A country that does the right thing, finally.

Remove all ads!

Well, I'm not a psychologists, and I don't even play one on TV, but I have to agree that the idea of someone being "indoctrinated" into a sexuality seems preposterous. That implies that most people are straight because they were raised by straight parents. It seems like a classic case of assuming correlation equates to causation. I can't speak for people who are gay, but it certainly appears that my heterosexuality is hard-wired. I do not think that this would be any different if I were raised by gay parents.

I honestly believe that regardless of whether you're gay or straight, you were born that way. I don't have any handy links, or newspaper articles, or research papers to refer to, but this seems rather intuitive. If homosexuality is a learned behavior, there would be a whole heck of a lot fewer gay people in the world, as the vast majority of children have straight parents as role models. I've heard gay estimates of between 5% and 10%, with some variation from country to country, and there's no possible way that 5% to 10% of children are being raised by gay parents. In fact, given that the vast majority of gays were in fact raised by straight parents, how did all these people learn how to become gay?

 

To get back on topic more or less.

Should homosexuals be allowed to have civil unions?

Yes!

 

Yes, for me too. Long-term partners deserve the same tax breaks and legal rights regarding decision making regardless of gender. Anything less is institutionalized discrimination.

What religious institutions choose to do is their own business.

 

The original post poses the question of whether Elton John's wedding/civil union is a "step in the right direction", so I'd think discussing the direction things are or could be going, gay adoption for example, is on topic enough.

I don't believe in this "indoctrinating children into being gay" stuff. Aldeth said it quite well above, I think. Although I've recently read the number of homosexuals in the world is believed to be smaller, probably more like 1-6% of the population.

It's pretty fruitless to argue though, when neither side seems to have links.

 

Let's try a little mathematical exercise, shall we?

Assumptions:
-Can't tell sexuality at birth (boy, would that fix this whole thing)
-Being indoctrinated toward the opposite sexuality will cause at least minor damage to the child's sexual psyche (or whatever it's called)
-10% gay, 90% straight (easy numbers)
-Random, even distribution of children

Only straight parents = 10% damaged
Only gay parents (not suggesting such a ridiculous idea, but still must be included for completeness) = 90% damaged
Both straight and gay parents = 18% damaged in 4 zones:
-Straight-straight = 81% fine
-Gay-gay = 1% fine
-Straight-gay = 9% damaged
-Gay-straight = 9% damaged

It's called "playing the odds", and it's a matter of a 9-to-1 sacrifice of straight kids to gay kids. If quantity is all you're concerned with, then by all means go ahead and screw the gays (figuratively, of course ).

Not included in these numbers, of course, are the intangibles. Like, for instance, intolerance for homosexuality. The extent of damage caused by a strict heterosexual couple could be far worse on a gay child than a gay couple (determined to be more open-minded than their parents were) on a straight child.

Though likewise a straight kid brought up by strict homosexual parents could be damaged worse than a gay kid with open-minded heterosexual parents. (Ideally, all parents would be open-minded, but...) But there again we have rarity. Closed-mindedly homosexual would require either generations of a closed culture (and heredity-by-adoption), or some sort of cult.

Fortunately, children learn sex education at school nowadays, so straight kids would know procreation and the right way to do it. Gay children have no such handy guidelines.

As for the stigma of living with gay parents, I dare say you ought to be rooting for that. Such peer info is just the way to let them know that their home situation is not "normal", effectively cancelling any (passive) indoctrination by gay parents.

*Bing!* Turn it around and see what you have to say then. Would not straight kids shatter the indoctrination of a gay parents?

Possibly true; see simple math above.

And we all keep that in mind when reading each others' posts. A vague "I read it somewhere" means nothing without an article, as you yourself have pointed out. And saying "it's out there" doesn't hold much weight either; if you want to back it up, do the search yourself and bring it to us, because we're not about to try to prove your point if we don't believe in it. Unless, of course, you'd like to help prove our point for us? ... Didn't think so.

One significant thing that's being left out of this discussion is bi-sexuality. And that is the "straight culture's" greatest fear. Simply the fact that it may be natural to like both, and that "straight" kids can be "turned gay". (When in actuality it would just be bi kids picking a path.) To put it simply: people born straight cannot be "turned", and neither can people born gay. But most aren't born either, and can lean either way.

From what I've heard at birth it's close to a 10-80-10 split between straight, bi, and gay, respectively. (I heard it in a high school Health Education class, but it's the only numbers I've ever come across; believe it or not, I don't care.) The fact that the current adult preference is around 90-0-10 would then be the result of indoctrination by their straight parents. But with gay parents, those numbers would slowly start leaning towards the gay population, possibly even eventually including a significant percentage of practicing bi-sexuals. Who knows, straight people could even become a minority; scary thought, isn't it?

[ January 05, 2006, 02:21: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

OK, how about this then.

American Academy Of Pedriatrics Report . Not strictly on adoption by a couple, but the issues are the same. This is the bit most relevant to what you're talking about:

Also, I don't have web addresses but the following backup this: Bailey, J.M., Bobrow, D., Wolfe, M. & Mikach, S. (1995), Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers, Developmental Psychology, 31, 124-129; Bozett, F.W. (1987). Children of gay fathers, F.W. Bozett (Ed.), Gay and Lesbian Parents (pp. 39-57), New York: Praeger; Gottman, J.S. (1991), Children of gay and lesbian parents, F.W. Bozett & M.B. Sussman, (Eds.), Homosexuality and Family Relations (pp. 177-196), New York: Harrington Park Press; Golombok, S., Spencer, A., & Rutter, M. (1983), Children in lesbian and single-parent households: psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 551-572; Green, R. (1978), Sexual identity of 37 children raised by homosexual or transsexual parents, American Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 692-697; Huggins, S.L.

I used that word because you used it to describe a situation where gay parents indoctrinate a straight child to be gay. Apart from the sexualities changing the situation's the same.

The point is that at the point of adoption the child's sexuality is almost certainly an unknown. Whilst gay people are the minority, roughly 10% of people is still an incredibly high number. If parents would naturally attempt to "indoctrinate" a child into one sexuality when that child's sexuality is still a total unknown then I would consider that strong grounds to refuse adoption. If we assume that 10% of people are gay that's a considerable number of children would suffer some kind of "indoctrination" by straight parents.

Also bear in mind. You describe gay people as "a relatively minute amount of the population" there is simply no conclusive research on this area. Due to some people being closeted etc nobody knows what proportion of people are gay.

Not quite the same thing. To have come out as homosexual - which a gay couple looking to adopt very likely have - against some kind of heterosexual indoctrination would have required a lot of psychological effort to face the this source, which someone abused as a child would not have to make.

Maybe I didn't explain that point well. To have come out as homosexual against some kind of heterosexual indoctrination a person will have to make a lot of psychological effort to accept against a very limited heterosexually defined viewpoint that they are gay. It requires someone to considerably open their mind, perspective, worldview. I hope you can see that this is very different to someone who suffers abuse as a child, often will not have to face this, simply carries it in their mind.

I guess I don't keep track of the pro-gay propaganda. Honestly, I'm very sorry if that just came across as name calling (I was probably a bit annoyed when I wrote it). My basic point was that some of your arguments seem to be almost standard forms of gay vilification.

 

...due to indoctrination. And they shouldn't have to do it either. But damn it'd be a sight easier if we could tell at birth and assign them properly.

I hope you're talking about deviance in the statistical manner (bell curve et al.) and not the moral BS. If you're talking purely statistical, I agree with you, but otherwise...

No, encouraging them to be gay makes no sense, and telling them all about it is something I wouldn't want anyone to do to me even as an adult. But not telling them about it period? Knowledge is power. I'm not saying I'd tell them about it at age 8, but when they're ready.

Then everything's BS, and research is pointless. The only neutral people are those who don't care, and they're hardly going to pony up the dough for something they don't give a **** about. Any funding is going to come from one side or the other, de-legitimizing it in the eyes of the opposition. Stand-off personified.

What we really need is a study funded equally by both sides, determined to find the truth no matter what it is. . . . Which will then be shouted down with accusations of under-the-table bribery by whichever side doesn't like the results (possibly even both if it's close enough).

[ January 05, 2006, 19:22: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

Well maybe I was wrong on this point. But by labelling gay people as a group of people unfit to adopt you are creating a distinction between gay and straight people that instantly assumes one is a better than the the other. This is a form distrinction. You're ideas seem to be founded largely on your own desire to believe them. Example: the belief that you could "indoctrinate" a child to be gay.

1. You believe, genuinely believe this is possible.
2. A person sexuality is internal to their mind, it is psychological matter.
3. The weight of psychological evidence is against you on this matter, at best you could argue it isn't entirely clear.
4. Therefore the foundation of your argument is your own desire to believe it.
5. Therefore the argument is circular. It relies on the conclusion (that a person's sexuality can be changed) as an assumption.

I did read your other posts, I saw the claim that otherwise you have no problem with gay people, but to me the rest of your posts didn't seem to support that claim.

You're also assuming that you can label the psychologically on the basis of their sexuality on a matter that does not directly connect to their sexuality. That, to my mind, is a form of discrimination.

I wasn't saying the figure was excluding closeted gays, I was saying that as a result of the present attitude to homsexuality, it is impossible for people to know how many people are gay. The 10% is a rough minimum, the number of possible repressed gays, closeted gays not counted in the study, etc, makes it impossible to know.

Not saying it isn't more likely, I'm saying it isn't known. You're right, for 90% of children the assumption that they're heterosexual will work out fine. For 10% it's going to cause problems. In there's 73.3 million people under 18. If the 10% figure's right, 7.3 million of them are gay. You've said your concern is children, that's a lot of children you're willing to cause problems for if you think that parents should react as if they're child is definately straight, rather than treating their child's sexuality like it is: unknown. It may be more likely to be heterosexual, but its still unknown.

 

Not as much as your's are. Lets take the point I raised. You believe it is possible for someone to have a sexuality forced upon them, I don't. The majority of psychological evidence agrees with me, it doesn't with you. Therefore my belief has stronger support than my desire to believe it, your's doesn't. Sexuality is a psychological matter, if it isn't then tell me what it is.

I'm open to being persuaded, I'm just not getting a convincing argument. Take your point about indoctrinating homosexuality. You went on about that point so much I tried to see what you were saying, but the argument doesn't have any basis.

Oh, and the first step is to think maybe this person has a point, and then try and see it that way.

No, the larger the proportion of people homosexual, the more people any discrimination against gays affects, the more important it is to resolve the matter. Also, it's never simply a case of the majority being important. That's like saying the angry mob is always right. If what the majority wants is to make things hard for a minority, the majority has to be stopped.

No, a child isn't necessarily going to show any signs of being gay until they are quite old, especially if they are being brought in the assumption they are straight. I'm going to assume that the parents want to look after their child, its their responsibility to provide the environment for the child to be comfortable. Would you wait until after your kid got beaten up at school to let them know about bullies? Parents have act, not react.

Simple. Children need to be told about being gay or straight because these are sexualities, very important a child is able to be comfortable with his/her sexuality. Fetishes are just that: fetishes.

Not telling people about pedophilia and necrophilia's pretty obvious too. These infringe on the rights of others. Heterosexuality and homosexuality don't. So here's a question for you: What right do you have to pronounce judgement on people for what they do, who they are attracted to and who they fall in love with if they do not harm another human being on this planet? Andfor anyone whose having a little moral dilemma trying to work out in their head how to answer that, I'll answer it for you. None of your business.

 

Enter UCLA. A neutral institution of learning, whose research becomes immediately de-based by funding from Gay Rights groups. And considering the current political climate (in the US, at least), anything funded by the government will be anti-gay. No matter who you pick, they will have an opinion. After that fact, it doesn't matter worth a **** if they're performing impartial research or not, they will automatically be mistrusted by the other side on the assumption (however faulty) that they influenced the results. If you can't trust a college, who can you trust?

 

I did. You went on and on about gay indoctrination, I thought anything anyone was getting that worked up about that must have some reason, something they must know, they were trying to share. Well, actually, no.

I didn't say that. You implied that what the majority said was right was right and a quick bit of common sense should tell you that's not the case.

I'm a bit lost here. Just how is homosexuality confusing? What's so difficult for a child as their parents explain to them that while most people are attracted to the opposite sex, some people are attracted to the same sex. If you've got a kid getting confused by that they've got problems. And, actually, which is more confusing? Being treated as someone capable of a reasonable bit of human understanding, compassion and intelligence, and being told that some people are attracted to the opposite gender and some people are attracted to the same gender. Or being led to believe for the entirety of your life up to whatever point it is you believe they're capable of understanding homosexuality that people are all straight, to suddenly be told this wasn't true.

I didn't say I had any problem with a gay child growing up in a straight environment. I just happen to believe that environment should be an open minded, supportive one that does not attempt to prescribe a sexuality on the child, but instead is able to realise that there is significant number of gay people in the world (and mathematically 10% of the population is a very significant amount) and that is every chance this child might be one of them.

I've grasped that that's the point of your posts, you just don't seem to be backing that point up. At best you've managed to say the evidence that gay adoption won't harm another human being on this planet doesn't hold together, but's it's a pretty big leap from that to saying that it necessarily would. Now, where I live, for crimes of murder, rape, battery, etc (all crimes that harm another human being on this planet) anyone accused of these is innocent until proven guilty.

 

Please see my point. "Proven" means proven beyond all reasonable doubt. These are British legal principles. As what we are discussing seems to be a change in British law I think it makes sense to follow them. Therefore it is up you to prove that allowing gay people to adopt would harm another human being on this planet, and only up to me to prove that your arguments don't hold up. You haven't proved to any extent what you're claiming. Let's take an example here, its what you initially said as a summary of your position:

Okay, so lets look at this logically. We have 2 scenarios, in each a couple adopts a child. in 1 the result is that the couple is unable to react to this child as anything more than a pet, in the other the child is raised normally.

Now, what are the variables. in the first case the couple is gay, in the second straight.

So, in the first scenario, the direct consequence of the couple being gay is that they are, effectively, emotionally crippled. They are unable to connect to the idea of the child they have adopted as another human being for whom they must care.

On the basis of what? What do we know about gay people?

1. They are people attracted to people of the opposite gender.
2. Nothing else. Neither of us has provided links to any reliable outside sources on this. Felinoid's provided a pretty good case that this doesn't exist, and your last post seemed to agree (" Yes, finding some non-biased research certainly is a big problem in most places. But I was talking about governments such as the one in the UK, which has legalized gay marriages recently. They're in a great position to get some independent research - but then again, just as likely to influence it in favour of supporting their gay marriages legalization.")

So, what have we got: FACT. Gay people are people attracted to people of the opposite gender. CONCLUSION. This means they are incapable of seeing their child as more than a sort of pet.

I think that's a pretty thorough dissection of what you said, and I think its pretty clear there's no support for the conclusion. By the way, this is the main point that made me think you were homophobic.

Sorry, I think you missed something there. A big part of my point is that the child's sexuality is unknown, including to the child. Therefore the child should not be forced to "pick". The child should simply be allowed to understand the idea, and to be able to feel later, if he/she is gay that they can be comfortable with that.

By not allowing homosexuality as a possibility you removing a person's right to "pick", and compromising that person's individual freedom.

I "jumped into the debate"? Well sorry, I thought this was a discussion thread, I didn't realise it was exclusive. I saw the thread, read all the posts in it and added what I had to say. Maybe I misunderstood the point of a discussion thread.

"only selectively replied to those parts of my posts where it was easy to make misleading replies or accusations." Where have I misled? Where I have I accused? The only time I came close to accusing you pointed it out and I've apologised and tried to back it up. I on the other hand have had to face a series of increaingly angry sounding responses for trying to express my opinion. I've replied selectively for a very obvious reason: if I've got nothing further to add on a point (or someone else is saying it) it seems a bit stupid to respond.

"I can reverse each reply of yours like this one and it would equally (or more so) apply to you as well." Please see my first point in this post. Backing up an argument means more than just facts (as neither of us seems to be providing them), it also means constructing an argument that hangs together logically.

[ January 06, 2006, 21:46: Message edited by: Kurtz ]

 

A good point, but...

Exactly. If it comes out pro-gay, it must have been influenced. If it comes out anti-gay, it must have been a fair conclusion since it would go against what they wanted; or, they were putting up a pro-gay front to fake people out so that their anti-gay influenced study would be accepted (complete BS, but still). No matter what you do, the people who don't like the results will find some way to discredit or just ignore it. What would you think if your anti-gay government (just hypothetical if that's not the case) came out with pro-gay research? What would you think?

I'm going to assume the first thing you thought was that it would be ridiculous, that it wouldn't happen if the study was fair. It's not a big step to assuming that some sort of mistake must have taken place; either by the researchers, or in picking the researchers. Even the most rational of us can come up with some pretty far-fetched stuff if our basic conceptions are challenged.

But for those who don't consider it such a "core" issue, like you (I'm assuming) or I, the first impression can be overcome, if with some difficulty. The only hope is again time. Some (on either side) will never believe no matter what, but perhaps their children may. Too bad we'll never see it.

 

Tell me where I've parroted. In each of my posts I've either tried to explain a new point, or I've just been respondeing to a point of yours, but in each case I've tried to develop on what I'm saying, or clarify if I think you missed what I getting at.

"Bias." Of course I've got a bias. So have you. If nobody who posted had a bias it would be a pretty poor discussion ("what do you think?" "Well I don't really have an opinion.") Having a bias isn't the same as not being open to persuasion. But I think the onus is on people who don't think gays are fit to adopt to prove it. I've explained why in my last post, but I'm going to develop it here.

First, I need to clarify, by saying "you" need to prove it in my last post I only meant you figuratively. I'm aware its beyond us to "prove beyond all reasonable doubt" on the boards. In your first post you said we all know where allowing gay marriage in British law is leading, to allowing gay adoption. For this to happen it would have to pass through the British legal system to become law. If a point like your's were to come up there I think it would reasonable to apply Britsh legal principles. The reason for this is straightforward. You made the point. To the average unbiased observer your point does not immediately make sense. Why is it not up to supporters to prove gays are fit to adopt? At present the generally accepted moral view is that gay people are, or should be equal: your saying they aren't, back it up.

You don't feel like going through them. That's fine, but if your going to accuse me of misleading and trolling I think I have a right to defend myself. If you don't tell me how I've been misleading and accusing, well that's kind of tricky. And if you aren't going to back that point up, I think you should drop it. Because, you know, you don't like being called homophobic, and I don't like being called a troll. The difference is I've tried to back up my point. See my last thread, The leap from these people are gay to these people are incapable of relating to their child as anything more than a pet seems pretty homophobic to me. If its not, well I've shown you where to start proving you're not, and you haven't responded at all to that section of my last post.

No, I was referring to the parents not allowing homosexuality as a possibility. And now that makes me wonder if you actually see anything but what you want to see in my posts.

"Ping-pong..."