PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on June 18, 2018, 07:58:29 AM
-
Let's just go there. This is what we, and even our grade school kids and grandkids, at their formative stages of life, and our older kids in their sexually active stages of life, are being encouraged to happily support and accept.
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/physical-health/
Liberals will NOT have discussions about this, typically. What they don't get is that Christians who practice their faith, and anyone else with a functioning sense of reason, accept the person, but not the behavior. Loving someone doesn't mean wanting to promote and normalize whatever they are doing.
Tons of actual research out there shows the shadow side of gay marriage ... it's pretty bleak for men, and horrendously damaging for any kids they are raising.
With all its own struggles, a family based on a heterosexual couple parenting is far and away healthier for everyone. But you won't see the stats on that in the general media, because the truth of it is "hateful" towards gays.
Nope. Love the person, reject the behavior. It's not race, religion, skin color, ethic surname, blah blah blah. It's behavior. And that is COMPLETELY within my rights to reject and refuse to support and encourage.
-
Tons of actual research out there shows the shadow side of gay marriage ... it's pretty bleak for men, and horrendously damaging for any kids they are raising.
I take issue with such research, while not saying you're wrong. How can you separate the fact of them being gay from the wider context of them being in our society? For example, is the damage to the children from the fact that they have parents of the same gender? Or is it from possible teasing, bullying and rejection they might be experiencing due to their unconventional family?
I'm not saying they are as healthy and well adjusted as children of straights. I'm asking how does one design a study that controls for these factors?
By the way, while not scientific, I myself observe that gays often have - for lack of a better word - neuroses, beyond what a matched for race, socioeconomic status, etc. person would have. But it's been my observation that the root cause of the dysfunction could well be from outside themselves, not from their homosexuality itself. And like everything, it's on an overlapping spectrum. So you cannot say any one gay individual is more screwed up than any one straight individual. Just like you cannot say any one black person has a lower IQ than any one white person, even though collectively on average, they do. Thus, discrimination against individuals is wrong.
I came here because of your reference in the other thread which I've been following with great interest. You and invflatspin are a couple of people I usually agree with almost every post you both make. But in this debate I partially agree with both of you, you're both right in some ways and both wrong (IMHO) in some ways. That's why it's so interesting and a really good debate.
-
I take issue with such research, while not saying you're wrong. How can you separate the fact of them being gay from the wider context of them being in our society? For example, is the damage to the children from the fact that they have parents of the same gender? Or is it from possible teasing, bullying and rejection they might be experiencing due to their unconventional family?
You're saying that our society is an unhealthy place for gay people to live and therefore it's not really relevant that they have more negative outcomes because it's society's fault, not theirs? Did I summarize that correctly?
But doesn't that ignore that there ARE negative outcomes? If I go get tattoos all over my face and then have difficulty getting a job, it isn't the business owner's fault for having bias against facial tattoos, it's mine for putting that aspect of me front and center.
-
If you ask a gay person whether they chose to be gay, or describe their sexual orientation as a "behavior", they would say absolutely not. So likening it to someone who chooses to get tattoos on their face does not seem appropriate.
I am a heterosexual. I didn't choose to be so, and it's not a behavior of mine, it is my sexual orientation. It is what I am, not how I act.
Given these two points, I think the discussion above is interesting, but not particularly useful. If I were to love the gay person, but reject the gay behavior, what would that even mean? Do I expect them to be celibate?
-
If you ask a gay person whether they chose to be gay, or describe their sexual orientation as a "behavior", they would say absolutely not. So likening it to someone who chooses to get tattoos on their face does not seem appropriate.
I am a heterosexual. I didn't choose to be so, and it's not a behavior of mine, it is my sexual orientation. It is what I am, not how I act.
Given these two points, I think the discussion above is interesting, but not particularly useful. If I were to love the gay person, but reject the gay behavior, what would that even mean? Do I expect them to be celibate?
Orientation, no, but their public behavior is very much their behavior.
Whatever they do in their own house is fine. If they don't make a big deal of out of it in public then it won't be a big deal in public. My issue is their public behavior, which is all about "me, me, me", especially right now during "Sin" month...I mean "Pride" month. Just live your life and don't go pushing yourselves into everyone's life. Good recipe.
Homosexuals need to also accept that some people don't approve of them, the same way that some people don't approve of white people, don't approve of men and don't approve of Christians.
-
Orientation, no, but their public behavior is very much their behavior.
Whatever they do in their own house is fine. If they don't make a big deal of out of it in public then it won't be a big deal in public. My issue is their public behavior, which is all about "me, me, me", especially right now during "Sin" month...I mean "Pride" month. Just live your life and don't go pushing yourselves into everyone's life. Good recipe.
Homosexuals need to also accept that some people don't approve of them, the same way that some people don't approve of white people, don't approve of men and don't approve of Christians.
I can't find anything in the original post about public behavior, just orientation and sexual intimacy. So I'm not sure why you're talking about public behavior.
-
I can't find anything in the original post about public behavior, just orientation and sexual intimacy. So I'm not sure why you're talking about public behavior.
You've got to be kidding. Didn't you see the political ad where the candidate and his husband, with their two adopted black kids, kiss each other on the lips, and the candidate says, "Take that, Trump."
And this lovely example for your kids:
https://moonbattery.com/degenerate-congresscritter-brian-sims-welcomes-mike-pence-to-philadelphia/
Where's the acceptance of Christians, heterosexuals and whites in there, one might ask?
It ain't private anymore, asechrest. It's everywhere. Did you know we used to have two sexual dysphoria clinics in this country, and now we have over 40? Parents are seeing their kids come home from school and ask, "Am I really a girl/boy?"
What, I might ask, induced that particular questions from a child? They're getting LGBTQ "orientation" and "sensitivity training" in GRADE SCHOOL.
I've said all along that you get more of what you promote and praise. Promoting and praising what even lovingly and tolerantly can be accurately called sexual dysfunction doesn't go ANYWHERE good.
-
I take issue with such research, while not saying you're wrong. How can you separate the fact of them being gay from the wider context of them being in our society? For example, is the damage to the children from the fact that they have parents of the same gender? Or is it from possible teasing, bullying and rejection they might be experiencing due to their unconventional family?
I'm not saying they are as healthy and well adjusted as children of straights. I'm asking how does one design a study that controls for these factors?
By the way, while not scientific, I myself observe that gays often have - for lack of a better word - neuroses, beyond what a matched for race, socioeconomic status, etc. person would have. But it's been my observation that the root cause of the dysfunction could well be from outside themselves, not from their homosexuality itself. And like everything, it's on an overlapping spectrum. So you cannot say any one gay individual is more screwed up than any one straight individual. Just like you cannot say any one black person has a lower IQ than any one white person, even though collectively on average, they do. Thus, discrimination against individuals is wrong.
I came here because of your reference in the other thread which I've been following with great interest. You and invflatspin are a couple of people I usually agree with almost every post you both make. But in this debate I partially agree with both of you, you're both right in some ways and both wrong (IMHO) in some ways. That's why it's so interesting and a really good debate.
I extensively engaged in a big 'ol thread on the old POA Spin Zone about this. People seem hesitant to call homosexuality a dysfunction. But it clearly is. Religion or any particular "belief system" aside, it's dysfunctional. Damaging to participants. Damaging to innocent children as they are taught it is "normal." By normal, I mean, OKAY, NO PROBLEM, JUST DO IT, WHATEVER!
And yes, celibacy can be expected if not practicing celibacy hurts someone, including yourself. Of course you can do whatever you want to yourself, but extending the "whatever feels good is okay" justification is going to hit the ground hard, and probably crush you or people you love.
There are studies. The failure rate of male/male marriages surpasses that of heterosexual marriages. Kids of lesbians and gay men struggle with wishing they had a Dad, or a Mom. And not because the culture says they should, or because playground bullies say they should, but because Dads and Moms do important things in our growth and development, including showing how to have a healthy marriage AND TO HELP GUIDE OUR SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT. Gay men do particularly suffer from neuroses precisely because their relationships (not all, but most, calm down!) are based on the sex. But because of that, and because they are male, they are constantly scanning for the next sexual partner, which results in many, many breakups and new hookups. The stats are alarming on the sheer number of sexual partners gay men rack up.
Never do I glamorize or gloss over the problems heterosexual marriage has but it is STILL far and away the best place for kids to grow up, when done well. And even when done not so well.
-
You've got to be kidding. Didn't you see the political ad where the candidate and his husband, with their two adopted black kids, kiss each other on the lips, and the candidate says, "Take that, Trump."
And this lovely example for your kids:
https://moonbattery.com/degenerate-congresscritter-brian-sims-welcomes-mike-pence-to-philadelphia/
Where's the acceptance of Christians, heterosexuals and whites in there, one might ask?
It ain't private anymore, asechrest. It's everywhere. Did you know we used to have two sexual dysphoria clinics in this country, and now we have over 40? Parents are seeing their kids come home from school and ask, "Am I really a girl/boy?"
What, I might ask, induced that particular questions from a child? They're getting LGBTQ "orientation" and "sensitivity training" in GRADE SCHOOL.
I've said all along that you get more of what you promote and praise. Promoting and praising what even lovingly and tolerantly can be accurately called sexual dysfunction doesn't go ANYWHERE good.
I've got two kids in school and have experienced none of this. No LGBTQ orientation, no sensitivity training, no one we know comes home asking if they're a girl or a boy. Folks still use "gay" as a pejorative. We suspect a couple of kids will eventually turn out to be gay, but we're not sure. We don't talk about gender sensitivity at the dinner table. Granted, my slice of life is not necessarily representative of the whole, but there you have it.
If I'm not mistaken, you consider homosexuality a dysfunction and, more importantly to my point, you consider it a behavior, and, thus, a choice. Since I don't agree with the latter stance on the matter, I think we have a fundamental disagreement that we'll not be able to get past. But we can try.
There are many things that people ARE, that they cannot help being, that are abnormal; and by that I mean outside the norm or the majority. And some of these things might cause the individual or those around them to experience things that are not as optimal as those who do not experience them. But if that individual cannot help be who they are, then our decision making process is different than someone who has a choice to act otherwise.
We don't suggest parents with a fair-to-middlin' IQ avoid having kids because their children are likely to experience a less optimal childhood than those of bright parents. Nor do we suggest the same because their children are likely to be less smart than those of bright parents.
So, while it may be true (I don't know) that children of gay parents experience a less optimal childhood than those of straight parents, I think it's fair to ask what you would like us to do about it? Would you be happy if society accepted it, but didn't encourage it? Do you feel like society is now encouraging being gay?
-
you consider homosexuality ... a behavior
It IS a behavior. If someone has a preference toward someone of the same sex but never acts on it, they have not done anything homosexual.
You keep going on like scientist have discovered a gay gene. They haven't. Despite dozens of studies and million of dollars spent searching, scientists have not identified a common set of genes in gay people - even in places where they think they have found groups of genes, it is not definitive (2017 Australia study for example). What they are finding is bodily functions that seem to correlate, for example certain thyroid function roughly, but not always, correlating with those who practice homosexuality. But let me point out, this is thyroid function like Graves Disease, it is considered abnormal function and ultimately has negative outcomes if not corrected. The gay gene is even more elusive than the understanding of climate change.
My conclusion right now uses Occam's Razor to say that the reason for not finding it is that it isn't there and homosexuality is a behavioral state created by our experiences and then reinforced by a series of social events. Some of it may be caused by abnormal biological functions.
If someone wants to go have gay sex, have at it. But don't expect that everyone around them will endorse their choice or support them. Some people will be outright hostile and some will discriminate because they condemn homosexuality....the same way they condemn facial tattoos, christianity, riding motorcycles or flying "dangerous" airplanes.
-
It IS a behavior. If someone has a preference toward someone of the same sex but never acts on it, they have not done anything homosexual.
I think this sentence is wrong. Homo/hetero-sexuality is not defined by the act of sex, but, rather, which gender you are intrinsically attracted to in relation to your own. As far as I know, I have no ability to switch my intrinsic attraction from females to males.
Perhaps you mean that the homosexual "lifestyle" is a behavior and choice? And that is certainly true.
-
You're saying that our society is an unhealthy place for gay people to live and therefore it's not really relevant that they have more negative outcomes because it's society's fault, not theirs? Did I summarize that correctly?
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. It is very relevant that they have more negative outcomes. I think a criminal gangster raised in the slums was created largely out of society's circumstances, but that negative outcome would be very relevant: I would do my best to place a tight group in his center of mass.
There are straight people that are horrible parents too, much worse than good gay parents. But I think a child is better off in a stable gay home than being bounced around several foster homes if no straight couple will adopt him. Gay parents are a lot better than no parents. And I cannot support the idea of taking a biological child from his parent if that parent chooses to raise it in a gay marriage and the other parent agrees to it. That is way too much government interference for my libertarian self to stomach.
-
The argument that somehow homosexuals have this divine right to be above everyone else is bullshit.
Children placed for adoption are treated like property of the state, with zero say so about their future. Children placed with homosexuals who adopt and foster have a higher rate of molestation and poor outcomes which makes placing children with homosexuals less appropriate.
Period.
The fact that some hetero couples abuse children doesn't matter. The state chooses to go with the statistics when placing children and the statistics are what they are.
Putting homosexuals above the best interest of the child for the sake of political correctness is simply psycho. It makes no difference how homosexuals feel about the facts, any more than it makes no difference whether people denied because of their marital status, or family income. If the state is looking out for its property, then the stats are what they have to go by and that's why they deny lots of types of people.
There should be no consideration above what's best for the child when placing the child and political correctness has no place in the equation.
-
The argument that somehow homosexuals have this divine right to be above everyone else is bullshit.
Putting homosexuals above the best interest of the child for the sake of political correctness is simply psycho.
Oh good Lord, I hope you don't think I think the above. Quite the contrary. Today's liberal homosexuals are like all liberals in that they do believe as you say, they have a divine right to be above everyone else. They are as sickening as any other leftist and I'm deeply saddened that the left has urinated all over gay rights as their territory, as "their" cause and it isn't. Just like conservative blacks are excoriated for not being good little communists, conservative gays are too and do NOT represent this in-your-face crap up with which we all now must put. They just want to be left alone to live like anyone else. But no, today's progressive left promotes hatred and revenge above all else. Such hypocrisy. If the left really cared about gays they would promote second amendment rights for gays; they would promote low taxes and a healthy economy so gays can run their own bakeries if no one else will make them a cake. The left is the worst thing that could have happened to the gay cause. They have tied the gay cause to their runaway train of hatred and destruction. My conservative/ libertarian gay friends are spinning in their graves over what has become of their dream, just like MLK is spinning in his.
I would never advocate putting political correctness above the interests of a child. If I were in a position to place a child, I would consider all applicants on many factors; them being gay or straight would be only one. All else equal, I would choose to place them with a straight couple, because I believe children ideally need a parent of each gender because the sexes are different and have different styles in dealing with children. But absent a good straight couple applicant, if a stable gay couple stepped up I would damn sure not leave the child to rot under the care of the state. Political correctness would play no part in that decision. You can think of it as the lesser of two evils if you must.
-
I wasn't accusing you. Just making my point as clear a possible.
-
It seems the Left doesn't just want acceptance of the LGBT lifestyle, and agenda. They want endorsement, agreement, and mainstream promotion by heterosexuals of their behaviors. I am all for the philosophy of live, and let live, and not discriminating based on sexual orientation. However, that does not mean one must agree, purely through leftist, and media societal pressure.
We are being bombarded by Education, the Media, Democrats, Government, and Corporations to be complicit. I am an ardent Second Amendment supporter, but I don't try to pressure people into owning guns, nor even agreeing with my views, and opinions.