How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Jack and Diane and What's Love Got to Do   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Jack and Diane and What's Love Got to Do With It?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


75 posted 04-01-2004 07:16 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

LR has pretty much covered the bases, but …

quote:
So who is really harmed by telling the homosexual, "Marriage, if for no other reason except the thousands of years precedent, is defined as is the union of man and woman"?

Who is harmed by telling the black to sit at the back of the bus?

More importantly, Jim, who is harmed by NOT telling the homosexual that marriage excludes them?

quote:
Stephan is right, I think, in pointing out that marriage was an institution before the law recognized it as such.

Of course it was. As was every other social relationship defined by law. That hardly means the definitions are unnecessary.

Marriage as defined by the State and marriage as defined by the Church are already entirely different things. Ask any Catholic or Mormon. As LR said, no one is suggesting that religious definitions be altered.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


76 posted 04-01-2004 07:33 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Nope, no law degree here either.

But I'm sure you aren't contending that because they are lawyers that their interpretation is somehow more valid than ours? It seems to me that there are plenty of lawyers on both sides of the issue.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


77 posted 04-01-2004 07:43 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Stephen-
Homosexual marriage will benefit the homosexuals that enter into them.
I thought that was self-evident.


Perhaps that much is self evident ... but that we should alter marriage to mean homosexual unions is not therefore self-evident.  It would also benefit me to draw unemployment.  But alas, I have a job.  It would benefit me to recieve an adoption tax credit ... but I haven't adopted (yet).  It's not enough of a reason to change a social institution that has been defined for thousands of years, by saying it will benefit someone.  Every change will apparantly benefit someone, or it wouldn't have any advocates.
  
quote:
Who did it benefit to let blacks sit at the front of the bus?
Blacks.



Actually it benefited us all.  We were denying them the same right that we all have.

Homosexuals are demanding a right that no one has ever had, and that is to change what Marriage IS.  Homosexuals already have the right to marry as marriage stands ... they have never been forbidden from the front of the bus, figuratively speaking.  These issues are not the same.
  

quote:
But on a broader scale... when any civil rights progress is made... it benefits us all by further incorporating that maxim "all [people] are created equal."



Civil rights "progress", is assuming that there has been something wrong with marriage as stands.  That begs the question ... Because the whole debate is, is it a progression or digression?  

Should children be able to vote?  Aren't they "created equal"?  There are kids out there smarter than you and I.  My whole point is this "fuzzy" argument of homologous rights, cannot be forwarded by itself.  It isn't even evident that homosexuals were born as such.  Blacks were.
To say "homosexual marriage" is a civil rights issue is to answer the question, not to argue for the answer.


Stephen.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


78 posted 04-01-2004 08:22 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

But, Stephen …

… who does it hurt?


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


79 posted 04-01-2004 08:39 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Jim: Stephan is right, I think, in pointing out that marriage was an institution before the law recognized it as such.

Ron:Of course it was. As was every other social relationship defined by law. That hardly means the definitions are unnecessary

No one is saying they are unnecessary ... We're just saying they aren't arbitrary.  


And Ron ... Why should "not hurting anybody", as vague as that statement is, be an argument for social change?


Stephen.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


80 posted 04-01-2004 11:02 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Stephen,
I don't think anyone is suggesting the definition is or should be arbitrary.  People just view the gender pre-requisite as a wrong, for it treats these two people as unfit to fullfill a sacred union, because they are not like those two people.  It is not treating two people as two people, it is treating them as one sex or two sexes.  I don't see the threat in a definitive change; I don't see a plunge into excess indifference, or a lack of flexibility in Nature's Need, or sense such inflexibility is in God's Wish.  Love  may really be blind, and sometimes it is blind to gender as well. Sometimes the right love is in the "wrong" sex: but why should the sex overweigh the love?  Until I'm shown the virtue in that, personally, I know I shall remain unconvinced.  



[This message has been edited by Essorant (04-01-2004 11:36 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


81 posted 04-01-2004 11:17 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Why should "not hurting anybody", as vague as that statement is, be an argument for social change?

It's not, Stephen.

But when someone advocates denying others the same rights they enjoy, simply because those others are different, it's about the only argument that might prevail. I don't feel it's necessary to look for reasons to treat everyone the same.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


82 posted 04-04-2004 12:37 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant ...

You are the "naturalist" among us par excellence.  I marvel that you talk about "perversion" quite a bit, and yet this particular instance of it escapes your notice.  The "against nature" argument against homosex has always been one of the strongest, and one taken for granted by most societies up till now.  Keys open Locks, for they were made to, by design.  God's revelation, the Bible, also says homosexuality is wrong and perverse.  


quote:
It is not treating two people as two people, it is treating them as one sex or two sexes.



Sexuality is a part of our "natural" normative design.  We can't deny it's distinctions and expect to prosper.  You, as a traditionalist in many ways, are now advocating the radical alteration of a traditional institution that has recognized the cogency of male/female relations for centuries upon centuries.  This is a radical precedent, that will not stop there.  The redefining will be a perennial undefining, until the national view of marriage is anything but "sacred".  


And Essorant ... the very "perversions" you tend to see in society, in the areas of sexuality and materialism, and abuses of technology, etc... are usually defended on the same premise that homosexuality is.  Ever noticed how your arguments get swatted with such statements as "Whose view of perversion ... says you."?  You are seeing cultural relativism at work against your idealism.  But I hope you can see that it is the same relativism by which homosexuality is defended as "sacred".



Francis Schaeffer in the 1970's wrote:

"There is a 'thinkable' and an 'unthinkable' in every era.  One era is quite certain intellectually and emotionally about what is acceptable.  Yet another era decides that these 'certainties' are unacceptable and puts another set of values into practice.  On a humanistic base, people drift along from generation to generation, and the morally unthinkable becomes the thinkable as the years move on ...

The thinkables of the eighties and nineties will certainly include things which most people today find unthinkable and immoral, even unimaginable and too extreme to suggest.  Yet- since they do not have some overriding principle that takes them beyond relativistic thinking- when these become thinkable and acceptable in the eighties and nineties, most people will not even remember that they were unthinkable in the seventies.  They will slide into each new thinkable without a jolt
"



Stephen.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


83 posted 04-04-2004 12:43 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
But when someone advocates denying others the same rights they enjoy, simply because those others are different, it's about the only argument that might prevail. I don't feel it's necessary to look for reasons to treat everyone the same.



I do.  Unless you also want to defend the voting rights of children.


Stephen.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


84 posted 04-04-2004 07:59 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
The "against nature" argument against homosex has always been one of the strongest, and one taken for granted by most societies up till now.

Perpetual motion is against nature, Stephen. Growing younger, rather than older, is against nature. And please don't forget, walking on water is against nature, too.

If homosexuality was against nature it wouldn't exist in nature.

quote:
The redefining will be a perennial undefining, until the national view of marriage is anything but "sacred".

Sacred? Please tell me you're pulling my leg.

quote:
"On a humanistic base, people drift along from generation to generation, and the morally unthinkable becomes the thinkable as the years move on ..."

The unthinkable can only exist for those who refuse to think.

The unacceptable, on the other hand, can be defined by anyone. But only for themselves. The rest of us are under no obligation to agree.

quote:
I do. Unless you also want to defend the voting rights of children.

Your children should, I think, enjoy the same rights as my children.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


85 posted 04-04-2004 08:57 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Perpetual motion is against nature, Stephen. Growing younger, rather than older, is against nature. And please don't forget, walking on water is against nature, too.
If homosexuality was against nature it wouldn't exist in nature.


I'm not talking about "against nature" in that regard.  I'm talking about something evident as "right" and proper in nature as opposed to perverse.  Go back and study the idea of the Tao, and you'll get my gist.  The contemporary western concept of "natural" referring to whatever exists, is not what I'm speaking of.


quote:
Sacred? Please tell me you're pulling my leg.



First of all, I was responding to what Essorant wrote about Marriage being sacred.  I agree with him, as do most others (at least in theory).  I don't accept your purely civil / state benefits view of marriage that has nothing to do with sexuality or love.  If you think the concept of marriage being sacred is a laughable one, then you must find yourself laughing at the larger part of culture in History, and a large part of our own ... and even the Bible you claim to adhere to.  You're in the minority here.


quote:
The unthinkable can only exist for those who refuse to think.



You're right.  And Schaeffer's point was that moral relativistic culture usually doesn't.  What is "unthinkable" is taken for granted as ... well, unthinkable.  I agree with you that we should think about the possibilities of some things.  But that surely doesn't imply we should accept them all.  We should see the possibility of some things if only to prevent them.


quote:
The unacceptable, on the other hand, can be defined by anyone. But only for themselves. The rest of us are under no obligation to agree.



Good.  Most people are against Gay Marriage.  And they are under no obligation to agree.  Earlier, your argument was much more ambitious using the guise of "rights".  

And since when did lawmakers only make laws that applied to themselves?  Sorry that's never been the way civil government works.

    

quote:
Your children should, I think, enjoy the same rights as my children.


I don't know of any who are denied the right to get married, do you?

Homosexuals already have the right to get married.

Do they have the right to change what marriage IS, is the question.  

Stephen.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


86 posted 04-05-2004 12:18 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Stephenos
Why do you seem to exclude homosexuals from the same inclinations that heterosexuals have when they wish to get married?  Are people divided from the most important parts of human nature and the highest sense of something as thoroughly part of life as marriage is, by gender?  

Does gender really go that deep?  

I just don't see what is so degrading about being a man and a man, or woman and a woman, instead of a man and woman.  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


87 posted 04-05-2004 03:00 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I'm talking about something evident as "right" and proper in nature as opposed to perverse.

Everything is right and proper in nature, Stephen. It isn't always personally convenient, though.

quote:
If you think the concept of marriage being sacred is a laughable one, then you must find yourself laughing at the larger part of culture in History, and a large part of our own ...

When I look at the way women have traditionally been treated as property, it's hard to think of marriage throughout history as anything sacred. When I look at spousal abuse and infidelity and divorce rates in our own age, it's almost impossible to see marriage today as anything sacred. When I look at ANY social institution as it exists apart and outside the church, sacred isn't a word I find applicable. I believe the Bible is the sacred word of God. That doesn't mean I think all books are sacred. Useful, yes. But sacred simply doesn't apply.

Would you recognize a marriage performed in a church, by an ordained minister or priest, even if no one paid fifteen bucks for blood tests and a marriage license? Can they be husband and wife in the eyes of God, and yet not be legally wed and entitled to the same social benefits of marriage you enjoy?

Answer no, Stephen, and you are saying marriage within the church is meaningless.

Answer yes, and you are recognizing the very real difference between two very different institutions. Marriage within the church does not require the human blessing of a state congressman or judge. And marriage within the State is legal and binding even without the acknowledgement of the church. Though sharing a common name, they are not and cannot be the same thing.

Marriage as a social institution existed several thousand years before Christianity, and probably several thousand years before Abraham married first Sarah and later Hagar. It exists today in hundreds of different forms (fifty of them just in the U.S.), and applies to any and every member of any and every society. Atheists can actually get married, Stephen. They can even have children. And when they name those children, it won't be a Baptism, but it will still be legal.

And while that may not be acceptable to a Christian, Stephen, it beats the heck out of calling several billion people, "Hey, you."
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


88 posted 04-06-2004 07:34 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

quote:
Would you recognize a marriage performed in a church, by an ordained minister or priest, even if no one paid fifteen bucks for blood tests and a marriage license? Can they be husband and wife in the eyes of God, and yet not be legally wed and entitled to the same social benefits of marriage you enjoy?


Well, Ron, without the marriage license the church itself would not recognize a "marriage" under those circumstances, at least none of the churches I have ever attended. But I wouldn't say that makes marriage in the church meaningless. They're just kind of funny that way about honoring and upholding the applicable civil laws if you want them to perform your ceremony.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


89 posted 04-06-2004 07:46 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

You think so, Denise? You feel marriage, then, is defined entirely by the state and only upheld by the church?

Which would suggest, of course, that when same-sex marriage is upheld by the courts as the law of our land all the churches will continue "honoring and upholding the applicable civil laws."
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


90 posted 04-06-2004 09:01 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Well for the time being at least, (we'll have to wait to see how the courts trample all over this exercise of religious freedom), churches currently have 'refusal rights' when it comes to those for whom they will perform ceremonies, (i.e., the Catholic Church won't marry people who have been previously married and divorced (unless you're a Kennedy ), some Protestant churches also have that rule, along with premarital counseling requirements, etc., etc., and you usually have to be a member in good standing of the particular congregation). But they won't perform a ceremony at all if all of the 'legalities' haven't been attended to first. But no, people don't have a 'right' to be married in any church. You have to meet their conditions first and then you are more or less granted the 'privilege' of Holy Matrimony. Otherwise, they'll tell you to haul your butt down to City Hall or to the Justice of the Peace if you don't like or don't meet their requirements!  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


91 posted 04-07-2004 08:41 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

You miss the point, Denise. Unless, of course, you want to relegate the familial role of a priest to that of a boat captain or justice of the peace?

The small overlap between religious marriage and civil marriage is just a convenience for those involved, but apparently serves to confuse two very different things for some people. The line wasn't always so easily blurred. How many couples, for whatever reasons, are married in a small civil ceremony and then feel compelled to later repeat the ceremonies in a church? I suspect the number isn't trivial, but let's narrow it to just  one person. Would YOU be comfortable in a marriage recognized only by the State? Anyone, I think, who insists on both a marriage license and a minister is acknowledging a difference between the two. Else, legally on one side and morally on the other, just one would suffice.

It's interesting, I think, that the line that is so blurred at the beginning of a marriage seems to become much less so at the end of a marriage. Anyone looked in the phone book lately for a divorce preacher?
catalinamoon
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Rara Avis
since 06-03-2000
Posts 9897
The Shores of Alone


92 posted 04-07-2004 09:40 PM       View Profile for catalinamoon   Email catalinamoon   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit catalinamoon's Home Page   View IP for catalinamoon

Hi All, I don't come in this area often, but just want to put 5 cents in here. Why does anyone care if gays are married or not. Other than themselves, that is? I don't care if my straight neighbors or gay neighbors are married or single, if they are pleasant to me. It seems to me that committment is the same for everyone, and if that commitment is legalized, what's the big deal. I don't see too many straight marriages doing all that well these days. Let someone else give it a try.
And also we should remember that social change is important, and should not be denied due to the over religiousizing(?) of marriage. There are plenty of civil only marriages. It does not have to have a thing to do with religion if 2 people wish to be in a long term committed relationship with the same rights as the rest of the country.
And again, why do we who are not specifically involved, have a say as to what these couples may wish to do, assuming they don't want to put a hex on every straight marriage in the world.
Just my thoughts.
Sandra
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


93 posted 04-07-2004 09:56 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Yes, I'd personally be comfortable with just the civil recognition as sufficient and acceptable in the sight of God and community as constituting a legitimate marriage.

I see the religious ceremony more as an added layer that has spiritual significance for the religious more than I see it as something distinct and separate from the civil ceremony.

Some churches do place more significance on the religious ceremony than others do, and some, like the Catholic Church, may even teach that you aren't really married "in the eyes of God" without the religious ceremony, but I think most would acknowledge that a civil marriage is still just as morally and legally binding on the couple even without the religious ceremony, but that a religious ceremony minus the fulfillment of the civil requirements of marriage wouldn't be a marriage at all and therefore not morally or legally binding.

Divorce preachers...heh...I guess the closest thing we have to that is the "Annulment" Office at the Vatican. I think they are about as pricey as the divorce lawyers too!

jellybeans
Member Elite
since 10-13-2000
Posts 2347


94 posted 04-08-2004 02:43 PM       View Profile for jellybeans   Email jellybeans   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jellybeans

ok so Jack and Diane get married and produce a little Jack and a little Diane and a little one called Point 5...

If little Jack grows up and is 'taught' by example, ie influenced by surrounding homosexual marriages and then marries another little Jack,
and little Diane grows up to marry another little Diane....from where shall more offspring come?
will all the weight be on Point 5 to reproduce? and teach the little ones to do so as well, for if Jack and Jack and Diane and Diane are to reproduce it will be by a means outside of a normal 'marriage' relationship as defined by chuch and state.

to answer your question, who does it hurt...it hurts the little ones, it forever changes the moral dynamics of the world for the next generation, and the next generation and the next and the next...

IMHO that is....
great thread btw....enjoyed the read

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


95 posted 04-08-2004 04:21 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
If little Jack grows up and is 'taught' by example …

That's a really big IF.

What you are essentially suggesting is that if little Jack was raised by big Diane, because big Jack took a hike like fifty percent of fathers do, little Jack would be "taught by example" to be a woman.

The Nature versus Nurture issue is a complex one, to be sure, but there's no evidence that sexuality is something we have to learn. When the hormones start surging, we seem to figure out what we want without much help.

Figuring out what to do with it, of course, takes another thirty or forty years.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


96 posted 04-08-2004 07:39 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Not really justifiable by evidence JB.. according the the American Academy of Pediatrics:

quote:

Children’s Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation
The gender identity of preadolescent children raised by lesbian mothers has been found consistently to be in line with their biologic sex. None of the more than 300 children studied to date have shown evidence of gender identity confusion, wished to be the other sex, or consistently engaged in cross-gender behavior. No differences have been found in the toy, game, activity, dress, or friendship preferences of boys or girls who had lesbian mothers, compared with those who had heterosexual mothers.

No differences have been found in the gender identity, social roles, or sexual orientation of adults who had a divorced homosexual parent (or parents), compared with those who had divorced heterosexual parents.17–19 Similar proportions of young adults who had homosexual parents and those who had heterosexual parents have reported feelings of attraction toward someone of the same sex.20 Compared with young adults who had heterosexual mothers, men and women who had lesbian mothers were slightly more likely to consider the possibility of having a same-sex partner, and more of them had been involved in at least a brief relationship with someone of the same sex,10 but in each group similar proportions of adult men and women identified themselves as homosexual.



Summary

quote:

The small and nonrepresentative samples studied and the relatively young age of most of the children suggest some reserve. However, the weight of evidence gathered during several decades using diverse samples and methodologies is persuasive in demonstrating that there is no systematic difference between gay and nongay parents in emotional health, parenting skills, and attitudes toward parenting. No data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Some among the vast variety of family forms, histories, and relationships may prove more conducive to healthy psychosexual and emotional development than others.

Research exploring the diversity of parental relationships among gay and lesbian parents is just beginning. Children whose parents divorce (regardless of sexual orientation) are better adjusted when their parents have high self-esteem, maintain a responsible and amicable relationship, and are currently living with a partner.22,31 Children living with divorced lesbian mothers have better outcomes when they learn about their mother’s homosexuality at a younger age, when their fathers and other important adults accept their mother’s lesbian identity, and perhaps when they have contact with other children of lesbians and gay men.22,24 Parents and children have better outcomes when the daunting tasks of parenting are shared, and children seem to benefit from arrangements in which lesbian parents divide child care and other household tasks in an egalitarian manner28 as well as when conflict between partners is low. Although gay and lesbian parents may not, despite their best efforts, be able to protect their children fully from the effects of stigmatization and discrimination, parents’ sexual orientation is not a variable that, in itself, predicts their ability to provide a home environment that supports children’s development.

COMMITTEE ON PSYCHOSOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHILD AND FAMILY HEALTH, 2000–2001




Entire Technical Report http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/ 2/341?fulltext=&searchid=QID_NOT_SET
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


97 posted 04-08-2004 11:17 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

LR:

"Not really justifiable by evidence JB.. according the the American Academy of Pediatrics"


But there's much they apparantly didn't mention...


quote:
Sexual Identity Confusion. The claim that homosexual households do not "recruit" children into the homosexual lifestyle is refuted by the growing evidence that children raised in such households are more likely to engage in sexual experimentation and in homosexual behavior.


·  Studies indicate that 0.3 percent of adult females report having practiced homosexual behavior in the past year, 0.4 percent have practiced homosexual behavior in the last five years, and 3 percent have ever practiced homosexual behavior in their lifetime.[54] A study in Developmental Psychology found that 12 percent of the children of lesbians became active lesbians themselves, a rate which is at least four times the base rate of lesbianism in the adult female population.[55]


·  Numerous studies indicate that while nearly 5 percent of males report having had a homosexual experience sometime in their lives, the number of exclusive homosexuals is considerably less: Between 1 and 2 percent of males report exclusive homosexual behavior over a several-year period.[56] However, J. M. Bailey et al. found that 9 percent of the adult sons of homosexual fathers were homosexual in their adult sexual behavior: "The rate of homosexuality in the sons (9 percent) is several times higher than that suggested by the population-based surveys and is consistent with a degree of father-to-son transmission."[57]


·  Even though they attempted to argue otherwise, Golombok and Tasker's study revealed in its results section a clear connection between being raised in a lesbian family and homosexuality: "With respect to actual involvement in same-gender sexual relationships, there was a significant difference between groups. . . . None of the children from heterosexual families had experienced a lesbian or gay relationship." By contrast, five (29 percent) of the seventeen daughters and one (13 percent) of the eight sons in homosexual families reported having at least one same-sex relationship.[58]


·  These findings have most recently been confirmed in a study appearing in the American Sociological Review. Authors Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz alluded to the "political incorrectness" of their finding of higher rates of homosexuality among children raised in homosexual households: "We recognize the political dangers of pointing out that recent studies indicate that a higher proportion of children of lesbigay parents are themselves apt to engage in homosexual activity."


·  Stacy and Biblarz also reported "some fascinating findings on the number of sexual partners children report," that:

The adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste. . . . In other words, once again, children (especially girls) raised by lesbians appear to depart from traditional gender-based norms, while children raised by heterosexual mothers appear to conform to them.[59]



54. A. M. Johnson et al., "Sexual Lifestyles and HIV Risk," Nature 360 (1992): 410-412; R. Turner, "Landmark French and British Studies Examine Sexual Behavior, including Multiple Partners, Homosexuality," Family Planning Perspectives 25 (1993):91, 92.

55. F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families," p. 213.

56. ACSF Investigators, "AIDS and Sexual Behavior in France," Nature 360 (1992): 407-409; J. M. Bailey et al., "Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers," Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124-129; J. O. G. Billy et al., "The Sexual Behavior of Men in the United States," Family Planning Perspectives 25 (1993): 52-60; A. M. Johnson et al., "Sexual Lifestyles and HIV Risk," Nature 360 (1992): 410-412.

57. J. M. Bailey et al., "Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers," pp. 127, 128.

58. Tasker and Golombok, "Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation?" p. 7.

59. Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179.



full article: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3


Stephen
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


98 posted 04-08-2004 11:31 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Stephen, that article (which isn't exactly from an unbiased source) has absolutely nothing to do with sexual preference. It certainly doesn't present any evidence suggesting that children exposed to homosexuality become homosexuals. People who experiment with sex aren't really the issue.

The article merely shows that children raised in the absence of prejudice are less likely to be prejudiced.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


99 posted 04-08-2004 11:38 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. (Men in general believe what they wish.) --Caesar

There are plenty of biased studies in the world. One of these resources is an organization of nothing but professional pediatricians dedidcated to the health and well being of children in practice (not theory) every single day.  The other is a religious organization with a theological view to perpetuate.

The preponderance of weight -- goes to the AAP.  
Local Rebel will be notified of replies
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Jack and Diane and What's Love Got to Do   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors