between issues of duress and honest consent. Really. Until someone makes the usefulness of that argument clear, it shouldn't be used.

(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.)

But the question is, what would you choose for your daughter IF you could?

My observational experience suggests that she would encounter fewer vital risks in untangling the nasty web of sexual relationships should she be lesbian. Nonetheless, her sexuality is not mine to choose; her happiness is not mine to snuff out.

And since I am not a woman, and cannot be a lesbian, "choosing" the sapphic paradise for her would still be unwise, as my perceptions of lesbian relationships is largely superstitious. I may observe, I may be acquainted, but I am still connecting the dots on my own pages, and run the obvious risk of seeing the star of the goddess where the image really is Barney the Purple Dinosaur's pecker.

That I must explain these notions at all is a chilling reminder of the diversity of human experience. For instance, I don't think you're actually trying to be stupid, hateful, or priggish, but I do admit it escapes me why this is so important to you.

D'ster:

What sicko would WANT their children to be homosexual? Were just supposed to tolerate homosexuality, not hope for it.

"Supposed to"? Who's making the rules that makes us "supposed to" do this? You?

Tell me: why do you "tolerate" heterosexuality? Because you're heterosexual and afraid of homosexuality, and that makes heterosexuality automatically "better"? I wonder why you are afraid of homosexuality...

And who said anything about hoping for homosexuality? The question you asked was "Should parents influence their children to become homosexual?"

It is based on common sence, homosexuality and hetrosexuality are two different things, so are the standards. Do you believe the two are the same?

Didn't you understand my point? Let me explain it again for you.

We are talking about parents influencing their children to adopt one or other kind of sexuality - assuming that is even possible, which I seriously doubt.

Now, you hold an obvious double standard, in that you think it is fine for parents (probably a duty) to steer their children's sexuality towards heterosexuality, but you consider it morally wrong to steer their sexuality towards homosexuality. Probably you think it is "unnatural" to be homosexual, or some similar rationalisation. Which prompts the question: if homosexuality is so unnatural, why would it be necessary to influence children to become heterosexual? It should be automatic, in your ideal world. So, it seems the real world doesn't match up with your biased views. What a shame.

Would you be just fine with a couple that was trying to encourage their child to be homosexual?

Haven't I already answered this several times? Go back and look, if you're still in doubt.

D'ster, it seems to me that you are very close-minded. You make ridiculous generalizations about black people and are equally ignorant toward homosexuals. You say that anyone who would WANT their child to be homosexual is a sicko. Then would you also say those who WANT their children to be heterosexual are sickos? If not, please tell me why?

Homosexual orientation, as it is part of nature, must be a result of natural selection. Therefore, nature should not be crossed in it's decision to make the individual homosexual.

Homosexual orientation, as it is part of nature, must be a result of natural selection. Therefore, nature should not be crossed in it's decision to make the individual homosexual.
Rape, pedofilia, beastiality and murder, as it is part of nature, must be a result of natural selection. Therefore, nature should not be crossed in it's decision to make the individual rape, pedofilia, beastiality and murder.

Rape, pedofilia, beastiality and murder, as it is part of nature, must be a result of natural selection. Therefore, nature should not be crossed in it's decision to make the individual rape, pedofilia, beastiality and murder.


Yes, but homosexuality is a personal sexual preference; how can you classify it with criminal acts?

..... how can you classify it with criminal acts?

As a matter of personal preference perhaps?

--- Ron.

As a matter of personal preference perhaps?

--- Ron.

So is smoking pot, I believe, and homosexuality is not legally a crime, is it?

So is smoking pot, I believe, and homosexuality is not legally a crime, is it?

Depends where and when.

Should parents ever try to influence their children to smoke pot?

I wonder how a parent would ever hope not to influence.

--- Ron.

Depends where and when.

Should parents ever try to influence their children to smoke pot?

I wonder how a parent would ever hope not to influence.

--- Ron.
Exactly ;)

Should parents ever try to influence their children to smoke pot?

I wouldn't convince a child to do anything really. I advocate independance for the most part (guidance is needed, but in just the right amount as to learn to make their own decisions). I would hope a child would learn what rules can be broke within a responsible range. I drank alcohol before I was 21 but I was responsible about it. I have smoked pot a few times, I was responsible about it. My dad told me about how he was at my age, and he was pretty much the same as I am.

I do not want to be living in a world of robots when I get older, nor do I want to live in anarchy and total social chaos.

Todays News:

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13529493,00.html

Never, you shouldn't EVER teach a child to become a homo gay-bag idiot scum.

Never, you shouldn't EVER teach a child to become a homo gay-bag idiot scum.
and your reasoning is?
let me guess because they are vile and evil

Precisely. Gay-bag homos are not morally correct, and have been proven to have a negative effect on the people surrounding them. IE, vomiting, laughinhg until you cry, seeping hatred ect.

your making me laugh to the point of tears, does that make you gay i wonder

Precisely. Gay-bag homos are not morally correct, and have been proven to have a negative effect on the people surrounding them. IE, vomiting, laughinhg until you cry, seeping hatred ect.

Please tell me you are not a Muslim :(

Please tell me you are not a Muslim :(
sadly he is

No I specified earlier what Sexual Orientation I am. None. Sex is wrong, it's just a fact.

sadly he is


Boo hoo hoo

No I specified earlier what Sexual Orientation I am. None. Sex is wrong, it's just a fact.


I wish your parents had shared these thoughts :confused:

I wish your parents had shared these thoughts :confused:
agreed to the nth degree

agreed to the nth degree

I agree to the nⁿth degree.

Rape, pedofilia, beastiality and murder, as it is part of nature, must be a result of natural selection. Therefore, nature should not be crossed in it's decision to make the individual rape, pedofilia, beastiality and murder.
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.

I voted NO. Parents should never encourage sexuality at all. As a homo myself I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

As a homo myself I wouldn't wish it on anyone.Amen

Todays News:

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13529493,00.html

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 (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1074408). The reason I mention this?


Rape, pedofilia, beastiality and murder, as it is part of nature, must be a result of natural selection. Therefore, nature should not be crossed in it's decision to make the individual rape, pedofilia, beastiality and murder.

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.

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.

I understand how a man could love another man, but I can't understand any sexual interaction between two men.
Perhaps because you're straight and can't imagine the strong attractions, sexual and otherwise, that some guys have for other guys.

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.

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.


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. :rolleyes: 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.

Rape, pedofilia, beastiality and murder, as it is part of nature, must be a result of natural selection. Therefore, nature should not be crossed in it's decision to make the individual rape, pedofilia, beastiality and murder.
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.
Homosexuality, however, is not particularly detrimental at all.

D'ster
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?
Thats it?
If two "adults" consent to a act or a behaviour thats all thats needed to call any act OK?

Thats it?
If two "adults" consent to a act or a behaviour thats all thats needed to call any act OK?
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?

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!

Thats it?
If two "adults" consent to a act or a behaviour thats all thats needed to call any act OK?
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.

I believe you are right that compassion and understanding are more effective than judgement.But they are not half as much fun. :cool:

Thats it?
If two "adults" consent to a act or a behaviour thats all thats needed to call any act OK?
As long as its not directly harmful, sure, why not?

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

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]

(A bunch of unresearched or cited crap)

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians).

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.

Thats it?
If two "adults" consent to a act or a behaviour thats all thats needed to call any act OK?

I wonder about the quotation marks you put around the word "adults". Psychiatric competency is also a consideration, but what are you thinking?

You realize, D'ster, do you not, that your position right now leaves open the notion that you oppose consenting homosexual relations but approve of heterosexual rape? I mean, surely that's not actually the truth of it, but how the hell do you connect consensual sexual intercourse between people of the same gender with murder, rape, and bestiality? Does consent mean nothing to you?

Mystech ....

You might be banging your head against the wall here. D'ster has shown no capability to comprehend or even perceive the obvious. For instance, from his "Politics Before Medicine" post:


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.

A symptom of the marginalization of homosexuality. At present, homosexuals are living in a dynamic situation wherein changing circumstances make it difficult to obtain a homogenized snapshot of a diverse community. To check the endnotes, I can't say the Marriage Law Project, the Christian Institute, or the Massachusetts Family Institute and National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality are sources whose veracity I trust. All start with a lack of neutrality, pursuing political ends instead of scientific.


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.

This is a particularly odious deployment of irrelevance. Part of the dynamic situation surrounding homosexuals is increased social acceptance of homosexuality which allows for greater stability among relationships. Drugs, sex, depression: anything forced "into the closet" becomes less stable and more dangerous. At issue is not single parenthood, but stable homosexual relationships. There are plenty of drawbacks to unstable heterosexual parentage, too, but our man D'ster, nor his gurus at the ACP seem to care about that.

The endnotes in this case are largely irrelevant, owing to the irrelevance of the point offered.


Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples ... Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years ... Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed "committed relationships." ... Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness ... substance abuse ... suicidal tendencies ... and shortened life spans ... 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 ... Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation ... 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.

Violence, dissolution, promiscuity, mental illness, substance abuse, and suicidal tendencies are all symptomatic of institutionalized bigotry. Most of those symptoms also contribute to shortened lifespan. A check of the endnotes suggests a number of troubles, including the "loosely-termed 'committed relationships'"--which are unhealthy for heterosexuals as well, but again D'ster and his gurus don't seem to care--and the use of what are at least tertiary analyses of old data.

As to whether or not children reared in homosexual households are more likely to be homosexual, on the one hand, that's not exactly proven, and to the other I'm not sure what the problem is, aside of course from the institutional bigotry that lends to increased risk of mental health problems, relationship instability, &c.

In the end, to use a racism analysis, if we hold blacks in slavery, outlaw literacy among them, and set an exploitative example for them to aspire to, should we be surprised that there is social trouble in the community upon emancipation, or is it just because they're black?

The ACP and its minions seem to forget that you only get from something what you put into it. If you work toward destabilizing and marginalizing a community, do not be surprised when symptoms of marginalization occur within that group, and certainly do not hold those symptoms as evidence of the inferiority or insufficiency of the group.

That D'ster does not demonstrate such understanding should not be a surprise, either. After all, the ACP doesn't get it, and they're doctors. Both D'ster and the ACP are sad testaments to what happens when one uses science as an exploitative tool in service of a political cause.

We must remember that asking these folks to do real research may be problematic in itself. There are enough secondary and tertiary analyses available that one can keep looking up the endnotes and give up long before they come to the realization that a year-2000 study is based on 1970s (e.g. pre-HIV and received with prejudice) figures. It becomes easier for these folks to say that reality is what they want it to be instead of actually what it is.

Obfuscation and dishonesty are the tools of conservatism. Is D'ster a victim? Can we presume that our associate actually knows any better?

Recalling Oregon's 1992 Ballot Measure 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_9_(1992)), the potential effects would have included propaganda in place of medical education. The campaign pitches essentially made things out so that failing to condemn homosexuality would constitute promoting, encouraging or facilitating. Thus it is possible to read the poll question, "Is it moral to fail to indoctrinate children against homosexuality?"

Curious, indeed.

Disclaimer: None of my prior contributions to this topic have respected the Measure 9 standard, and none in the future will except when I make an obvious point of it.

But really, can we imagine school counselors unable to alleviate a student's (client's) anxieties? ("Yes, Billy, you are abnormal, perverse, and wrong.") Or a medical doctor indoctrinated to lie to a patient? Who would hire such a doctor? (There are plenty who would hire such a school counselor, I know.)

tiassa,

I understand what you're saying, and I agree that compassion is the best policy. But I must be honest: It's very hard for me to treat homophobes — even the self-denying ones — with anything but great annoyance and deep-seated intolerance, for very close-to-home reasons. I do hope that someday I will be able to treat people I find to be idiots more positively, but for now I just don't have the modivation to hold in every last bit of what I think of them.

Oh, and by the way:
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.
Powerful. I'd read your book if you wrote one.

<Small>(That's my subtle way of saying, "Write a book!")</Small>

Recalling Oregon's 1992 Ballot Measure 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_9_(1992))...
I'd like to think that we, in the ever-tolerant UK, gave you the idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28).

I'd like to think that we, in the ever-tolerant UK, gave you the idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28).
It really is a horrible idea, that. People just refuse to see...

Things certainly would be better off for everyone if better people ran the show. :m:

I wonder about the quotation marks you put around the word "adults". There are groups of adults that believe that eating fecal matter is OK.

Is it OK?

It's their lives. And it doesn't change the fact that they're adults. To the other, it's not just gay men who lick each other's asses and thereby have oral contact with fecal matter. Many heterosexuals enjoy a good rimjob now and then.

To the other, it's high time you ponied up and answered an important point:

You realize, D'ster, do you not, that your position right now leaves open the notion that you oppose consenting homosexual relations but approve of heterosexual rape? I mean, surely that's not actually the truth of it, but how the hell do you connect consensual sexual intercourse between people of the same gender with murder, rape, and bestiality? Does consent mean nothing to you?

You realize, D'ster, do you not, that your position right now leaves open the notion that you oppose consenting homosexual relations but approve of heterosexual rape? I mean, surely that's not actually the truth of it, but how the hell do you connect consensual sexual intercourse between people of the same gender with murder, rape, and bestiality? Does consent mean nothing to you?Just because two adults "consent" to something, does not make it OK.

What do you think of the votes?

The current result in both topics reflects a majority opinion that parents should not try to influence their children's sexual orientation. This is a proper outcome, in my opinion.

Your opinion that "just because two adults 'consent' to something does not make it okay" is interesting. In the first place, what's with the quotes around the word consent? Secondly, you haven't really answered the question. You see, a murder victim does not consent to be murdered; even if we take into account the bizarre incident in Europe a couple years ago, the general opinion is that suicidality is cause to question one's psychiatric competency to consent. Rape is, of course, the antithesis of consent. Bestiality is an interesting conundrum. My cat, in her seasonal heat, will present herself to just about anyone; I don't think she's actually consenting to have a human penis inserted into her. Animals are not generally viewed as capable of giving proper consent to sexual intercourse with a human. So it would seem that your opinion that two adults consenting to something you don't like is a moral offense is, in fact, irrelevant.

So how, exactly, do you connect three acts in which consent is not present with an act between two consenting adults? Are you not prepared to undertake that consideration? Is that why you're avoiding it? Or do you not understand? In either case, however, your comparison still lacks anything approaching rational justification.

Should I call you a "Nazi"? I don't see why. It suffices to say that you are simply overzealous, intellectually dishonest, and apparently unable to comprehend the issues you have undertaken. It would seem, then, that you are not competent to consent to the very discussions you have started. Should I "protect" you, then, and close these topics? Squirrel them away, hide them from your tender, unready eyes? I would be dismayed if that was the case, as I find these sorts of topics monuments to human failing: you have put on display one of the core problems of homophobia--you simply aren't mature enough, intellectually or psychologically, to wrap your head around the subject matter.

The situation is simple: you have made an irresponsible, hateful, slanderous comparison , the dimensions of which you seem either unwilling or unable to justify. If you are unable to comprehend the issues, you ought not raise them. If your apparent ignorance is a ruse, you are simply demonstrating the stupid cruelty of homophobes. The lasting impact of your role in these discussions, at present, is a testament to the homophobes' lack of any reasonable qualification to judge the morality or propriety of human actions and considerations.

And that's the problem with what conservatives call "liberal elitism". If one is not qualified to or capable of making a judgment, how dare we question that judgment? How dare we? How dare you.

Your hatred will poison you. Be responsible: don't go around trying to poison everybody else. Just because you would rather live in a world of ignorant moralism does not mean you should drag anyone else down with you. I know, misery loves company. But so does joy. Come up out of your valley of shadows. We'll wait for you. We'll even help you. And when you feel the sunshine on your face, we'll all be happy for the treasures you have gained.

D'ster:

Just because two adults "consent" to something, does not make it OK.

What makes things ok, according to you? If the bible says it's ok? Or what?

Should somebody else consent, would my wife be entitled to a say in it?

--- Ron.

If it's really a "free" world, then why would you need my consent to have sex with your wife D'ster? And do you have a say in whether I decide to eat some girl's fecal matter?. I don't understand what perspective you're coming from.