13
   

What are your thoughts on homosexuals raising children?

 
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 08:23 pm
@ossobuco,
Oh, now I have to check all those other posts..
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 08:31 pm
@Subliminal0,
Did I say that? I didn't meant to, as I don't remembering it being about daughters vs sons. I suppose I'll have to hunt for a link.
0 Replies
 
spidergal
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 08:34 pm
@Subliminal0,
Subliminal0 wrote:

I call it a preference because I really don't know the right word for it. It's not a disease or disorder. It has its own category. If you have any suggestions on what it should be called, let me know.

In my Psychology class we were taught that, through past psychologists, it is considered to occur during lateralization. If you research, it is still widely accepted.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x48n111630035705/ ; Page 2.

"It is suggested . . . that homosexual men may exhibit altered cerebral lateralization."
It is not claimed factual, but it's food for thought.


I'm not surprised by the anomaly in the brain structure, but then again, it's the unique genetic constitution of these individuals that triggers such altered neuroanatomy in first place.

Not sure what term you're looking for here.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 08:37 pm
@Subliminal0,
Before I lose my train of thought, that study was widely reported.
Check the ny times first, or google online. Not re daughters, re children.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 09:07 pm
@Subliminal0,
He was my best lover, but for the disappearing. No one believes me on this, which makes me laugh even now. Of course, I was part of it, it takes two.


I've recounted elsewhere on a2k on the time I had a small studio in a building in Venice, and was invited for a glass of wine with a couple of other artists. The guy, whom I'd talked art with in some desultory way, was the first person I knew as way out there, in my then view. His whole studio was white.. as were his clothes..

and there was a young woman who wanted to change his mind with her wiles, him saying no way. We bantered with glasses of wine. Well, I exited to my place down the hall, and don't know what happened, but the conversation itself was a great deal of news to me.

Many years have passed and I know much more than I did in those days.
Subliminal0
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 10:12 pm
@BillRM,
"A Pentagon document classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder, decades after mental health experts abandoned that position. . .The document, called a Defense Department Instruction, was condemned by medical professionals, members of Congress and other experts, including the American Psychiatric Association."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13431328/ns/us_news-life/

Well, I would sooner believe members of congress, medical professionals, and the American Psychiatric Association claiming it is not a mental disorder over you.

It is not a disorder to mate with same sex members of their species. If they mated all year around heterosexually, their natural patterns would be off. Lions would never have offspring because they would constantly be killing the young to mate again. It's natural.

Claiming it is a disorder of the sexual/breeding function of a human implies incompetence of reproductive organs. Homosexuality is psychological/mental.
0 Replies
 
Subliminal0
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 10:14 pm
@Green Witch,
I think most every female would not ridicule your stance. I would sooner have the gay men as parents, also Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Subliminal0
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 10:19 pm
@spidergal,
"Calling it a disorder or a preference are both extreme ends of the spectrum - and neither of them truly explains homosexuality."

Do you have a word that better describes homosexuality other than preference? I don't know of a word that does, but if you do, let me know. For now I'm going to continue calling it a preference until a better word is appointed to it.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 10:22 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I have, I surmise, observed many making life choices.

I doubt, in some cases, they were preferences/choices.
Subliminal0
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 10:23 pm
@ossobuco,
It is hard to believe, but on the flip side, I'm sure you were probably very open with each other. Besides you not knowing his orientation, the pair of you probably understood each other well. Communication is key in most anything, including anything physical. Maybe it made up for it.

White studio and white clothes. I don't see his reasoning behind that, but I suppose we're all entitled to individualism.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 10:28 pm
@Subliminal0,
Maybe it's a proclivity
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 10:50 pm
@Subliminal0,
That was his art, an entirely white room, windows re the ocean.

Makes me think of eva hesse, and her white painting.. which I learned about after that, and mocked.

they were way more sophisticated than I have ever been. That was a small amount of my time, but remains a memory.

I'm talking above re some people who lived in a building I did, sort of an art building.



On the earlier mentioned fellow, he was a doctor I loved. It took us some passage of time to reconnect after the years not in communication. The thing no one believes about me and him is that the early parts were wonderful most of the time. Or if they do, they figure I'm fixated. No, no, I say laughing, which happened, the laughing.

Well, sexuality varies. You are learning about all that years before I did.








ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 11:51 pm
But, back to homosexuals raising children, good from my point of view. Or, at least as good as anyone else raising children.
0 Replies
 
Subliminal0
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 11:54 pm
@ossobuco,
Sophistication comes in many different forms. White objects just aren't your preference. Sometimes the smaller things are the most memorable. The shorter, the sweeter.

Just because he may not have been heterosexual does not mean it wasn't good. In the end, he could have loved you as an individual and as a close friend, just not a physical partner. Emotionally, it could have been very good for both of you. You were just missing one piece of the puzzle.

It's too bad many people are learning of it in a negative light. Hopefully in another 50 years it will seem absurd to dislike homosexuals.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 12:00 am
@Subliminal0,
You totally misread me and my descriptions.

Try reading again.

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 12:00 am
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:

I have, I surmise, observed many making life choices.

I doubt, in some cases, they were preferences/choices.


I don't understand your point.

Choice and preference are not synonomous.

Choice does not imply preference; while preference implies choice.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 12:12 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
People who get to know themselves make choices they might not have earlier in their lives.

I surmise that people in my years that were not heterosexual had few choices, and s0me picked the least miserable choice, when in the spotlight. Maybe the lucky ones were bisexual, and may or may not have thrived.

My point was that people deal. I am old enough to look back and seeing one or the other gay person marrying, in the olden sense.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 01:29 am
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:

People who get to know themselves make choices they might not have earlier in their lives.

I surmise that people in my years that were not heterosexual had few choices, and s0me picked the least miserable choice, when in the spotlight. Maybe the lucky ones were bisexual, and may or may not have thrived.

My point was that people deal. I am old enough to look back and seeing one or the other gay person marrying, in the olden sense.


Quote:
It's just a person's preference. I prefer tea over hot chocolate, but that doesn't mean I have a food disorder.


This is the original statement that led me to point out preference implies choice, which only had relevance because the person making the statement indicated a belief that homosexuals do not choose their sexual orientation.

If you prefer homosexuality to heterosexuality you are choosing one as more favorable than the other, not declaring one is possible and the other is impossible.

A gay man who cannot choose his sexual orientation can certainly choose to marry a straight woman because he prefers (among other choices) a life in which people assume he is heterosexual to one in which people suspect he is homosexual.

If a man prefers sex with another man over sex with a woman, and homosexuals cannot choose their sexual orientation, the man is not a homosexual...because clearly he can choose to have heterosexual sex.

I have no idea whether or not all homosexual men can make love to women, by which I mean a sex act which involves the woman as the source of the man's arousal, but if they can, and they still self-identify as homosexual, then they have chosen their sexual orientation based on preference.

Frankly, I don't think the issue of choice is all that important.

There as another interesting thread in which it was suggested that, to a large extent, insisting that homosexuals had no choice in their sexual orientation implied that homosexuality was wrong or immoral. That, in effect, it was an attempt to excuse homosexuality.

"They can't help it...it's genetic."

I don't believe that there are non-sexual characteristics of either gays or lesbians that inherently make them better or worse parents, individually, than heterosexuals.

I do, however, believe that all else being roughly equal it is better for a child to be raised by opposite sex parents, and that they should be given preference over homosexual couples in terms of adoption.

Ultimately, a child is much better off with loving parents in a stable home than in foster care, and it would be a crime to deprive them of that opportunity simply because of the sexual orientation of the parents.
Subliminal0
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 09:05 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I do not have a belief that homosexuals do not choose their sexual orientation. If you read my posts, I clearly stated I have faith in the general statement that says it occurs during lateralization. It is there, psychologically, before birth. My quote of, “It’s just a person’s preference. I prefer tea over hot chocolate, but that doesn’t mean I have a food disorder,” meant that I was implying their philosophy to things outside of orientation. They like the same gender, just as I like tea. It doesn’t make it a disorder. I wasn’t attempting to imply it’s a choice. Also, I said this twice [now three times because I have to tell you twice – pay attention this time], I call homosexuality a preference because as far as I know, there isn’t really a word that scientifically and correctly explains it. It’s not a disorder, illness, or a preference, but it’s dubbed a preference in my book until I know otherwise. Don’t take it too literally.

“it is better for a child to be raised by opposite sex parents, and that they should be given preference over homosexual couples in terms of adoption.”

Why so? I don’t understand how having a male and female raise you would be any better than two men or two women. The only downfall is maybe a bit of pressure and maybe the lack of a father/mother figure. Even so, children will look to others as role models such as teachers, friend’s parents, etc. Children also receive outside pressure from many things due to their parents: lack of wealth, rumors, etc.

You contradict yourself with, “Ultimately, a child is much better off with loving parents in a stable home than in foster care, and it would be a crime to deprive them of that opportunity simply because of the sexual orientation of the parents.”

Why support homosexuals raising children when the sentence before it, you say heterosexuals should be given priority over homosexuals. Even though that implies it ‘is a crime’ to deny a homosexual a child, it is also a crime to ‘give them a child when there are heterosexuals who want children.’ ‘All else being roughly equal’ – that is like saying it is completely fair, but because their orientation is different than what is traditional, it lowers them from deserving children.

‘It would be a crime to deprive them of that opportunity simply because of the sexual orientation of the parents.’ You saying heterosexuals deserve children over homosexuals is depriving them of the opportunity to have a child/the child to have parents because of the parents’ sexual orientation. There are always going to be heterosexuals adopting.
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 09:14 am
Lots of bad hetero parents out there. I can't see that sexuality has any bearing on parenting skills. Should they be allowed to adopt a child AHEAD of a loving hetero couple? That's a different issue, and probably requires more debate than this one, but I can't see that sexual persuasion would necessarily mean that someone wouldn't be a good parent. Complicated issue. Good luck researching it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 09/26/2021 at 10:50:32