Thread: Discussion of Homosexuality Acceptance (Split)

I am a man and if you were my child I would teach you to walk away from a fight too. Walking away isn't a feminine thing to do, it is an adult thing to do. Adults don't fight, they assault, mug, and murder. If you learn that violence is an acceptable responsible as a child, your chances of going to jail or dying greatly increase. Violence is never an answer to anything, unless your attacked, and even then your goal should be to escape the situation not to harm the other person. Most bullying isn't a physical assault so the possibility of leaving the situation is usually pretty good.

Also, children learn about social interactions from everyone around them, not just their parents. So it is very easy to learn about how people interact. For example, you should be learning from your peers, other children being raised around you. Honestly your mom sounds right about a lot of things. Treating someone like shit for being different makes you a shitty person. Accepting people for who they are, does make you a better person.

Also the idea of a male and female parent balancing things out is pretty silly. It depends way to much on the culture you live in, the people around you, and individual belief systems. Like in the above example, learning to fight bullies has nothing to do with male or female parents. You could of had two male parents and they could of both told you that fighting is never the solution and that you should walk away.

To get back to the main topic though, this seems like a simple problem to solve to me. Everything is allowed as long as everyone is consenting. Very simple. If someone wants 15 wives and they all consent I am fine with it. As was pointed out, children and animals can't legally consent. If we as a society decide that children are mature enough to make these type of decisions and lower the age of consent, then those children should have the right to make the choice. They wouldn't be children after all, they would be mature adults and so should be treated as such. If we invent technology and can talk to animals and we decide they are smart enough to know what they are doing, then I don't care if someone wants to marry an animal. How does it effect me? I don't care. As long as people are consenting they are free to do what they want.

That is what freedom is about. People being allowed to do what they want. If they are not harming anyone they should be able to do as they please, and if everyone is consenting then no one is being hurt. Honestly the people who want to oppress and force their will on others disgust me more than anything else. Because they are looking to take away people's rights and their freedoms. They want to harm people against their will. That is why homophobs and bigots get a lot of hate directed at them. Because they are actively trying to harm others against their will.

Originally Posted by Shamanite

Again, marriage was traditionally defined as between a man and a woman, but with gay marriage that has been redefined, the rules have been changed as well. Laws represent a reflection of the morality of the public. As we constantly change our morals in this fast moving period of history, so will our laws. In the future the same rhetoric will be able to use for any new movement,

"why are you pedophobic? You should be accepting of pedophilic people" etc.

Pedophilia is a bad example, because children will eventually become adults over time. You might argue that one's sex can change as well, but that is another matter to discuss, and also moot in this case because one's sex does not change of natural causes, like one's age does. The laws in place against pedophilia are meant to protect children, as are laws for animals. The laws against same sex marriage are not designed to protect same sex partners, it is meant to exclude them because of the majority's opinion and religious beliefs. This isn't even mentioning that pedophilia and zoophilia are sexual orientations and same sex marriage is an issue over a couple's legal status.

Originally Posted by Alric

I am a man and if you were my child I would teach you to walk away from a fight too. Walking away isn't a feminine thing to do, it is an adult thing to do. Adults don't fight, they assault, mug, and murder. If you learn that violence is an acceptable responsible as a child, your chances of going to jail or dying greatly increase. Violence is never an answer to anything, unless your attacked, and even then your goal should be to escape the situation not to harm the other person. Most bullying isn't a physical assault so the possibility of leaving the situation is usually pretty good.

Also, children learn about social interactions from everyone around them, not just their parents. So it is very easy to learn about how people interact. For example, you should be learning from your peers, other children being raised around you. Honestly your mom sounds right about a lot of things. Treating someone like shit for being different makes you a shitty person. Accepting people for who they are, does make you a better person.

Also the idea of a male and female parent balancing things out is pretty silly. It depends way to much on the culture you live in, the people around you, and individual belief systems. Like in the above example, learning to fight bullies has nothing to do with male or female parents. You could of had two male parents and they could of both told you that fighting is never the solution and that you should walk away.

Wow - ok again, as I said to Gavin - you don't know anything about my life or my mom just because you read a few words I wrote. It was probably stupid of me to try to give an example, for a few reasons (not the least being that I don't want to open up my personal life to everybody just to try to make a point). But you seem to have misunderstood the point I was trying to make in the same way he did, so Ill try to explain it better.

My point was that if there had been another person, and in particular a man, around, I would have been exposed to an alternative. There were so many times when she treated me extremely harshly, which I much later came to realize was because I was a male - the hated gender, and if a man had been around there would have been somebody to defend me and to teach me things a male is supposed to learn. A man might have watched sports and I might have developed an interest in them and learned about them so that later in life I wouldn't have been such a social reject. And it was directly because of feminism that divorce lost its stigma and became, considered normal, so without its influence either they might have found a way to work things out (unlikely) or she might have remarried. And again, it was feminism that gave her the idea that it was cool to hate men so much and to raise a boy without any male role models and try to squash out any chance of him ever becoming an alpha or high-status male. Feminism has deliberately encouraged divorce and taught women to raise their boys without male role models in an effort to raise generations of compliant males who will all be supporters of feminism. It's a very deliberate political ploy.

And I don't know why you assume that standing up to a bully necessarily means fighting. Just the willingness to fight is often enough. When he sees you're not going to back down (aka walk away as he's shouting insults at you and everybody is laughing their asses off at you) then usually he will develop some respect for you as will everyone in the crowd. Then you won't be hearing those mocking insults all the rest of the day and following days as you walk down the halls, and you'll earn a reputation for being brave. If you walk away you develop a reputation for being a coward. It's not really about fighting - and in fact usually a bully won;t go so far as to actually physically assault you if you stand up to him. See, that's the part I never learned and that a man could have taught me. There's nothing wrong with teaching a kid to stand up for himself when confronted with a challenge - walking away is usually the wrong thing to do. In fact, as in dreams and encounters with predators, fleeing only brings out their predatory nature even more and makes you look like a victim to them.

As for learning from your peers - for some reason my friends never told me any of this stuff either. Maybe they figured I was already too far gone because of the feminist brainwashing from my mom, I don't know.

You are alien lifeforms to me. It's my mum who would have the greater bloodthirst in that situation.
I disagree that walking away is always the better solution. It is contingent on the circumstances. If it's an isolated incident between a stranger or you can avoid them, then sure, walk.
However, if this is a prick who you will be forced into daily close contact, such as in school, you should make it clear to him (or indeed her) that preying on you will pose collateral damage.
It does not even have to be physical, find a point of weakness and point a metaphoric handgun at it. Depending on how serious your bullying situation is, you may want to make this a very public thing so nobody else has illusions of an easy pick. You can also try doing what I often did: befriend them or people in their circle to make it progressively more taboo to go at you.

Originally Posted by DeviantThinker

It's my mum who would have the greater bloodthirst in that situation.

Lol same here. My mom wasn't the kind of person to walk away, she would have gone for the jugular. But yet for some reason she wanted her son to be more compliant…

Parents are weird like that. I don't think this is restricted to just one gender though I accept that mothers may be more supceptible to that sort of reasoning.
A lot of it is also culturally based. Japan has a huge bullying problem for example and part of the reason for it is the degree to which it is tolerated by the adults.

For what it's worth, if my mum had ever found out if I was bullied, I would worry for the safety of that child more than my own. . .

Lol!! I also don't think it's restricted to one gender - maybe I'm still not making my point clear. To get to the broadest essence of it, humanity is a species (or whatever it technically is) consisting, like all mammalian species, of 2 genders (or sexes, whatever you want to call them, I'm using the word gender in its original meaning), and they complement each other in many ways that are often quite subtle and hard to understand. This is why for the vast majority of human history the family has been considered the center of society and such an important part of a child's development. It's only with the onset of radical feminism (2nd & 3rd wave, beginning in the early 60's) that the idea of the family has become devalued. I believe, as everyone has always believed except for radical feminists, that it's important for children (of both genders) to be exposed in the family to male and female pair bonding, to see firsthand the way men and women interact. Things that can't be picked up or taught verbally, but must be experienced and witnessed firsthand throughout childhood. I wish people would stop trying to reduce everything to just that one example I gave - I'm talking in very broad terms here that can't be proven or disproven through one isolated example (and admittedly that wasn't the best example either).

I should also make clear again (I said it before but I want to make sure people understand my position) that I'm not saying it's totally necessary for a child to have a mother and a father. That's just the ideal. Well, to be more specific, the ideal is a good, happy nuclear family. It's not often that ideal is met. And I understand, of course, that having both a male and a female parent does not in any way ensure a good or happy family. I just think it should be encouraged as it always has before the radicals decreed otherwise.

Just to recap - I'm totally in favor of gay marriage and gay rights in general, including the right for a gay couple or single parent to raise children, but I just think (theoretically) it's not as ideal as a traditional nuclear family. Of course of us don't have ideal lives and its far better for a child to have a parent or parents than not.

To the pro-gay marriage people: what about polygamy and polyandry? Polyamory, in general. If you don't support polyamory, then your point about consenting adults falls apart.

By the way, my own view is two-fold: 1) if possible, the government should not be involved in marriage of any kind, ever. 2) If the government must get involved, then everyone should able able to marry everyone, and that includes polyamory.

However, that's just the legal question. There's also what I support on a social level, which is different. I personally don't see how, all else being equal, a gay couple could raise a child as well as a straight couple. First of all, it goes against evolutionary precedent, which is a red flag (not proof, mind you). Second, like others have said, you need a man to teach a child how to be a man. I'd even go as far as to say that two men would be far better than two women. A gay man can be feminine, but a lesbian will never be able to teach a boy how to be a man.

Of course, even lesbians would be far better than a single mother. Having a single mother is almost a guaranteed shitty life for the kid.

Originally Posted by cmind

To the pro-gay marriage people: what about polygamy and polyandry? Polyamory, in general. If you don't support polyamory, then your point about consenting adults falls apart.

While I personally don't have an interest in being in a polyamoric (is that the word?) relationship, if everybody in a relationship is an informed, consenting adult, then I see no problem with it.

By the way, my own view is two-fold: 1) if possible, the government should not be involved in marriage of any kind, ever. 2) If the government must get involved, then everyone should able able to marry everyone, and that includes polyamory.

Agreed.

I personally don't see how, all else being equal, a gay couple could raise a child as well as a straight couple. First of all, it goes against evolutionary precedent, which is a red flag (not proof, mind you).

Evolutionary precedent just tells us what has happened. It takes a male and female to reproduce, so couples have often taken care of their offspring together. I won't go into the reasons for this as they should be obvious if we're looking at this from an evolutionary perspective. What makes homosexual parenting in the face of that a "red flag," I'm not sure. If two people can give a child the care it needs to be a empathetic, productive member of society, then what's the issue?

Second, like others have said, you need a man to teach a child how to be a man. I'd even go as far as to say that two men would be far better than two women. A gay man can be feminine, but a lesbian will never be able to teach a boy how to be a man.

Of course, even lesbians would be far better than a single mother. Having a single mother is almost a guaranteed shitty life for the kid.

What does it mean to teach a boy to be a man?

From my understanding, the quality of parenting matters the most when it comes to raising a child. And I think the evidence we have on LGBT parenting supports that.

My point was that your mothers gender isn't the major deciding factor. You are basically saying it was feminist ideas that messed you up, but what if your father was also a feminist? Then having a male father wouldn't have really changed anything would it? My point is that there is a ton of factors, and most of those other factors play far larger part in how you turn out. The culture you are raised in, the friends you have, ideals your parents have, religions, culture of your extended family, subculture you are in, hobbies you end up having, and all sort of stuff. Having one parent with a penis and another with a vagina are minor things compared to those other factors.

As for multiple partner relationships, I don't care at all. Like i said, as long as everyone is consenting I am fine with it.

Once again, the point wasn't that she was a woman or even a feminist, the point was that it was a tyranny - one parent making all decisions and nobody to stand as my defender against her. You seem to keep misunderstanding that. Then add to that the fact that radical feminist theory made her believe men were horrible monsters that should all be castrated (one of her favorite topics) and you can see that it was a pretty toxic environment for a boy to grow up in, and the presence of a man or even a sympathetic woman who wasn't also a radfem would have made things very different. But then why (if she was a lesbian, which she wasn't) would my mom live with a woman who didn't share her ideology?

To address some of your other points, my dad wasn't a feminist, at least he didn't buy into the radical theory that fueled my mom. And I do understand there are a lot of other factors - I addressed that a couple of times already by saying that even a nuclear family doesn't guarantee a good balance of male and female parenting that will be beneficial to the children. But I do believe that when it works it's the best system. I don't think it should be devalued the way feminism does.

And once more - let's talk about the issues, not my personal life, ok?

Well that is my point, your situation has nothing to do with the topic at hand. As you said, it was about the tyranny of one person. Getting at the core of your point, you were basically saying two people work better than one, but if you following that logic then having a more than two parents is even better. Which is actually what a lot of people would suggest, except instead of a bunch of parents you usually have aunts and uncles and close friends, and grand parents and stuff. Basically many adults that are involved at some level or another.

Though you can have all of that stuff regardless of your parents sexual orientation as well.

Originally Posted by Alric

you were basically saying two people work better than one, but if you following that logic then having a more than two parents is even better.

Wow, total logic failure!! Do you really think that follows from what I said?

I'm done here - you obviously refuse to understand anything I say in the way I mean it.

From what I understand here, Mr Matter, your point against non-nuclear families is as follows:

1. Nuclear families have evolutionary precedence due to sexual dimorphism and the differences between maternal and fraternal instincts.

2. Units with only single parents have been linked to numerous issues for the children in them.

3. Though gay marriage is legitimate, due to point 1, it is not as ideal a situation for the child involved than a traditionally opposite gendered nuclear family.

4. The devaluing of nuclear families is largely the result of radical feminism from the 60's and 70's and so is based more on politics than
scientific or ethical reasoning.


Am I grokking you? I want to know before I can engage in a debate with you.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Evolutionary precedent just tells us what has happened. It takes a male and female to reproduce, so couples have often taken care of their offspring together. I won't go into the reasons for this as they should be obvious if we're looking at this from an evolutionary perspective. What makes homosexual parenting in the face of that a "red flag," I'm not sure. If two people can give a child the care it needs to be a empathetic, productive member of society, then what's the issue?

It's a red flag because homosexual couples have never been able to raise children until very recently. There's no reason to believe that the human species has evolved to handle that sort of arrangement. The burden of proof is on the other side here.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

From my understanding, the quality of parenting matters the most when it comes to raising a child. And I think the evidence we have on LGBT parenting supports that.

Did you miss the part when I said all else being equal? Better quality gay parents are better than low quality straight parents. But that's irrelevant to my point. That's a confounding variable.

By the way, studies are highly suspect. Since gay couples must adopt*, the ones with children are both wealthier and more emotionally stable than the average straight parents. Furthermore, adoption agencies might, consciously or not, have even more stringent requirements for gay couples than straight couples. So even if you tried to control the experiment by comparing gay adopters to straight adopters, you still might not be fully controlling all the confounding variables.

*or use a fancy in vitro method, which also costs money, which means they must be wealthy

I understand completely why so many people feel a pair of homosexual parents aren't as natural as man and wife. These feelings, in my belief, do stem from our biological nature. Because it does take one man and one woman to create a child and it his our genetic lineage for that one man and one woman to raise that child. And it is universally the dream of basically every child out there to have both a mom and dad that loves them.

Plus, children are a handful (nightmare), single parenting is hard.

And not only is it good for a child to have a loving mom and a loving dad, its also very healthy for that same child to grow up with a sibling. Hate them or love them, siblings teach you.

But, let's face it, not all families are living in this happy little bubble. Its not the end of the world if a child doesn't grow up in the most perfect setting. At the end of the day a kid just needs a family, of some sort.

I'm happy that homosexuals can adopt. Because that constitutes as family. It may not be the best family in the whole world, but who here is bold enough to make that claim? Family is family, we love and hate them. A lot of people have fears that homosexual parents some how indoctrinate their children to act gay. This argument is based off the idea that homosexuality is a choice. Its not. Its not a virus, you can't pass it on.

The only instance in which I would draw the line is when homosexuals ask the world of science to create children from the same sex. I am not okay with this. We are talking about the continuation of the human species, being created in a laboratory. Were not talking about the social right for homosexuals to create children too, were talking about a fundamental shift in what it means to be human.

We are made from man and woman, and it is no small thing. It is literally what we ALL have in common.

But family? There is no one definition fits all.

Originally Posted by cmind

Second, like others have said, you need a man to teach a child how to be a man. I'd even go as far as to say that two men would be far better than two women. A gay man can be feminine, but a lesbian will never be able to teach a boy how to be a man.

Woah there, that sounds like some sexism. What on earth does it mean to be a man, that only a man can teach a child? And why is the inverse possible, as if teaching a girl to be a woman (whatever that would mean) is less challenging?

Anyway, yeah. If it's consensual, it's fine. And yes that goes for polyamory too.

Originally Posted by cmind

It's a red flag because homosexual couples have never been able to raise children until very recently. There's no reason to believe that the human species has evolved to handle that sort of arrangement. The burden of proof is on the other side here.

That isn't true. There are a lot of ways for a homosexual couples to raise a child, even here in the US where the laws weren't to friendly towards it. The most obvious example, is just if you got married had a child and separated from your spouse. You could then raise the child with a new homosexual partner. It doesn't even matter if your married or not, they could just live with you. There are tons of other ways too.

Originally Posted by juroara

A lot of people have fears that homosexual parents some how indoctrinate their children to act gay. This argument is based off the idea that homosexuality is a choice. Its not. Its not a virus, you can't pass it on.

Literally no one in this thread said that.

Originally Posted by Shamanite

I'm not saying we should be hateful, but not to treat it as a positive alternative to heterosexuality. It should be treated as a mental illness.

I'm at a loss of words of how angry and sad this comment makes me. There's a very good reason LGBT people are depressed and retreat to their own (at times harmful) cultures; they feel hated by society.

Homosexuality is not an illness. It can indeed be defined as abnormal, but that doesn't mean society has to suppress it. It is simply a matter of preference. Some people prefer different foods, different colours, different entertainment, left, right, men or women.


I don't feel terribly interested in engaging in this topic of discussion, but I will say one thing and also pose a question.

First off, a lot of your sources are old studies, dating back as far as the forties. During these times, society rejected LGBT people completely, which dramatically will skew any analysis on whether these people interact with society and other people in a healthy way. If the vast majority of people hate you because of a single character trait, and some societies would even punish you (in some cases with death) for having said trait, then you are not going to develop into a healthy member of society.

For my question: I'm a bisexual. More accurately I would be pansexual, but those two terms have pretty much become interchangeable. Where do I fit into your image of societal degenerates who must be cured?

Originally Posted by Marvo

For my question: I'm a bisexual. More accurately I would be pansexual, but those two terms have pretty much become interchangeable. Where do I fit into your image of societal degenerates who must be cured?

There is apparently a wide range of opinions being expressed in this thread. Just to be clear and to preempt any misapprehensions people might have, I personally don't consider LGBT to be a mental illness (except in cases where it is, but those are the minority). So don't think that just because I'm on "that side" of this discussion, that I believe all the stupid stuff that other people have said.

And since we're sharing...I'm also bisexual. Yay! I actually think that there are lots of bisexual people, but a lot of them just don't talk about it. And why should they? This gets me fired up on another issue, which is the LGBT lobby telling their "members" that they must "come out" for solidarity and whatnot. Bullshit. Only certain people in my life deserve to know. And don't even get me started on pride parades...

Originally Posted by cmind

Second, like others have said, you need a man to teach a child how to be a man. I'd even go as far as to say that two men would be far better than two women. A gay man can be feminine, but a lesbian will never be able to teach a boy how to be a man.

Of course, even lesbians would be far better than a single mother. Having a single mother is almost a guaranteed shitty life for the kid.

Woah, are you serious? You need a man to teach a child how to be a man? How does one do that? Stop talking like that about being that and being the other and putting labels on everything. So, you're expected to act as something just because you were born as a male/female and need someone to teach you how to live? Maybe I just don't get the meaning of ''being a man'', because you said that a feminine gay man would do a better job than a lesbian couple.

Originally Posted by cmind

There is apparently a wide range of opinions being expressed in this thread. Just to be clear and to preempt any misapprehensions people might have, I personally don't consider LGBT to be a mental illness (except in cases where it is, but those are the minority). So don't think that just because I'm on "that side" of this discussion, that I believe all the stupid stuff that other people have said.

And since we're sharing...I'm also bisexual. Yay! I actually think that there are lots of bisexual people, but a lot of them just don't talk about it. And why should they? This gets me fired up on another issue, which is the LGBT lobby telling their "members" that they must "come out" for solidarity and whatnot. Bullshit. Only certain people in my life deserve to know. And don't even get me started on pride parades...

I mostly agree. I have told a few people about my sexuality, mostly because eventually it would come up. That's kind of a privilege as a bisexual though. Gay people are kind of forced to tell people, since lying all the time just sucks. People keep asking 'do you have a girlfriend?', it just puts a certain pressure on a person.

Originally Posted by Marvo

People keep asking 'do you have a girlfriend?', it just puts a certain pressure on a person.

I can't really relate to that. People rarely ask me if I have a girlfriend, and I just say no (because I don't). It's not unusual for a guy to be single in this day and age. I don't see how gay guys could be feeling pressure from that.