Reply With Quote
I find it appropriate when responding to condescension.
You seem to be having a hard time separating gender roles and sexuality. Just because a child grows up with an altered perception of gender roles does not mean that they will be gay.
Mookie, i don't know whether this post is what you really believe or it's just inflammatory.
Being anti anything does not mean being obsessive, you're anti manu, does that mean you're obsessed with him? Don't be silly.
Also, you're in no position to judge people psychologically who you've never met based on their positions on issues. You should use reason to back up your claims and not pseudo psychology.
Gay adoptions is not about Gays doing their own thing, adoption involves the life of another person being subjected to another individual. The child's rearing is just as important as the sexuals desire to raise kids.
If i wanted to give up my kid for adoption, i should have the right to deny and discriminate on who i want to raise that child. You could never know my motives or judge, there are many motives as to why someone would offer a kid to adoption. That doesn't make me obsessed with Gays.
I find it appropriate when responding to condescension.
You seem to be having a hard time separating gender roles and sexuality. Just because a child grows up with an altered perception of gender roles does not mean that they will be gay.
Up to the point where you were being sarcastic, i didn't call you names or disrescpect you in anyway. You obviously took my position on this whole thing personally. If that's what it was, that wasn't my intention, but don't excuse your own shortcomings in having a civilized debate and accuse me of something which i haven't done.
[QOUTE]You seem to be having a hard time separating gender roles and sexuality. Just because a child grows up with an altered perception of gender roles does not mean that they will be gay.[/QUOTE]
Actually i mentioned gender roles and sexuality in my previous arguments concerning the issue of gay adoption. Infact we first started talking about gender roles and i coined it as such. The confusion was in that i forgot to include gender roles in that sentence. But this whole argument has not been about me confusing the two. My apologies for not being clear.
sigh
no i am serious
my reasoning is i have seen kids in my own family, grow up with a mother and father who tackled them and watched sports and drank beer and threw footballs at them and they turned out gay, and we all figured it out from the time we were little kids
i also knew kids who were raised by their dad and a "uncle" and were dragged to go shopping all day and had to watch fantasy movies and listen to pop music all day, and they grew up to be straight
and also, GAY KIDS come from parents in a heterosexual relationship, this is a fact, every single one them, its not hard to figure out
yes if i my family were WASP asshole protestants and i was born in 1932 and not 50 years later i would probably be on the other side of the issue. meet a gay couple with kids, i dont see how you can say two moms is better than one mom or no mom or no dad or a grandma or whatever. its just wrong and really really pompous and arrogant to think otherwise
i saidddddd
You must think it's crazy that man has survived on this gender role structure, and biology and evolution had no part in the development of the human mind. So when i say that mother and father parental units are superior to single parent units, and gay units, it's not because i'm being pompous or a chode. It's because our species has grown this way, and the female and male brain have evolved to work in such way that a man provides certain qualities and a woman provides her particular quali es which happen in order for man to survive and nurture and care for offspring.
Yeah, i'm pretty sure gay kids will turn out gay eventually, that's not the point, and hetero households don't guarantee anything. It's just as pompous to assume that people who are anti gay adoption must all think that hetero parenting is faultless. It's pompous for you to denigrate our arguments like that so you can beat up a strawman.
Yes, all those cases you cite i believe them. There will be exceptions, as much as nature seems to work in a designed way, it's still chaotic and there are variables which we cannot predict. Infact many of nature's phenomenae is due more to a pattern of Identification than order.
Furthermore, the field of phsycology has not been conclusive on whether sexuality is strictly a nature or nurture thing. There are many reasons to think that it is both, and to deny that gay parenting might affect this is being negligent to your own rational faculty.
Even Dr Kinsey's reports, as ty as the sample data is, concludes that sexuality is not so etched in stone.
Why do prisoners who live straight lives all this time end up in prison and briefly experiment with sexuality? Do you have all the awnsers? NOne of us do.
But to sit here and claim that sexual parenting is exactly like hetero parenting and that it does not affect a child's sexual development is not rational, but decietful to one who is either willing to take it that way to appeal to a jingoist argument about equality when this subject isn't about such thing, either that or you can't fathom challenging the PC hypothesis.
yes sexuality is not etched in stone
but what happens then? whats the worst thing you can imagine, the sexuality level reaches 100% and the earths populaton dwindles down to zero?
is that what youre afraid of? is the species that fragile?
i mean we have to look out for mankind right
You're so like jon stewart, guy..
maybe not mankind, thats extreme
youre afraid of lil billy out there who grows up to be gay and wears sparkly shirts and drive nissan cubes and
i just dont get it
And someone else needs to improve their reading comprehension. I said nothing about nature or nurture in determining sexuality.
Someone needs to pick up a psychology textbook. Sexuality at least has as much to do with nurture as it does nature; in fact, you won't find any evidence out there that implies nature means more, anywhere. Conversely, every bit of evidence will show you liberal-minded environments harbor liberal philosophies on sexuality.
What I said was that sexuality was rooted in attraction and desire, rather than in behavior. Generally in this country, moreso than in other countries, discussions about sexuality tend to revolve around behavior and/or sexual practices -- we are obsessed with what people are doing in the bedroom and attempt to make that central to the definition of sexuality. When you think about it objectively, however, this fixation doesn't make a damn bit of sense. Sexuality is about much more than merely sex.
What people do, who they do it with, and who they want to do it with all operate independently. Behavior is always a choice. Always. Whether or not a person has relationships, sexual or emotional, with members of the same sex is based on a conscious decision to do so. Or to not do so. Whether or not someone publicly identifies as lesbian/gay/bisexual/etc. is, again, based on a conscious choice to act. Attraction is not a behavior, though, and therefore cannot be controlled through choice. There is not a single person reading this thread who has ever seen someone across a room and chosen to find them attractive. Not one.
Isn't the important thing that children get all of those things -- nurturing, love, teaching, etc. -- rather than worrying about which parent provides each of those aspects?
kids are not yet developed individuals to make those value judgements, even more reason why good parenting is so important, and having a father is really important, the black community has been plagued by this disease.
Why is disagreeing to anything has to involve fear. Is that the way your life works, are you afraid of brussel sprouts, carrots, V8 juice, striped socks, a balanced diet, waking up at 8 am?
Is one afraid at things he opposes or choses to disagree with?
youre concerned for lil pt cruiser driving billy?
it's about time
youre not afraid of the gays, youre concerned for them?
... and I reiterate: educate yourself.
Behavior theorists everywhere would be appalled at such a statement. I got a chuckle myself.
You're just wrong, for a mul ude of reasons I don't care to explain. Nothing else needs to be said. But because you will no doubt cast off a very plain fact due to lack of knowledge, I will explain simply:
Behavior is the product of tons of social and cognitive reinforcement. Your behavior, my behavior, everyone's behavior. Cognitive-behavioral theories, which are what you're appealing to even if you don't know it, run afoul of your statement.
You think it's just "natural and uncontrollable" who you're attracted to. That's simply untrue. Your attraction to someone, male or female, has (almost) everything to do with how you've been nurtured; with how your behavior, and others' behaviors you have witnessed, has been reinforced.
It is true that humans find certain people more attractive than others naturally, due to genetics and natural selection. However, what you're trying to spin off as a reality-based opinion can't be done as such, because it's a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Long story short: "attraction and desire" for another person has everything to do with behavior. Unless, of course, you'd like to call 125 years of behavior research wrong.
btw..
How can one have any discussion about determining sexuality without any inference or implication of nature and nurture? It's literally impossible, because sexuality has everything to do with nature and nurture's interference. In fact, to discuss human behavior at all is to argue the impacts of nature and nurture.I said nothing about nature or nurture in determining sexuality.
Last edited by z0sa; 07-11-2010 at 02:55 AM.
One other thing I'd like to state: the vast majority of people's sexuality is determined in early childhood, IMO, and has very little to do with conscious decision and everything to do with reinforcement - reinforcement of traditional gender roles by the parents being the biggest cog. Freud and many other psychologists agree with this sentiment.
Of course, that doesn't mean some people aren't confused about their sexuality for many years. This is probably because gender roles have evolved to a point where they are becoming indistinguishable, among other reasons.
Last edited by z0sa; 07-11-2010 at 02:28 AM.
I see no issue. Children that are up for adoption are already in miserable conditions, broken households, picked on at school, fatherless, or whatever concern there is with sexual adoption. At the worst it is a lateral move. Considering that parents adopting have to have a steady income, two parents, no domestic issues, blah blah blah, then the orphan or kid with a 14 year old mom has nowhere to go but up.
I also don't see what gender roles or sexual education has to do with anything. Yeah, they are different than their peers. So are deaf kids, amputees, mentally handicapped kids, blind kids, divorced parents' kids, smart kids, dumb kids, ugly kids, fat kids, black kids, or a thousand other conditions. They grow up mostly normal.
Another thing that makes no sense is the natural/biological/evolution argument. Passing on sexuality to the next generation is no different that passing on diabetes, near-sightedness, heart disease, or one of a million other things. Our intelligence and technology weakens the gene pool and allows us to artificially select what is passed on. Who cares if sexuality makes humanity weaker or destroys our precious gender roles? We don't live by camp fires and hunt tigers; gender roles are a relic of an animalistic past.
Finally, whoever keeps mentioning dogs/cats/monkeys should look up the definition of mutual consent. No animal (other than humans) is self-aware, conscious, senitent, sapient, and intelligent. Therefore, no animal can give consent to their marriage to a human. The jelly on the ass is a conditioned response, and the slippery-slope argument is re ed, to say the least. Polygamy won't exist because of women's rights, otherwise it is justifiable.
lol the Bible. In 2010.
Is anything more irrelevant?
That is such bull . How many promninant christian conservatives have gay children? Are you tellimg me that raising kids in a strict christian household made them choose to be gay? Affected who they were attracted to? If tha's the case, in the case of twins, why does one turn out gay and the other not?. I understand that conservtaives have to believe beoing gay is a choice because it gives them the leeway to say nasty and horrible things. If they were to acknowledge that those people were born that way then when they say nasty and horrible things they look like unreasonable pieces of .
A gay twin wouldn't prove , you would think if it was genetic, both would be gay.
Seems like it's still relevant, not one religous argument has been brought up, or bible verse has been brought up, yet it seems to be the boogeyman here.
Btw, troll.
so upbringing and nurturing have jack to do with people being gay. thanks for proving my point.
has a gay gene been identified?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
