A serious question from a straight -- honest!
Ken Weaverling
in the group alt.flame.faggots:
>You guys are both welcome here, if you want to learn more about us as
>human beings.
I manage the systems at one of the college's that the infamous Chuck
attends. He told me about his flame-fest on alt.flame.faggots (he lives
to flame ... his previous target was alt.save.the.earth, so don't take it
personal).
Anyway, I'll take you up on your offer to learn more. I am curious on some
questions that I never had the guts to ask anyone. A girl I've dated for
years had a brother who was gay. Over the years, I went through numerous
changes of opinions towards homosexuals and now I only have a few minor
hang-ups that perhaps I can get over here.
All of my life, I basically ignored the entire thing. I didn't really care
if their were gay people out there -- why should I? I met this girl in
1985 whose brother was gay. OK, no big deal. I didn't really care.
We would go over his place occasionally. It was difficult getting used
to watching two men exchange a kiss, hold hands, or look at each other
with affection. But I just figured that was my hang up and dealt with it
and treated him like anyone else.
As the years went on, he would make small gestures or say innuendos
towards me until he finally made an outright pass at me. I was
mortified. I think it was not so much because he was a guy, but because
I was living with his sister... sort of like me hitting on my girl friend's
sister. He and his friends were also very promiscuous. I just got the
impression that they'd fuck anything.
So, I went a year or two and wouldn't talk to the guy nor want to be
anywhere around him. I was totally disgusted.
I eventually took a look at my ridiculous behaviour and got over it. I
became friends with him again, and apologized for my past attitude. He
was very civil about it.
Unfortunately, the guy now has AIDS. Shocking as hell and his sister is
very upset. He lived with this one guy until about 1987, when they broke
up and a few months later, moved in with another guy -- and they are
still together. They found out that his previous lover died of AIDS, so
he had himself tested and it was positive. His current lover is not
infected after all these years, so it seems like they have been
practicing safe sex. (It seems apparent he got in before 1986, which was
before the big AIDS scare came about and has been carrying it ever since
-- wild...)
A real shame, because the two of them are raising a baby between
themselves (was his other sister's child, who isn't fit to raise it
herself -- boy does this issue stir up some emotions!). Not sure what
will happen to the child. The state will probably demand it, since his
lover isn't a "relative."
So, some questions I have. I would really appreciate serious answers, no
flaming from straights please. I'll read this group for a time for
follow-ups and then be on my way. (I apologise if these are FAQs. I don't
read these groups normally, for obvious reasons).
1) Are gays generally loyal to their mates? I've heard that lesbians tend
to be loyal and men are not. Is this just a stereotype? (Obviously, there
are many straights who run around too...)
2) I pretty much believe that one is born gay. But what about bisexuals?
Not the ones who *try* the other sex, but those that really have no
preference. Doesn't this blow that theory out of the water? Or are
bisexuals just a small percentage of the total homosexual population?
3) My father is a minister (amazing that I don't think anything like him
on some issues!) He believes homosexuality can be cured and can rattle of
numerous cases, none of which is anyone I can personally talk to to
confirm it (like an urban legend type thing). I personally can't believe
it can be cured or if the person is cured, they were just a mixed up
hetero who was just experimenting with it. Are you familiar with anyone
who was cured? A real person, with a name -- not someone you heard about
from someone...
4) Do you believe two gay men can raise a baby without it affecting the
child? I generally don't believe the child is in danger of being molested
(it is a boy), but I wonder sometimes if it will get overly confused. His
mate is a cross-dresser and the kid refers to him as Mommy. It just seems
a bit queer (no pun intended -- oh, well, maybe.. my post is getting a
bit dry with no humour in it!). Anyway, should I be concerned? I am not
too concerned. I'd be more worried if the child was being raised by his
natural mother to tell you the truth...
That's it. Thanks for any serious replies (to the group if possible).
Note, I edited newsgroups and follow-up lines a lot (deleted
alt.flame.faggots,alt.politics.homsexuality and added soc.motss. Followups
set to soc.motss and alt.homosexuality).
--
Ken Weaverling we...@dtcc.edu |*| Stanton: +1 302 454-3978
Manager of Computer Services |*| Wilmington: +1 302 573-5460
Stanton/Wilmington Campuses of |*|-----------------------------------
Delaware Technical & Community College |*| (My opinions != college's position)
steven r kleinedler
>1) Are gays generally loyal to their mates? I've heard that lesbians tend
>to be loyal and men are not. Is this just a stereotype? (Obviously, there
>are many straights who run around too...)
>
mates is around the same percentage of straight men loyal to their
mates. The fidelity/promiscuity continuum seems to run irrespective
of orientation. I can't say about lesbians. Perhaps your perception
is due to the societal view (I'm not saying that it's a correct one)
that men, in general, screw around more than women, in general.
>2) I pretty much believe that one is born gay. But what about bisexuals?
>Not the ones who *try* the other sex, but those that really have no
>preference. Doesn't this blow that theory out of the water? Or are
>bisexuals just a small percentage of the total homosexual population?
>
Personally, I think bisexuals were born without any constraints on
their sexual orientation, whereas (i) gay men and lesbians and (ii)
heterosexuals do... I also think that truth be told, the number
of gay men and lesbians who are actually bisexuals AND the number
of heterosexuals that are actually bisexuals are probably higher
than it seems. In many cases, neither the "gay and lesbian community"
(defined very loosely here -- I'm referring to a body that scoffs
at bisexuality in this instance) nor the "straight community"
gives much credence to bisexuals, which may cause some
bisexuals to remain either in a gay/lesbian closet or a straight closet.
At any rate, orientation is a continuum from exclusively het to
exclusively homo... there's room for a lot in the middle.
>3) My father is a minister (amazing that I don't think anything like him
>on some issues!) He believes homosexuality can be cured and can rattle of
>numerous cases, none of which is anyone I can personally talk to to
>confirm it (like an urban legend type thing). I personally can't believe
>it can be cured or if the person is cured, they were just a mixed up
>hetero who was just experimenting with it. Are you familiar with anyone
>who was cured? A real person, with a name -- not someone you heard about
>from someone...
>
I have known some people who were once involved in various fundamental
groups and had attempted cures, which were farcical. Sometimes
it is possible to supress the homosexuality but you haven't changed
someone into a heterosexual, you've just got a repressed homosexual
running around.
>4) Do you believe two gay men can raise a baby without it affecting the
>child? I generally don't believe the child is in danger of being molested
>(it is a boy), but I wonder sometimes if it will get overly confused. His
>mate is a cross-dresser and the kid refers to him as Mommy. It just seems
>a bit queer (no pun intended -- oh, well, maybe.. my post is getting a
>bit dry with no humour in it!). Anyway, should I be concerned? I am not
>too concerned. I'd be more worried if the child was being raised by his
>natural mother to tell you the truth...
>
The vast percentage of cross-dressers are straight, statistically.
Most same-sex couples I know (mine included) are two men dressed as
men or two women dressed as women. So the cross-dressing is another
issue... As far as raising children: my gay husband raised 3 kids
alone after his wife left him, and they all turned out wonderfully.
What's important is that children are raised in a loving environment.
>That's it. Thanks for any serious replies (to the group if possible).
>Note, I edited newsgroups and follow-up lines a lot (deleted
>alt.flame.faggots,alt.politics.homsexuality and added soc.motss. Followups
>set to soc.motss and alt.homosexuality).
>--
>Ken Weaverling we...@dtcc.edu |*| Stanton: +1 302 454-3978
> Manager of Computer Services |*| Wilmington: +1 302 573-5460
> Stanton/Wilmington Campuses of |*|-----------------------------------
>Delaware Technical & Community College |*| (My opinions != college's position)
Steve K.
Julian C. Lander
giving my responses. Note, please, that these are
_my_ _personal_ thoughts; I am not writing as Mr.
Gay Community Representative. (A frightening thought if
every I had one.)
In article <2gu6sb$9...@hopi.dtcc.edu>, we...@hopi.dtcc.edu (Ken Weaverling) writes:
|>
|> 1) Are gays generally loyal to their mates? I've heard that lesbians tend
|> to be loyal and men are not. Is this just a stereotype? (Obviously, there
|> are many straights who run around too...)
|>
It depends what you mean by "loyal" and by "mate". I'm not just making
a semantic issue, but a societal one. For straight folk, there is the
institution of marriage to mark a relationship which has both societal
sanction and behavioral expectations: in general, married people are not
supposed to have sex outside the marriage.
For same-sex couples, there is no equivalent. (There are couples who
have union ceremonies, but these generally recognize existing relationships,
not initiate them.) There is not (certainly not for men; I can't speak
authoritatively of women here) a social model of a sexually exclusive couple.
Also, traditionally, boys were brought up to believe that promiscuous sex
was a good thing, while girls were generally told the opposite. (This
obviously isn't universal; but it represents the social expectation.)
I can't really answer the question, because I don't know what you mean
by "mate". I suspect that infidelity is more acceptable (to outsiders)
in a same-sex relationship, but that's a social conditioning.
|> 2) I pretty much believe that one is born gay. But what about bisexuals?
|> Not the ones who *try* the other sex, but those that really have no
|> preference. Doesn't this blow that theory out of the water? Or are
|> bisexuals just a small percentage of the total homosexual population?
|>
I don't know why bisexuals make it a more difficult issue. I doubt that
sexuality is something so simple as a switch with two settings, one labeled
"Boys" and the other labeled "Girls". (The writing changes to "Men" and
"Women" as you get older.)
I agree that some components of sexuality are genetic. And I'm sure that
some are environmental. And in some cases, the combination of factors results
in sexuality directed at both sexes. (This doesn't mean no preference.
An individual's tastes in women and in men may be very different.)
Remember, too, that one's declared sexuality and one's "true"
sexuality (what one would do in the absence of external pressures)
may be quite different. This works in all sorts of ways: there is
great social pressure to be exclusively straight, but I think that there
is still great social pressure within the gay and lesbian community/ies
to be exclusively gay or lesbian. On the other hand. to some people
declared bisexuality may be more attractive than declared homosexuality.
|> 3) My father is a minister (amazing that I don't think anything like him
|> on some issues!) He believes homosexuality can be cured and can rattle of
|> numerous cases, none of which is anyone I can personally talk to to
|> confirm it (like an urban legend type thing). I personally can't believe
|> it can be cured or if the person is cured, they were just a mixed up
|> hetero who was just experimenting with it. Are you familiar with anyone
|> who was cured? A real person, with a name -- not someone you heard about
|> from someone...
|>
I'll spare you the flame about the use of the word "cured." ("Cure"
implies the presence of a disease.)
I know of no one who changed his or her sexuality from homo- to hetero-,
but I probably wouldn't; the people I associate with generally lack
conflicts about their sexuality.
Certainly people have managed not to engage in sexual activity with
motss, but I don't know if the desire has been removed. (And what does
one mean by cure? Stopping the behavior? Stopping the desire?)
|> 4) Do you believe two gay men can raise a baby without it affecting the
|> child? I generally don't believe the child is in danger of being molested
|> (it is a boy), but I wonder sometimes if it will get overly confused. His
|> mate is a cross-dresser and the kid refers to him as Mommy. It just seems
|> a bit queer (no pun intended -- oh, well, maybe.. my post is getting a
|> bit dry with no humour in it!). Anyway, should I be concerned? I am not
|> too concerned. I'd be more worried if the child was being raised by his
|> natural mother to tell you the truth...
|>
Affecting the child? In what way? No doubt he will, in time, figure out
the difference between a male transvestite and a woman.
You could make issues about the lack of a straight man in the household, but
everyone comes from an unusual household in some way. That's why we have
society and why children pick up behavior from each other. There are
other sorts of issues with other families:
- Newcomers, either to the country or the neighborhood, often
exhibit behavior which is different from that of their
neighbors. This applies both to demonstrations of
physical affection and, perhaps, to the general volume
level of the house, and all sorts of other stuff...
- Why have we heard all the jokes about the newly wealthy? Because
they don't behave like old money?
- What about familial attitudes towards drinking alcohol, or smoking, or
taking drugs? These lead to serious discrepancies.
- Need I go on?
The only real effect I can think of is that non-standard sexuality would be
less of a shocker to the child. But to me, at least, that is only a good thing.
It means that he won't be overly upset if he is not heterosexual.
Waiting for someone to disagree with me on all points,
violently (no doubt),
Julian C. Lander
jcla...@mitre.org
Bruce Garrett
KW> Anyway, I'll take you up on your offer to learn more. I am curious on some
KW> questions that I never had the guts to ask anyone.
Hi Ken...good to see some serious curiosity in here.
KW> I would really appreciate serious answers...
Here's my best answers from what I've seen in my life up till now.
Just FYI I'm a forty year old Gay man.
1) Are gays generally loyal to their mates?
No more nor less then heterosexuals are, which when you think
about all the social pressures on a Gay couple to Cut That Out is
remarkable in itself. I know Gay male couples who have been together in
closed monogamous relationships better then twenty years. I know Gays who
live like bees in a flower field, going from one sweat blossom to the next.
Same with the heterosexuals I know. Some of us are good...some bad...some
average. Sturgeon's law works for us too...
Monogamy is more then anything else a matter of emotional
temperament I reckon. I am monogamous but I have learned over time that
this is not the only way to be. The important thing is that you are
someone who can be trusted, who treats the people you take into your arms
honorably and cares that they are better for having been loved by you and
not worse.
One thing I think it's good to bear in mind when comparing Gay
and Straight sexual behavior is that a lot of what you learn about what is
and what is not acceptable behavior while courting a mate is learned young,
during adolescence, just when a lot of Gay people start struggling with
their sexual identity. Heterosexuals can talk a lot of things out between
each other at this age and socialize in ways young homosexuals cannot yet
because of fear and ignorance. No few of us only start serious dating when
we become young adults. Right when college and career issues start really
building up a head of steam is not an easy time to have to simultaneously
struggle with learning from square one about how to date.
Another thing is that a lot of the poetry in our lives is
sterilized by our culture so that people who are offended by the thought of
homosexuality won't have to deal with it. Heterosexual relationships are
described with words like Date, Steady, Boy/Girl friend, Lover, Husband,
Wife. Homosexual relationships are often either narrowed down to the
physical act of having sex with words like Sodomy or Sex partner or they
are euphemized into near non-existence with words like Roommate or
Consenting Adult. Though in some regions homosexuality may be discussed as
a sexual behavior engaged in by some people, Gay love stories are seldom on
anyone's curriculum. The remarkable thing is that we manage to deal with
our sexual nature with any sort of dignity at all...we are certainly not
encouraged to by our culture.
2) I pretty much believe that one is born gay. But what about bisexuals?
Doesn't this blow that theory out of the water?
What it blows out of the water is the concept that sexual
orientation is an either/or proposition like gender. Sexual orientation
seems to be at least something more like a range with many points between
them. It may be a range of ranges. But it is not either/or.
I'm pretty solidly homosexual so I really can't comment on how it
is to be bisexual and come to sexual self understanding as a bi in this
culture and in fact that is a subject that I am still experiencing
enlightenment on.
3) My father is a minister (amazing that I don't think anything like him
on some issues!) He believes homosexuality can be cured and can rattle
of numerous cases, none of which is anyone I can personally talk to to
confirm it (like an urban legend type thing). I personally can't
believe it can be cured or if the person is cured, they were just a
mixed up hetero who was just experimenting with it. Are you familiar
with anyone who was cured? A real person, with a name -- not someone
you heard about from someone...
To the best of our ability to determine it, no one can be "cured"
of their sexual orientation. When stories of cures are investigated
invariably the cure consists of simply of the person in question repressing
their homosexual feelings.
Once I was watching a news article about a ministry that claimed to
cure homosexuality and one of the people claiming to have been cured
averred during the course of an interview that they still had to work at
not being attracted to men. I watching with a small group of straight
friends and I asked them "do any of you guys have to work at not being
attracted to men?" The room burst into laughter...
Such "cures" are arguably more harmful to the patent then the
"disease." A person's sexual orientation is a deeply rooted part of their
nature and like heart surgery it's care is best not left to quacks.
4) Do you believe two gay men can raise a baby without it affecting the
child?
Yes. I've never had a desire to raise kids myself but I've seen it
done in both straight and Gay households and I am convinced that the
important thing is that the kid is loved and that the parents are willing
to root the task of raising children deep in their hearts and give their
kids the best within them. Kids need love, protection, and parents willing
not merely to teach goodness but to be examples. I see no mention of
sexual orientation in the job description of Parent, nor a gender quota for
it's household.
-Bruce Garrett
BG
>I'm feeling adventurous, so I'll try my hand at
>giving my responses. Note, please, that these are
>_my_ _personal_ thoughts; I am not writing as Mr.
>Gay Community Representative. (A frightening thought if
>every I had one.)
>In article <2gu6sb$9...@hopi.dtcc.edu>, we...@hopi.dtcc.edu (Ken Weaverling) writes:
>|> 3) My father is a minister (amazing that I don't think anything like him
>|> on some issues!) He believes homosexuality can be cured and can rattle of
>|> numerous cases, none of which is anyone I can personally talk to to
>|> confirm it (like an urban legend type thing). I personally can't believe
>|> it can be cured or if the person is cured, they were just a mixed up
>|> hetero who was just experimenting with it. Are you familiar with anyone
>|> who was cured? A real person, with a name -- not someone you heard about
>|> from someone...
>I'll spare you the flame about the use of the word "cured." ("Cure"
>implies the presence of a disease.)
In all fairness to the original poster, I believe that he was just
using the terminology commonly used by those who believe in the
"rehabilitation" of homosexuals. "Cure" implies the presence of a
disease, or *illness*, which in this case is appropriate as "those"
people still view homosexuality as a mental illness.
Recently on the HBO special report - WHY AM I GAY? they featured a
story about one of these rehabilitation centers, a house really, where
a bunch of these guys "learned how to function as respected straight
members of society". They learned how to clean, cook, and make their
beds (reminded me of the house for mentally handicapped people down
the street from where I lived in college). For some reason, treatment
involved isolation from society for the most part. They seemed to
only be allowed to venture out into the real world for short periods
of time. The special featured one of these times, a venture to a
shopping mall. Of course the guys started "admiring" some of the
other men in the mall - Even after being interviewed and insisting
that they wanted to be changed, and believed that they could be
changed. So much for their "treatments". I felt sad for them as they
seemed really messed up. When they showed them singing AMAZING GRACE,
carrying on like members of a stereotypical revivalist church, I got
chills realizing that this was all part of religious propaganda. (Was
Phelps far away?)
I also saw a man who had "been changed" on Oprah or Donahue or
something. Basically, he said that he really was denying his
homosexual feelings (temptation, I think he called it) and was forcing
himself to live a heterosexual life. How horrible it must be...
>Certainly people have managed not to engage in sexual activity with
>motss, but I don't know if the desire has been removed. (And what does
>one mean by cure? Stopping the behavior? Stopping the desire?)
From what I've seen, denial.
BG
Ken Weaverling
everyone who has taken the time to share with me experiences, thoughts,
and personal feelings.
I don't have the time to respond personally now, but will in the next
few days.
I probably will also post a summary (sans names of course) later on.
It's been very very enlightening. Looks like you wooley woofters are
human afterall! :-) :-) :-) :-)
Cheers!
Scott Amspoker
> I met this girl in
>1985 whose brother was gay. OK, no big deal. I didn't really care.
>As the years went on, he would make small gestures or say innuendos
>towards me until he finally made an outright pass at me.
That was rude of him.
>I was
>mortified. I think it was not so much because he was a guy, but because
>I was living with his sister... sort of like me hitting on my girl friend's
>sister.
Yup.
>He and his friends were also very promiscuous. I just got the
>impression that they'd fuck anything.
How do you know this? Did they talk about their numerous partners?
>[...]
> They found out that his previous lover died of AIDS, so
>he had himself tested and it was positive. His current lover is not
>infected after all these years, so it seems like they have been
>practicing safe sex.
Possibly. However, it's not unusual for one member of a couple to remain
uninfected even after routine unprotected sex.
>1) Are gays generally loyal to their mates? I've heard that lesbians tend
>to be loyal and men are not. Is this just a stereotype? (Obviously, there
>are many straights who run around too...)
Probably about the same as straight men from what I can see.
>2) I pretty much believe that one is born gay. But what about bisexuals?
>Not the ones who *try* the other sex, but those that really have no
>preference. Doesn't this blow that theory out of the water? Or are
>bisexuals just a small percentage of the total homosexual population?
...or perhaps a small percentage of the total heterosexual population.
It depends on your definition of "purity". Our culture's obsession
with sexual purity leads to an either/or attitude towards sexuality.
Nobody understands the mechanism of sexual orientation. If it is genetic
then it is probably a complex combination of genes rather than a
simple hetero/homo bit. There are many human attibutes that occur
on a continuously varying scale.
>3) My father is a minister (amazing that I don't think anything like him
>on some issues!) He believes homosexuality can be cured and can rattle of
>numerous cases, none of which is anyone I can personally talk to to
>confirm it (like an urban legend type thing).
I'm not aware of any medically documented case of someone changing their
sexual orientation. When I was young and confused (and desparately wanted
to "change") I read just about everything I could on the topic. The
closest I've seen to such claims were in the same "credibility" ballpark
as televangelist faith healing - people who claim to have been "cured"
who also happen to have a major social/political axe to grind.
Some people have changed their sexual behaviour for various reasons (most
likely from hetero to homo as they grow to accept it). It's up to each
individual to judge whether they are being truthful to themselves. On
the other hand, homophobia gets cured all the time by simple education and
experience.
>I personally can't believe
>it can be cured or if the person is cured, they were just a mixed up
>hetero who was just experimenting with it.
...or a homo who needs to go deeper into the closet.
>4) Do you believe two gay men can raise a baby without it affecting the
>child?
Can anybody raise a baby without affecting the child? If anything, I
would think gay parents are well suited to teach the child the importance
of self-respect, dignity, and integrity.
>I generally don't believe the child is in danger of being molested
>(it is a boy), but I wonder sometimes if it will get overly confused. His
>mate is a cross-dresser and the kid refers to him as Mommy.
Is this for real? If the mate wears women's clothes and wants to be
referred to in the female gender then we're talking about something
beyond mere homosexuality. I've noticed that, in the simple minds
of children, "gender" is more associated with a social role rather
than biology. As unusual as it seems, I see no reason why the child
couldn't understand what's going on. The child will probably have a
much harder time understanding the hatred outside the home (hell, I
don't even understand it).
--
Scott Amspoker |
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM | [X] NONE OF THE ABOVE
|
sc...@bbx.basis.com |
Elf Sternberg
>1) Are gays generally loyal to their mates? I've heard that lesbians tend
>to be loyal and men are not. Is this just a stereotype? (Obviously, there
>are many straights who run around too...)
Yes, it's just a stereotype, but it's a stereotype with a kernel
of truth. In a survey of 485 gay men, Bell and Weinberg found only 67,
or 14%, who were "closed-coupled." 25% had a long-term partner but also
had other lovers (almost all of these relationships were consensually
open-coupled, i.e. both members of the couple slept with others and both
knew about it), 21% were listed as "single and functional," 17% were
listed as "dysfunctional" (having a high amount of sexual dysfunction
and regret for their homosexuality), and an amazing 23% weren't having
sex.
Among women, the numbers were:
Closed-Coupled ("Happily married") : 38%
Open-Coupled: 24%
Functional: 8%
Dysfunctional: 14%
Celibate: 16%
You can draw from these statistics whatever conclusion you
want. But you have to realize that when we "came out," we stopped
following the male/female heterosexual stereotype thing, and monogamy is
part of that heterosexual stereotype. We've learned to make our own
rules that mean the most for our happiness, rather than follow a set of
rules created by centuries of religious and economic disarray.
>2) I pretty much believe that one is born gay. But what about bisexuals?
>Not the ones who *try* the other sex, but those that really have no
>preference. Doesn't this blow that theory out of the water? Or are
>bisexuals just a small percentage of the total homosexual population?
All people are apparently born with some ability to recognize
the difference between "male" and "female," and also with some
biologically determined sexual orientation. This orientation is not
always, or even usually, absolute. Orientation is a continuum from
100% heterosexual to 100% homosexual, and everyone falls somewhere on
that continuum.
How that orientation interacts with your postnatal socialization
is another issue. Many people born with some homosexual attraction, but
who are also capable of heterosexual attraction (i.e. bisexuals) end up
living strictly straight lives, choosing out of fear to not face the
social hatred that would be directed at them if they explored their
homoerotic attractions.
Many homosexuals, unfortunately, are born into segments of
society where being gay is considered "evil," "immoral," and, in trying
to live a straight life, experience so much stress in the dichotomy
between their inborn orientation and their socialized "preference"
(really an internalized battle between their orientation and their
desire to conform and be a part of their society) that they lead unhappy
lives, form tragic marriages, practice furtive and frequently unsafe
sex, or commit suicide.
It is a mistake to assume that bisexuals "have no preference."
Sexual orientation is not an easy issue; one cannot put labels on a
person and say, with clarity, *exactly* what "kind" of homosexual,
bisexual, or heterosexual someone is; it's not as if you were trying to
write down someone's blood type. Some people are attracted to both
genders, but for different reasons. Some people are attracted to both
genders for similar reasons, but value variety and shift back and forth
at whim. Some people don't differentiate based on gender but use other
nebulous qualities to determine their attraction. There's a good reason
why Bell and Weinberg called their book "Homosexualities"; there are as
many different kinds of homosexuality, and bisexuality, as there are of
heterosexuality.
It is also a mistake to lump "bisexuals" as part of
"homosexuals." Homosexuals are, for the most part, those people whose
innate attraction to their own gender is so strong they "came out,"
formed a community, identified themselves to one another and to the rest
of the world, rather than live in a lie. They demonstrated strength and
courage in the face of phenomenal social antagonism.
But bisexuals are not homosexuals. Bisexuals are unique unto
themselves, being capable of heterosexual attraction, and yet honest
with themselves about their homoerotic feelings as well. Bisexuals
still have an orientation and preference.
>3) My father is a minister. He believes homosexuality can be cured
>and can rattle of numerous cases, none of which is anyone I can
>personally talk to to confirm it I personally can't believe it can
>be cured or if the person is cured, they were just a mixed up
>hetero who was just experimenting with it. Are you familiar with
>anyone who was cured? A real person, with a name -- not someone
>you heard about from someone...
There are several "ex-gay" ministries and "ex-gays" wandering
the countryside preaching to anyone who will listen. On the other hand,
I've personally spoken to at least one ex-ex-gay man. What these
ministries do is exploit social fears of rejection and childhood
indoctriniation (hell during life, hell after death) to convince a gay
person to "act" heterosexual. Nobody "chooses" their biological
orientation any more than they choose their biological parentage, but
parents and parentage do determine the kind of religious training a
person recieves
Ex-gay minstries exploit that training and attempt to induce in
their "subjects" fear and guilt about something over which they have no
control, their inborn orientation. And then they attempt to reconcile
that fear and guilt with religious assuagance, as long as the "subject"
tries to remain straight.
But no amount of brainwashing will alleviate the basic
homoerotic attraction. Many "ex-gay" men continue to dream, fantasize,
and desire their own sex; they merely don't act on these desires. How
they live with themselves is as personal as each individual.
>4) Do you believe two gay men can raise a baby without it affecting
>the child? I generally don't believe the child is in danger of
>being molested (it is a boy), but I wonder sometimes if it will
>get overly confused. His mate is a cross-dresser and the kid
>refers to him as Mommy. It just seems a bit queer (no pun intended
>-- oh, well, maybe.. my post is getting a bit dry with no humour
>in it!). Anyway, should I be concerned? I am not too concerned.
>I'd be more worried if the child was being raised by his natural
>mother to tell you the truth...
The latest studies of children of gay parents reveal that they
are no more likely to be gay or unstable then their more usual peers.
While the family you describe is unusual, as long as the two men are
struggling to create a loving household with solid schooling and an
adequate, moral environment, I don't see why there's a problem. If
you're more worried about the child being raised by his natural mother,
doesn't that answer your question?
Elf !!!
--
PC Bulletin: Henceforth, sentient computers would like to be known as
"Silicon Intelligences." "Artificial Intelligence" is a pejorative term
invented by humans based on the mistaken belief that computers are some-
how not "natural." - e...@halcyon.com
Jase P. Wells
>1) Are gays generally loyal to their mates? I've heard that lesbians tend
>to be loyal and men are not. Is this just a stereotype? (Obviously, there
>are many straights who run around too...)
Like you say, just as there are promiscuous straights who sleep around
constantly, there are gay counterparts also. But from my personal accounts,
that is not the norm. I've found the man I'll spend the rest of my life
with, and we know other couples who are "married" too. And many of the
other single gays we know have their hearts set on finding love too.
>2) I pretty much believe that one is born gay. But what about bisexuals?
>Not the ones who *try* the other sex, but those that really have no
>preference. Doesn't this blow that theory out of the water? Or are
>bisexuals just a small percentage of the total homosexual population?
I'm probably just as curious about this as yourself. I'm not bisexual,
so I know about as much as you! But I'd guess that everyone is just born
however they are, and eventually they realize and come to terms with
their attraction to whichever sex, or both.
>3) My father is a minister (amazing that I don't think anything like him
>on some issues!) He believes homosexuality can be cured and can rattle of
>numerous cases, none of which is anyone I can personally talk to to
>confirm it (like an urban legend type thing). I personally can't believe
>it can be cured or if the person is cured, they were just a mixed up
>hetero who was just experimenting with it. Are you familiar with anyone
>who was cured? A real person, with a name -- not someone you heard about
>from someone...
I'm certainly not sold on this theory. When I told my church that I am
gay, they suggested pretty much the same thing: that I need to seek the
lord's help and realize that I'm not really gay. They don't understand
at all, though. It'd be like me asking them to be cured of their belief
in god, or their attraction to the opposite sex. It's not something to
be cured at all; just something that each individual must realize and
be comfortable with.
>4) Do you believe two gay men can raise a baby without it affecting the
>child? I generally don't believe the child is in danger of being molested
>(it is a boy), but I wonder sometimes if it will get overly confused. His
>mate is a cross-dresser and the kid refers to him as Mommy. It just seems
>a bit queer (no pun intended -- oh, well, maybe.. my post is getting a
>bit dry with no humour in it!). Anyway, should I be concerned? I am not
>too concerned. I'd be more worried if the child was being raised by his
>natural mother to tell you the truth...
If two people love the child, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to
raise him/her like any other parents. There's been a lot of single parents
raising children, so the absence of the mother or father isn't an impossible
obstacle (although I admit it can sometimes be rough -- I'm one of those
children that come from a divorced family).
I assume the cross-dressing you refer to must be your friend's partner?
(I myself don't know of any gays who are into cross-dressing! Maybe that's
another stereotype to shatter.) Sure, it might be confusing for the child
at times, but I think they would make things clear to the child as he/she
is growing up, and the child would understand.
>That's it. Thanks for any serious replies (to the group if possible).
Oh, it was so nice to have a rational discussion finally! *grin*
--
_/ _/_/ Jase P Wells I grew up in Fargo, ND.
_/ _/_/ _/ _/_/_/ /\ ja...@crl.com /\ It's a nice place
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ /__\ IM1RU12? /__\ to raise a family ...
_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Now finger'able! ... or a plant." =)
Raphael Carter
: As the years went on, he would make small gestures or say innuendos
: towards me until he finally made an outright pass at me. I was
: mortified. I think it was not so much because he was a guy, but because
: I was living with his sister... sort of like me hitting on my girl friend's
: sister.
I agree. Hitting on someone that you know is involved with someone else
is questionable at best; when the someone else is your own sister, it's pretty
darn sleazy. The sex of the people involved doesn't make a bit of difference.
: A real shame, because the two of them are raising a baby between
: themselves (was his other sister's child, who isn't fit to raise it
: herself -- boy does this issue stir up some emotions!). Not sure what
: will happen to the child. The state will probably demand it, since his
: lover isn't a "relative."
Almost certainly true. If the child is lucky, there will be a legally
recognized relative to adopt her; if not, she may actually wind up in the
custody of the state. This is a textbook demonstration of why we need
civil marriage for gays.
His only recourse is to write a will _now_ and try to make sure that no
one contests it...but you probably know that.
: 1) Are gays generally loyal to their mates? I've heard that lesbians tend
: to be loyal and men are not. Is this just a stereotype? (Obviously, there
: are many straights who run around too...)
I think it's statistically true, but of course individuals vary widely. I
consider myself naturally monogamous; I have only cheated on a mate once,
and I can honestly say that it was the worst experience of my life. I
just don't have the knack of enjoying it. In fact, I would much rather be
cheated on than cheat myself. And on the other side, I know a lesbian
couple who have had an "open marriage" for seven years and wouldn't have
it any other way.
: 2) I pretty much believe that one is born gay. But what about bisexuals?
: Not the ones who *try* the other sex, but those that really have no
: preference. Doesn't this blow that theory out of the water?
Not at all. I'm not completely convinced of the genetic theory, but if it
is true, people may be bisexual for the same reason that some people are
blood type AB: because they have the genes for both. Or they may be
intermediate. There's no reason why genetics can't code for as wide a
difference in sexuality as in eye color or hair color--or even fingerprints.
: Or are
: bisexuals just a small percentage of the total homosexual population?
Hard to say, because there's no obvious place to draw the line. I've had
a mild sexual attraction to women once or twice, but it's obvious that my
desire for men is far stronger; where do I fit? How about the person
whose desires are 80% for men, 20% for women? All very tricky.
: 3) My father is a minister (amazing that I don't think anything like him
: on some issues!) He believes homosexuality can be cured and can rattle of
: numerous cases, none of which is anyone I can personally talk to to
: confirm it (like an urban legend type thing). I personally can't believe
: it can be cured or if the person is cured, they were just a mixed up
: hetero who was just experimenting with it. Are you familiar with anyone
: who was cured? A real person, with a name -- not someone you heard about
: from someone...
No, I'm not, but I don't believe it's _just_ a UL. I mean, I've seen
"ex-gays" interviewed. Thing is, most of them say that they fight against
gay feelings every day. I don't consider that a "cure," and I think it's
dishonest to call it one.
I think that it's possible that some "curees" were straight experimenters,
and I also think it's possible that some of them are bisexuals. I believe
that sexuality is more plastic in some people than others.
: 4) Do you believe two gay men can raise a baby without it affecting the
: child?
No. I believe that they can raise a baby without its _harming_ the
child. (Ah, trick question!) Of course the child will be _affected_; he
won't, for example, be likely to grow up with the kind of automatic
anti-gay instinct that many straights do. In my book, that's a plus.
Of course there are other differences, including the possible ridicule of
peers, but then children are ridiculed for every reason under the sun.
For me the bottom line is that any child who actually has two parents
around to care for him is automatically at an advantage; if the parents
love each other to boot, he's a damned lucky kid--regardless of his
parents' sex.
--
Raphael Carter (INTJ) | "Prejudices, like odorous bodies, have a double
rap...@indirect.com | existence both solid and subtle--solid as the
FIDO: 1:114/17 | pyramids, subtle as the memory of hyacinths
finger for PGP key | which once scented the darkness." --George Eliot
Dan R Sydnes
>2) I pretty much believe that one is born gay. But what about bisexuals?
> Doesn't this blow that theory out of the water?
If, indeed, sexual orientation is determined by genetics we must consider
the possibility of a polygenetic premutations. Simply speaking, more than
one location may exist on a chromosome(s) where sexual orientation is
determined, with several (not limited to two) types of genes as possible
candidates.
Let's put it this way: The basic eye colors are blue, green and brown.
How many PURELY blue-eyed people to you see around you? How many PURELY
green-eyed around you? And PURELY brown eyed-people?
Now how many individuals do you see with combination eyes?
(i.e. hazel, blue-green, amber, light blue, light green, light brown...)
How many individuals do you see with rare, odd eye colors?
(i.e. silver, black, albino...)
So, translating this example to the hypothetical genetic nature of sexual
orientation, how many strictly heterosexual individuals would you expect
to find? How many strictly homosexual individuals would you expect to find?
Using your logic, Ken, the fact that eye color is genetically inherited
should blow the "theory" of people with blue-green, light blue, light
green, light brown, silver, black, albino, ... eyes right out of the water.
See my point?
-Dan.
David Casti
: |> are many straights who run around too...)
All generalizations are false. These two are no less false than any others.
: |> 2) I pretty much believe that one is born gay. But what about bisexuals?
: |> Not the ones who *try* the other sex, but those that really have no
: |> preference. Doesn't this blow that theory out of the water? Or are
: |> bisexuals just a small percentage of the total homosexual population?
Not at all. You were just raised in a binary culture instead of one that
understand what a spectrum of behavior truly is. There is no sector of
human behavior which can be honestly quantified in a binary manner --
sexuality is no different from any other behavior.
: |> 3) My father is a minister (amazing that I don't think anything like him
: |> on some issues!) He believes homosexuality can be cured and can rattle of
: |> numerous cases, none of which is anyone I can personally talk to to
: |> confirm it (like an urban legend type thing). I personally can't believe
: |> it can be cured or if the person is cured, they were just a mixed up
: |> hetero who was just experimenting with it. Are you familiar with anyone
: |> who was cured? A real person, with a name -- not someone you heard about
: |> from someone...
No. They all come back eventually.
: |> 4) Do you believe two gay men can raise a baby without it affecting the
: |> child? I generally don't believe the child is in danger of being molested
: |> (it is a boy), but I wonder sometimes if it will get overly confused. His
: |> mate is a cross-dresser and the kid refers to him as Mommy. It just seems
: |> a bit queer (no pun intended -- oh, well, maybe.. my post is getting a
: |> bit dry with no humour in it!). Anyway, should I be concerned? I am not
: |> too concerned. I'd be more worried if the child was being raised by his
: |> natural mother to tell you the truth...
No. This is no more damaging than single parenthood, nonmarried
partnerships or any other relationship permutation. You appear to be
responding to baiting rhetoric instead of thinking this through yourself...
David.
Conrad J. Sabatier
In article <2gu6sb$9...@hopi.dtcc.edu>, Ken Weaverling (we...@hopi.dtcc.edu) writes:
>In article <12...@nola.win.net>, Conrad J. Sabatier <con...@nola.win.net> wrote
>in the group alt.flame.faggots:
>
>>You guys are both welcome here, if you want to learn more about us as
>>human beings.
>
>I manage the systems at one of the college's that the infamous Chuck
>attends. He told me about his flame-fest on alt.flame.faggots (he lives
>to flame ... his previous target was alt.save.the.earth, so don't take it
>personal).
Yes, we realize that now. Jeez, don't people have anything better to do?
>
>Anyway, I'll take you up on your offer to learn more. I am curious on some
>questions that I never had the guts to ask anyone. A girl I've dated for
>years had a brother who was gay. Over the years, I went through numerous
>changes of opinions towards homosexuals and now I only have a few minor
>hang-ups that perhaps I can get over here.
>
>All of my life, I basically ignored the entire thing. I didn't really care
>if their were gay people out there -- why should I? I met this girl in
>1985 whose brother was gay. OK, no big deal. I didn't really care.
>
>We would go over his place occasionally. It was difficult getting used
>to watching two men exchange a kiss, hold hands, or look at each other
>with affection. But I just figured that was my hang up and dealt with it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and treated him like anyone else.
<sigh> Would that there were more like you, Ken! :-)
>
>As the years went on, he would make small gestures or say innuendos
>towards me until he finally made an outright pass at me. I was
>mortified. I think it was not so much because he was a guy, but because
>I was living with his sister... sort of like me hitting on my girl friend's
>sister. He and his friends were also very promiscuous. I just got the
>impression that they'd fuck anything.
>
>So, I went a year or two and wouldn't talk to the guy nor want to be
>anywhere around him. I was totally disgusted.
An understandable reaction.
>
>I eventually took a look at my ridiculous behaviour and got over it. I
>became friends with him again, and apologized for my past attitude. He
>was very civil about it.
Glad to hear it.
>[ stuff about the guy getting AIDS and raising his sister's kid deleted
for brevity's sake ]
>So, some questions I have. I would really appreciate serious answers, no
>flaming from straights please. I'll read this group for a time for
>follow-ups and then be on my way. (I apologise if these are FAQs. I don't
>read these groups normally, for obvious reasons).
>
>1) Are gays generally loyal to their mates? I've heard that lesbians tend
>to be loyal and men are not. Is this just a stereotype? (Obviously, there
>are many straights who run around too...)
First, it depends on what you mean by "loyal". If you're talking about
sexual fidelity, I would say, generally speaking, no. Most of the gay
couples I know (and have known) have not practiced total monogamy as far
as sex. *BUT*, one essential difference from traditional straight
partnerships is that this was understood by both parties, and was seldom
a problem. Whereas in straight marriages the discovery of infidelity is
cause for much weeping and wailing, and even grounds for divorce, in gay
relationships it is widely understood to be nothing more than another
form of recreation, and is not viewed as a threat to the security of the
relationship.
Loyalty. To me, this word means a lot more than "You won't have sex
with anyone but me."
>
>2) I pretty much believe that one is born gay. But what about bisexuals?
>Not the ones who *try* the other sex, but those that really have no
>preference. Doesn't this blow that theory out of the water? Or are
>bisexuals just a small percentage of the total homosexual population?
I don't think, based on what I've read and heard, that bisexual people
are truly without a "preference". Most, I think, tend to lean in one
direction or the other, but without ruling out the possibility of being
open to the other.
I'm really no expert on bisexuality, so this is just my (limited)
understanding.
>
>3) My father is a minister (amazing that I don't think anything like him
>on some issues!) He believes homosexuality can be cured and can rattle of
>numerous cases, none of which is anyone I can personally talk to to
>confirm it (like an urban legend type thing). I personally can't believe
>it can be cured or if the person is cured, they were just a mixed up
>hetero who was just experimenting with it. Are you familiar with anyone
>who was cured? A real person, with a name -- not someone you heard about
>from someone...
I don't know anyone personally who's been "cured", no. And I have more
than a small problem with the use of that word, as it implies that the
individual is "sick". I've seen reports of these so-called "cures", but
I don't buy it. I think all that they're accomplishing is convincing
people to suppress their natural desires, a sort of Skinneresque/
Pavlovian conditioning, if you will.
>
>4) Do you believe two gay men can raise a baby without it affecting the
>child? I generally don't believe the child is in danger of being molested
>(it is a boy), but I wonder sometimes if it will get overly confused. His
>mate is a cross-dresser and the kid refers to him as Mommy. It just seems
>a bit queer (no pun intended -- oh, well, maybe.. my post is getting a
>bit dry with no humour in it!). Anyway, should I be concerned? I am not
>too concerned. I'd be more worried if the child was being raised by his
>natural mother to tell you the truth...
Yes, I think two gay men can do just as fine a job as a straight couple
at raising a child. Better even, perhaps, in some ways, such as
instilling in the child a sensitivity for others, a tolerance of
differences in others, etc., i.e., teaching the child some *real*
values that have been learned through experience, not from having them
preached at them. Gay people, in coming to grips with themselves and
society's attitudes towards them, must do some pretty extensive "soul-
searching" to find what really matters to them, and how to deal with all
of life's trials and tribulations. The sense of self, and the values
appertaining thereto have been forged in the fire of intense
self-examination. Therefore our beliefs, our value systems, our
"worldview" are the product of a great deal of thought, not rote
repetition of what's been shoved down our throats by our elders. In
other words, we have much stronger convictions about what we believe in
and value, and these will be passed on to the children, while at the
same time, hopefully, teaching the child to think about and develop his
own values and sense of self.
If there were more gay parents, there'd be a lot less violence and hate
in the world.
--
Conrad Sabatier -- con...@nola.win.net | "Melt the guns." -- XTC
Baard Kjos
|>|> 1) Are gays generally loyal to their mates? I've heard that lesbians tend
|>|> to be loyal and men are not. Is this just a stereotype? (Obviously, there
|>|> are many straights who run around too...)
|>
|> All generalizations are false. These two are no less false than any others.
David,
"All generalizations are false" is a ridiculous sweeping
generalization, and you should know it. It doesn't make it much better
that it's a contradiction in terms "as beautiful as you can get
'em....."
The statement "Gays are less loyal to their mate" would be a false
generalization, because it would not take height for individualism.
The statement "Gays are in general less loyal to their mates" isn't
necessarily false, as the "in general" takes height for these
variations.
Let's not be blinded by our faith, please. One fanaticism isn't much
better than the other.
Could I be missing the irony in your posting???
[Rest of article, with thoughtful answers, deleted]
--
Baard Kjos | And when you loose control,
| you'll reap the harvest you have sown.
Div. of Comp. Sci. and Telematics | ____ - Roger Waters
The Norwegian Institute of Technology | \ /
N-7034 Trondheim, NORWAY | \/ Baard...@idt.unit.no
Marc Talusan
: In article <12...@nola.win.net>, Conrad J. Sabatier <con...@nola.win.net> wrote
: in the group alt.flame.faggots:
: >You guys are both welcome here, if you want to learn more about us as
: >human beings.
: As the years went on, he would make small gestures or say innuendos
: towards me until he finally made an outright pass at me. I was
: mortified. I think it was not so much because he was a guy, but because
: I was living with his sister... sort of like me hitting on my girl friend's
: sister. He and his friends were also very promiscuous. I just got the
: impression that they'd fuck anything.
You had a right to be angry if he was making a serious pass at you.
But judging all gay people based on this one bad experience is
discriminatory.
: 1) Are gays generally loyal to their mates? I've heard that lesbians tend
: to be loyal and men are not. Is this just a stereotype? (Obviously, there
: are many straights who run around too...)
It's a stereotype but stereotypes have a factual basis. From experience,
gay men tend to be more sexually active than straights (I really don't
have an objective opinion about lesbians). I believe that this is mostly
due to societal influences that foster sexual aggressiveness within men.
Most people ignore the fact that gay men are MEN, and they have been
raised with the same societal influences that straight men have. Now, if
two gay men get together, there isn't the usual heterosexual
construct, with the man being the sexual aggressor and the woman
declining the sexual advances. Thus, gay men, in my opinion, tend to be
more sexually active. At the same time though, I think that straight
men would be just as sexually active as gay men if they could only find
women to be sexually active with. From what I've seen, straight male
libidos run just as rampant as those of gay men. Thus, I emphasize my
belief that gay men tend to be more sexually active not because they're
gay but because they're men.
Now in connection with that is the stereotype that gay men are
promiscuous. Again, a lot of gay men wouldn't admit that, but I think
the stereotype has a factual basis. But it's only a stereotype, and not
all gay people should be judged by that standard. I know that I don't
fit the stereotype, and so do many other gay men that I know.
: 2) I pretty much believe that one is born gay. But what about bisexuals?
: Not the ones who *try* the other sex, but those that really have no
: preference. Doesn't this blow that theory out of the water? Or are
: bisexuals just a small percentage of the total homosexual population?
I think that everyone is born with different levels of attraction for
both men and women, and insecurity from those who are predominantly
straight usually instigates homophobia. Otherwise, they wouldn't really
care. Read Freud to find out more about this. I see little connection
between bisexuality and the devaluing of the theory of the genetic basis
for homosexuality. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are not equivalent to
black and white. The wonderful thing about genetics is that there is a
very diverse number of combinations that can come out. People can have
different levels of attraction for the same sex.
: 3) My father is a minister (amazing that I don't think anything like him
: on some issues!) He believes homosexuality can be cured and can rattle of
: numerous cases, none of which is anyone I can personally talk to to
: confirm it (like an urban legend type thing). I personally can't believe
: it can be cured or if the person is cured, they were just a mixed up
: hetero who was just experimenting with it. Are you familiar with anyone
: who was cured? A real person, with a name -- not someone you heard about
: from someone...
No, I haven't.
: 4) Do you believe two gay men can raise a baby without it affecting the
: child? I generally don't believe the child is in danger of being molested
: (it is a boy), but I wonder sometimes if it will get overly confused. His
: mate is a cross-dresser and the kid refers to him as Mommy. It just seems
: a bit queer (no pun intended -- oh, well, maybe.. my post is getting a
: bit dry with no humour in it!). Anyway, should I be concerned? I am not
: too concerned. I'd be more worried if the child was being raised by his
: natural mother to tell you the truth...
I was bombarded with heterosexual images all my life and still turend out
gay. I know that this is a trite answer to that question but it's the
most valid one. If straight parents only turned out straight children,
there wouldn't be homosexuals in the world. The child will probably more
open and tolerant to homosexuals than most children. Additionally, if he
is truly gay, then he would be more comfortable in coming out. Thus, he
would turn out gay not because his parents made him gay but that he was
gay in the first place and was raised in an environment that encouraged
him to be himself.
Marc Talusan
tal...@husc7.harvard.edu
Ken Weaverling
Raphael Carter <rap...@indirect.com> wrote:
>
>Almost certainly true. If the child is lucky, there will be a legally
>recognized relative to adopt her; if not, she may actually wind up in the
>custody of the state. This is a textbook demonstration of why we need
>civil marriage for gays.
Interesting... the child is a boy. I guess you just picked a gender out
of the air, but I still find it interesting.
Most people who are told about this case, are either appaled by a male gay
couple raising a baby, and another segment thinks that it would be OK iff
the child was a girl.
Obviously, if it is a male, your average red neck thinks the child will
be molested.
A shame, since whenever I read in the paper about a small child being
molested, it seems the person is either a classic "red neck" or a priest.
Anyway, since I am posting, a quick summary of what I have received in
private mail in the past day in regards to my post. But first, boy, am
I overwhelmed! I want to thank everyone who took the time to write to me.
This net is great! I could never ask these kind of questions to a person
face-to-face, since it is often very personal subject. I intend to answer
all of my private mail when I get a chance.
Some points:
1) I apologize for using the word "cure" in my post. I meant to put quotes
around it, since this is the word my father uses. It is easy to understand
why this would hit a sore spot.
2) Regarding "being loyal", many said they are monogomous, many said they
have open and honest relationships. As for being promiscuos, it does seem
to be true that males are more likely to drop their pants at a moments
notice. However, this is pretty much true of ALL males. In a "traditional"
new relationship (forgive the term), the man is always hitting on the
woman and she is resistant at first. It is pretty easy to understand if
you took away the prudish female, sex would happen more often! :-) (Note
attempt at humour..)
Also, due to the pressures of being gay, it can often cause instability
in the relationship which wouldn't occur in a straight relationship.
Therefore, it may threaten the relationship.
3) I've had many good explanations regarding bi-sexuality, which has
enlightened me and even made me pause. I have to admit being moved by the
movie "Crying Game" and would have had a hard time *not* feeling something
for the person -- and damn did he/she look good too. So, I guess I would
*maybe* fall at 0.5 on that scale of 0 to 6. Thoughts have entered my
mind, but only very briefly, and pushed aside. (However, s/he was way
to feminine for my tastes... I prefer my women independant. I can't STAND
a whining helpless female, so a male with that trait would be an equal
turn off...)
I do believe I couldn't ever be anything but straight though. A lot of that
is very strict religous background. I was actually a virgin when I got
married! However, the marriage didn't last. I got married very yoing
because all I could think about was having sex and that was the only way
I could "legally" do it. (Humourous side-note: After the wedding, I sped
to the hotel, we went at it, and it was over in about 5 strokes. I cried
when I realized that I was married....). I should have just did it and
got it out of my system.
4) A puzzling point. A lot of homosexuals seem to not be able to understand
bisexuals and many bisexuals have experienced some bad attitudes from gays
towards them. This is sad. If gays ever expect straights to attempt to
understand them, they should show equal understanding to bisexuals.
5) The main problem seems to be societies attitudes. This seems to be a
real problem for lesbians, as they really fear violence. (I know that
gay men also get attacked, but no men voiced this to me, while a few
lesbians did). Most of the stories I've read are where there have been
a lot of mental trials for those who have denied their sexuality. However,
I pretty much understood this already.
Anyway, another question I have! I know people who think it is OK for one
to be a lesbian, but two men getting it on is "sick." To me, this is just
ridiculous. Why the double standard? Is it because straight men enjoy
watching two women get-it-on to fulfill their fantasies or something?
David Casti
: "All generalizations are false" is a ridiculous sweeping
: generalization, and you should know it. It doesn't make it much better
: that it's a contradiction in terms "as beautiful as you can get
: 'em....."
Actually, Baard, that did occur to me.
: Could I be missing the irony in your posting???
A very real possibility... :) Then again, I don't take anything I see
in news seriously unless it is an exchange between folks I already know
and have an interest in.
David.
Baard Kjos
|> Baard Kjos (baar...@idt.unit.no) wrote:
|>
|> : Could I be missing the irony in your posting???
|>
|> A very real possibility... :)
It occurred to me just as I was about to post my reply, but I needed
to be sure :-)
|> Then again, I don't take anything I see
|> in news seriously unless it is an exchange between folks I already know
|> and have an interest in.
That's this strange thing about the Net. Some people (like me) assume
everything (with a minimum degree of sensible content) written,
expresses the opinion of the person posting (taking height for subtle
forms of irony etc.). Others (like you?) do their best to write as
much provoking bullshit as possible. It makes the conversation a bit
difficult :-)
In alt.politics.homosexuality, one of the more famous gay-bashers (no,
not DJK I'm afraid) just apologized for his postings in the past. He
had suddenly learned that one of his friends were gay (sic). His
explanation was just that, he never actually had had anything against
gays. He just had nothing else to do, so he figured "Why not kick the
guts out of somebody already lying down?"....
A common generalization(!) is that computer nerds are extremely
asocial humans, without contact with The Real World (TM), and without
any desire to get in touch with it again. The Net is an exellent
indication that this generalization isn't *that* far fetched. In
fact, many people seems to *substitute* the Net for their life,
perhaps without even knowing....
From now on I'll ignore abolutely *everything* you write, David. It's
easier to make friends that way... :-)
Jess Anderson
<baar...@idt.unit.no> wrote:
>That's this strange thing about the Net. Some people (like me) assume
>everything (with a minimum degree of sensible content) written,
>expresses the opinion of the person posting (taking height for subtle
>forms of irony etc.). Others (like you?) do their best to write as
>much provoking bullshit as possible. It makes the conversation a bit
>difficult :-)
>[...]
>A common generalization(!) is that computer nerds are extremely
>asocial humans, without contact with The Real World (TM), and without
>any desire to get in touch with it again. The Net is an exellent
>indication that this generalization isn't *that* far fetched. In
>fact, many people seems to *substitute* the Net for their life,
>perhaps without even knowing....
It does strike me that you're overgeneralizing more than a
little, Baard. While it's probably true that there are personal
styles unique to ths medium, and to generalize in turn, it seems
to me that the degrees of variability we see here are not so
markedly different from the ones we see in the society generally.
A lot of people do things mostly for effect, often an effect relating
to their ego concerns. While some of that seems quite malicious,
there are people who see it as essentially harmless, even though
they are not always right about that. Sometimes people are made
what I would call rather cynical or jaded by that sort of thing,
and as a result a kind of self-reinforcing or downward-cycling
pattern can get created.
But the world too has its asocial or badly socialized types, and
I would guess they're out there in about the same proportion as
we find them here. What's different is that here our attention
gets focused on them; they're arguably easier to ignore out in
the world because of the physical separation between us all.
When we deal with the world around us, I think, we typically
filter out a substantial fraction of what's going by. I guess
we do this quite unconsciously, for the most part. On the net,
by contrast, the opening screen of each text event has a certain
equality with every other such event, and the filtering process
is perhaps less automatic. Such relatively conscious steps as
maintaining a kill file or keeping one's finger poised over the
'n' key may create an impression of the form "oh, but I don't
want to miss anything." I would say this is an artifact of the
medium itself, because out in the world we are hardly aware of
missing several orders of magnitude more events.
So while there undoubtedly are people who substitute the net
for a real life, for whatever reason, I think it's also true
that we can easily find hordes of completely genuine, caring
people, using the medium to include themselves in a cohort with
genuine meaning in their lives, yet without losing contact with
the real world in the process. It doesn't take all that much
experience, probably, to get reasonably adept at separating the
ones you feel a bond with from the ones you think are fairly
inimical to your values. The latter group are probably worth
ignoring, even by such artificial means as a kill file. As I
mentioned in another posting, I've been pleasantly surprised
how well this device is working for me.
--
[Jess Anderson <> Division of Information Technology, University of Wisconsin]
[Internet: ande...@macc.wisc.edu {o"o} UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson]
[Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888]
[--> There is only one difference between a madman and me. I am not mad. <---]
Ken Weaverling
>not DJK I'm afraid) just apologized for his postings in the past.
>A common generalization(!) is that computer nerds are extremely
>asocial humans, without contact with The Real World (TM)
Yup ... I manage one of the systems Chuck posts from and this is a VERY
accurate description of him! ... Actually, he is like this in person too.
Whenever we go out to eat together, all he does is sit around and flame
the hell out of everyone.
It's actually quite fun and amusing if you don't take him seriously.
Baard Kjos
|> In article <2h3o2v$o...@ugle.unit.no>, Baard Kjos
|> <baar...@idt.unit.no> wrote:
|>
|> >A common generalization(!) is that computer nerds are extremely
|> >asocial humans
|> >perhaps without even knowing....
|>
|> It does strike me that you're overgeneralizing more than a
|> little, Baard.
Well, er, yes... :-)
I read your reply, and I've noticed the points I thought could aply to
myself...
|> But the world too has its asocial or badly socialized types
|> [...] What's different is that here our attention
|> gets focused on them; they're arguably easier to ignore out in
|> the world because of the physical separation between us all.
True. And that's also why I want to focus on this. Being a Net newbie
(been around for a couple of years only), I wonder what will happen:
Will I just learn to accept all the junk as equally valid (I hope
not), will I be equally annoyed, but just keep my annoyance inside
myself (likely, but still an annoying thought), will I get tired and
lay off (likely), or will the Net eventually evolve in a more
"serious" direction? (not likely at all, I guess) I don't request an
aswer to this. I'm just thinking loud for myself....
You know, it's not *that* many years agou you could read a newspaper,
and you could generally trust what was in it. But today...
|> I think it's also true
|> that we can easily find hordes of completely genuine, caring
|> people, using the medium to include themselves in a cohort with
|> genuine meaning in their lives, yet without losing contact with
|> the real world in the process.
Now, that's *very* true. And very much so for soc.motss. Not being the
most social contributor, to say the least (perhaps because I feel
quite strange in your world on the other side of the Atlantic?), it
has been, and still is, a great place for support, knowledge and
guidance.
|> [...] The latter group are probably worth
|> ignoring, even by such artificial means as a kill file. As I
|> mentioned in another posting, I've been pleasantly surprised
|> how well this device is working for me.
I read your confession, yes... :-)
D Lewis
>of time. The special featured one of these times, a venture to a
>shopping mall. Of course the guys started "admiring" some of the
>other men in the mall - Even after being interviewed and insisting
>that they wanted to be changed, and believed that they could be
nuns venturing out of the convent. I hope the majority of HBO viewers noted
the absurdity in that bit of "straight" reporting. Let's follow the logic
here -- a gay man in the mall by himself may suddenly be overcome with lust
and succumb to the temptations being offered by the cashier at Arthur
Treacher's in the Food Court, but if you send out *two* gay men together,
there won't be any temptation to engage in any hanky panky whatsoever.
(How many out there have "scored" while walking between The Limited and
Dillard's anyway? No -- don't answer -- I'll feel even worse ...)
===========================================================================
D Lewis
"Bear seeks callipygous male ... "
Dave Berry
>2) I pretty much believe that one is born gay. But what about bisexuals?
> Doesn't this blow that theory out of the water?
The depth-charge bisexual? That's a new one; I hadn't come across that
before. 'Scuse me while i have a WW2 submarine fantasy...
--
Dave Berry, Harlequin Ltd., Barrington Hall, Cambridge, CB2 5RG, UK.
"Too much power, too little brains..."
Baard Kjos
|> Whenever we go out to eat together, all he does is sit around and flame
|> the hell out of everyone.
|>
|> It's actually quite fun and amusing if you don't take him seriously.
Yeah. When you know the guy, I'm sure he's ok. The problem is the
impression those who don't know him get, the way he presents himself
to the Net (and to the public when you two go out to eat).
Hmmm.... I should perhaps be a bit more aware of such things myself.
When did I last contribute with a *friendly* posting...?
David Casti
: That's this strange thing about the Net. Some people (like me) assume
: everything (with a minimum degree of sensible content) written,
: expresses the opinion of the person posting (taking height for subtle
: forms of irony etc.). Others (like you?) do their best to write as
: much provoking bullshit as possible. It makes the conversation a bit
: difficult :-)
Interesting analysis. I suppose it also depends a lot on WHICH newsgroup
you are in. I never post anything other than Q&A to comp.*, for
example. I never hesitate to post just exactly what is in my head to
soc.*, talk.* or alt.* -- although I'm finding I rarely have enough
interest to post these days.
From time to time I post informative things to soc.motss, like the FAQ or
QRD stats, but those don't count because no one posts followups. The last
time I engaged in a conversation that involved something I actually
thought (instead of an arbitrary position I was defending) was that last
great go-around on NAMBLA with Brent Capps.
Think of network news as the ultimate debate club, and you've come very
close to capturing my attitude. You can come in any time you want, assume a
position that you don't necessarily believe, argue it with someone else
until you lose interest, and then meet that person outside the club (in
email or at a 'con) and have still a wonderful time with them.
My advice: if you want to converse with me, send email. I take email
seriously and usually respond thoughtfully.
: From now on I'll ignore abolutely *everything* you write, David. It's
: easier to make friends that way... :-)
Since we started talking about generalizations, I think this might be
something of overkill, but you are certainly welcome to do anything you
might wish.
David.
Baard Kjos
|> Think of network news as the ultimate debate club, and you've come very
|> close to capturing my attitude. You can come in any time you want, assume a
|> position that you don't necessarily believe, argue it with someone else
|> until you lose interest, and then meet that person outside the club (in
|> email or at a 'con) and have still a wonderful time with them.
Yeah, I know the idea. Actually, I'm very much the same type myself in
Real Life(tm). On the Net, however, I try for my own part to be as
honest as possible, to avoid some unnecessary situations. If e.g. a
"straight but not narrow" person repeatedly would post articles
attacking gays, any muffin would get even more terrified by the very
idea of coming out. And it's so terrible when the reason for the whole
thing simply is that this gay-friendly person jaust wants to kill a
few hours of his life, by taking the side with the highest potential
for a flame war.
If I post something I don't really believe in, it's mostly by taking
my standing points into the extreme, or by taking other people's
arguments into their extremes. I generally don't take an arbitrary
standing point just to argue. But that's just me.
I do agree, however, that these things are subject to variations
across the different news groups.
|> My advice: if you want to converse with me, send email. I take email
|> seriously and usually respond thoughtfully.
I'd love to. But I still hope you take *this* article seriously.
|> : From now on I'll ignore abolutely *everything* you write, David. It's
|> : easier to make friends that way... :-)
|>
|> Since we started talking about generalizations, I think this might be
|> something of overkill, but you are certainly welcome to do anything you
|> might wish.
Well, I *did* append a smiley. And besides, I already broke that
promise by writing this reply, so I guess the statement wasn't much
worth anyway.
m...@somehost.somedomain
Can gay men raise a baby without it affecting the sexual orientation of
>>the child?
And Elf responded:
> The latest studies of children of gay parents reveal that they
>are no more likely to be gay or unstable then their more usual peers.
>While the family you describe is unusual, as long as the two men are
>struggling to create a loving household with solid schooling and an
>adequate, moral environment, I don't see why there's a problem.
> - e...@halcyon.com
Can somebody tell me how to get copies of these studies or
where these studies originated? I may need them in a court case
(legal custody of my children). My wife is very homophobic and
last night asked me to leave.
I can read and post to alt.homosexual but cannot
read soc.motss at all. Also, my e-mail is at work and that
will continue for only 2 more weeks. So please follow up to
THIS newsgroup OR p...@meaddata.com Thank you.
Anybody who wishes to discuss this further, please leave name
and phone number with this newsgroup or ptb. I will then call
you. Thank you and God bless you all.
And remember, God does not hate fags, he loves all of his creation.
So, love yourself, and each other!!!!
Max Hoffmann
to be loyal and men are not. Is this just a stereotype? (Obviously, there
are many straights who run around too...)
observation that most of us gay guys are about like our straight
counterparts, and are no more, nor no less faithful to our "mates" than
husbands are to wives. There are a couple of influences that might
increase the odds of us "cheating" on our mates. (1) you're talking about two
guys here. Think about what a group of straight men are like when no
women are around, and the general moral tone. (2) the lack of social
sanctions (e.g. no marriage) for gays may have something to do with it
as well. No matter how true or loyal two guys are to each other,
they/we don't get any brownie points from society for it and (3)
assuming safe sex is practiced to avoid HIV infection... there isn't
the fear of pregnancy hanging over the relationship. A guy you have a
fling with isn't likely to show up on your door step confronting your
lover and demanding to take over the relationship. Oh, and (4) many gay
men go through a second adolescence after coming out. Many of us didn't
have the same sexual outlets our straight friends had while in high
school. So it's sometimes the case of making up for lost time. Far more
of the gay couples in my acquaintance are monogamous now than 15 years
ago. Part of is AIDS-awareness, part of it is just a new generation
with a different morale code than the baby boom had in its youth.
I'm not implying that gay men are immoral, or more prone to infidelity
than our straight counterparts... but there are a few less checks and
balances when you take women out of the equation.
---
Max Hoffmann
The views expressed herein are strictly my own, and are
not necessarily those of my employer.
DA. Donaghy
: (4) many gay
: men go through a second adolescence after coming out. Many of us didn't
: have the same sexual outlets our straight friends had while in high
: school. So it's sometimes the case of making up for lost time.
Is this true generally? I know I feel the same way. (I'm not sure what the
original poster was asking.) Do other people feel the same thing. At the
moment, I feel like I'm about 16.
Dave
Chris Burman
Wish it were true. I'm turning 35 in a couple of weeks. _Major_ depression.
Where the fuck did my life go? (And where the fuck are all the handsome men
I used to see _before_ I came out??)
:-(
___
Chris Burman \X/ cbu...@abo.fi
.sig your life
Chris Fuller
Welp, I guess it's true for me.... I feel 17!
....
Wait a minute! I *AM* 17!!!
oops! <grin>
But still, this was a HUGE part of why I came out of the closet. I was abso-
lutely exasperated with not being able to do what others were in my own way and
`having no interest in their way of doing them. <grin>
Sorry to hear that you're depressed, Chris, but don't let it get to ya....
*SMILE!*
crf
Chris Burman
> Chris Burman (CBU...@FINABO.ABO.FI) wrote:
> : In <CJoFD...@info.bris.ac.uk> ma...@irix.bris.ac.uk writes:
> : > Max Hoffmann (m...@frame.com) wrote:
> : > ....
> : > At the moment, I feel like I'm about 16.
>
> : Wish it were true. I'm turning 35 in a couple of weeks. _Major_ depression.
> : Where the fuck did my life go? (And where the fuck are all the handsome men
> : I used to see _before_ I came out??)
>
> Welp, I guess it's true for me.... I feel 17!
>
> Wait a minute! I *AM* 17!!!
> oops! <grin>
Yeah, yeah, rub it in...;-) Oh I remember when I was 17...I too thought
it'd go on forever. Yes, I remember back in the old days - we didn't have
no new-fangled cars or these here fancy computers - when I was [insert
standard old man's story]
> crf
Baard Kjos
|> Max Hoffmann (m...@frame.com) wrote:
|> : (4) many gay
|> : men go through a second adolescence after coming out.
|>
|> original poster was asking.) Do other people feel the same thing. At the
|> moment, I feel like I'm about 16.
I've had the same feelings too, and many I've talked to. Kind of
frustrating to fight with that silly 29 year old common sense, though.
Gotta work hard to get rid of it at times. Gotta work hard to keep it
at others...
Graham Phillips
CBU...@FINABO.ABO.FI "Chris Burman" writes:
> I'm turning 35 in a couple of weeks. Where the fuck did my life go?
It's just beginning.
--
Graham Phillips g...@phil.demon.co.uk also gra...@medphys.ucl.ac.uk
London, UK. +44/0 81 203 6726
Chris Burman
> In article <1994Jan16.0...@abo.fi>
> CBU...@FINABO.ABO.FI "Chris Burman" writes:
>
> > I'm turning 35 in a couple of weeks. Where the fuck did my life go?
>
> It's just beginning.
Yeah, right, but for whom? (It's ten to six in the morning and this is the best
reply I could come up with. Sorry ;-)
> Graham Phillips g...@phil.demon.co.uk also gra...@medphys.ucl.ac.uk
> London, UK. +44/0 81 203 6726
___
Jess Anderson
Chris Burman <CBU...@FINABO.ABO.FI> wrote:
>In <758738...@phil.demon.co.uk> g...@phil.demon.co.uk writes:
>> In article <1994Jan16.0...@abo.fi>
>> CBU...@FINABO.ABO.FI "Chris Burman" writes:
>> > I'm turning 35 in a couple of weeks. Where the fuck did my life go?
>> It's just beginning.
>Yeah, right, but for whom? (It's ten to six in the morning
>and this is the best reply I could come up with. Sorry ;-)
It's hard to be sure how serious you were with the first remark,
but with the second it seems you are actually distressed. I
think Graham is right, Chris. Speaking from the perspective
of being nearly a quarter century older yet, and certainly
allowing for 1970 (the year I was 35) being a very different
time, the mid-30s is in some ways the peak experience.
One is certainly no longer a boy, but if you're lucky you've
kept some boy-like sense of adventure and play, and you're
still able and strong enough for some of the rough-and-tumble
things (lierally and figuratively) that young men seem to
thrive on. But much of the dilemma of one's 20s is now well
behind. If you were determined to have a career, probably
you're having it. "Who am I?" and "What am I? and "What is
my life?" and "What is the world like?" are all questions
that have answers you can have some faith in (temporarily,
I must advise you). So your experience of yourself as a man
has ripened to the point where it has real depth and real
meaning, quite likely.
Sexually one is still sought, if one ever was, by all but
the vainest and silliest of the more mature youngsters.
People your own age or a little older may flock to you.
Social life is still enjoyable, if it ever was. And so
forth.
Of course, if you are actually in Finland, then you are in
the country where depression is more or less the national
disease, especially in the long dark winter. The spring
always comes, so take heart in that.
--
[Jess Anderson <> Division of Information Technology, University of Wisconsin]
[Internet: ande...@macc.wisc.edu {o"o} UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson]
[Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888]
[-------------------> A thief believes everybody steals. <--------------------]
Conrad J. Sabatier
In article <CJKvA...@srdcom.daytonoh.ncr.com>, m...@somehost.somedomain (m...@somehost.somedomain) writes:
>
>Can somebody tell me how to get copies of these studies or
>where these studies originated? I may need them in a court case
>(legal custody of my children). My wife is very homophobic and
>last night asked me to leave.
Not sure if they'll have what you're looking for, but you may want to try
FTP'ing to the Queer Resources Directory.
Queer Resource Dir. ftp nifty.andrew.cmu.edu
offers: AIDS info/gay rights info.
Recommend get file: README ( cd pub/QRD )
Hope this will help.
Conrad
Byron Lee
> I was bombarded with heterosexual images all my life and still turend out
> gay. I know that this is a trite answer to that question but it's the
> most valid one. If straight parents only turned out straight children,
> there wouldn't be homosexuals in the world. The child will probably more
> open and tolerant to homosexuals than most children. Additionally, if he
> is truly gay, then he would be more comfortable in coming out. Thus, he
> would turn out gay not because his parents made him gay but that he was
> gay in the first place and was raised in an environment that encouraged
> him to be himself.
>
> Marc Talusan
> tal...@husc7.harvard.edu
I seriously doubt that the child will be sexually influenced by the parents.
However, what opinions would the child's classmates hold? They'd probably
make fun of him every chance they get. Now THAT will definitely have a
psychological impact on the child
--
Graham Phillips
CBU...@FINABO.ABO.FI "Chris Burman" writes:
> > > I'm turning 35 in a couple of weeks. Where the fuck did my life go?
> > It's just beginning.
> Yeah, right, but for whom?
Excellent.
Applications should be addressed to ...
(Oh, and happy birthday!)
--
Deborah Swayne
>
>I seriously doubt that the child will be sexually influenced by the parents.
>However, what opinions would the child's classmates hold? They'd probably
>make fun of him every chance they get. Now THAT will definitely have a
>psychological impact on the child
>
As one who, with another woman, raised a child, I can tell you
that may not happen. I don't believe that it happened to
Jeremy. It may quite likely be true that he concealed that
information from most of his classmates, but (1) I think that
most adolescents find their parents embarassing in some
respect, and (2) teenagers are just not very interested in the
parents of their friends and classmates. (2) comes from my own
memory -- it was only years later that I find myself curious
about my friends' parents. At the time, they were largely
invisible to me.
Come to think of it, I'll forward this to Jeremy in case
he would like to correct me or add to my comments.
Deborah
d...@bellcore.com
Greg Parkinson
Why apply this only to same-sex parents?
Are you the only Jews in town? No children!
Are you the only black people? No children!
Do you speak with an accent and dress different? No children!
Let's not even talk about children born with
birthmarks or ::shudder:: deformities! Off them
at birth to prevent that terrible psychological
impact of being different from the other kids in
school.
I can't believe that people seriously use
this argument as a reason to prevent gay
people from raising children. Even worse,
these people who pretend to worry about the
child so much often think that the state
forcing medical treatment to save the lives of
children of parents whose religion forbids it is
an unreasonable intrusion.
I don't think that concern for the children
is anything more than a convenient, "family
values"-style hypocritical lie.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Greg Parkinson New York, New York g...@panix.com
...beauty is convulsive or not at all...
Chris Burman
> In article <1994Jan17....@abo.fi>
> CBU...@FINABO.ABO.FI "Chris Burman" writes:
> > > > I'm turning 35 in a couple of weeks. Where the fuck did my life go?
> > > It's just beginning.
> > Yeah, right, but for whom?
>
> Excellent.
> Applications should be addressed to ...
> (Oh, and happy birthday!)
Thanks. I've already got so many happy birthday wishes that it's become almost
impossible to keep up the depression... (And it didn't help at all that the
first round of our Presidential Election went better than anybody could have
expected. The two _most_ dangerous maniacs didn't make it to the final round.
Yayy!!)
ObMotss: Why do Presidential Candidates always have to be so damn _ugly_?
> Graham Phillips g...@phil.demon.co.uk also gra...@medphys.ucl.ac.uk
> London, UK. +44/0 81 203 6726
___
David DeLaney
>Thanks. I've already got so many happy birthday wishes that it's become almost
>impossible to keep up the depression... (And it didn't help at all that the
>first round of our Presidential Election went better than anybody could have
>expected. The two _most_ dangerous maniacs didn't make it to the final round.
>Yayy!!)
>
>ObMotss: Why do Presidential Candidates always have to be so damn _ugly_?
I don't know *what* you're talking about; Bill was (and still is) cute as a
button. I'd do him in a second...
ObMotss: One or more of the Clintons, to be named later...
Dave "it's only a rumor though (no, not *that* rumor)" DeLaney
--
David DeLaney: d...@utkux.utcc.utk.edu; ObQuote: `I suggest quoting 'J"K"P' and
'J"RR"P' both. --K' Disclaimer: Opinions? UTK?? Me??? BWAAAAHahahahaa <choke>
<snort> hee hee; Thinking about this disclaimer (or about theor. particle __
physics) may cause headaches. Vicki and Paul and Ted and Alice. Kibo #: +1 \/
s560...@nickel.laurentian.ca
> However, what opinions would the child's classmates hold? They'd probably
> make fun of him every chance they get. Now THAT will definitely have a
> psychological impact on the child
>
>
>
>
--
sociology at the university below, and part of one of our classes' (Law, the
Family, and the State, or somethin' like that) curriculum is a debate on the
subject of our group's choice--and our topic is "Should homosexual couples be
allowed to adopt?" We are to do both pro and con argument to this. The comment
above addresses one of the 'con' sides--that the child will, in today's oh-so-
tolerant society, be made fun of at school, etc. Other arguments (and this
isn't a flame, BTW) include:
-a question of whether or not the child will learn heterosexual behaviour (ie:
act straight if the child is straight) with homosexual parents
-a lament about heterosexual families who would be deprived of children to
adopt
-a lack of research on whether it is 'proper' to raise children in a homosexual
family (ie: using children as guinea pigs)
-a question regarding whether a single homosexual should be able to adopt a
child (particularly of the same sex)
Again, these are not flames, but possible arguments for a 'con' side to the
debate. Any comments, or suggestions? Actually, if anything, this post may
show whether or not it is possible to get homework done on the 'net :)
Dave.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Haans | ************* Place a *************
S560...@NICKEL.LAURENTIAN.CA | ********* witty tagline ***********
Laurentian University, Sudbury | ********* and disclaimer **********
Home of CFLR campus/community radio | ************** here ***************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David DeLaney
>This comment brings up a point I was thinking of posting about. I'm in 4th year
>sociology at the university below, and part of one of our classes' (Law, the
>Family, and the State, or somethin' like that) curriculum is a debate on the
>subject of our group's choice--and our topic is "Should homosexual couples be
>allowed to adopt?" We are to do both pro and con argument to this. The comment
>above addresses one of the 'con' sides--that the child will, in today's oh-so-
>tolerant society, be made fun of at school, etc. Other arguments (and this
>isn't a flame, BTW) include:
>
>-a question of whether or not the child will learn heterosexual behaviour (ie:
>act straight if the child is straight) with homosexual parents
why should it? Straight parents don't stop a child from being gay, after all...
they'll learn to act straight from the gutter, just like normal kids do.
>-a lament about heterosexual families who would be deprived of children to
>adopt
BS! There's *lots* of adoptable children out there - but people want nice
*little* blond Caucasians, and are picky. I seem to remember that this
country has more adoptable children than it knows what do do with - have
you ever heard orphanage horror stories? Seen statistics on foster parents,
and how many children they go through?
>-a lack of research on whether it is 'proper' to raise children in a homosexual
>family (ie: using children as guinea pigs)
Guinea pigs? For what? Just give them lots of love and some discipline, and
they'll be fine... It's not like homosexuals have *never* raised children
*ever* before in history, you know...
>-a question regarding whether a single homosexual should be able to adopt a
>child (particularly of the same sex)
Oh no, not the "homosexuals are pedophiles" argument again, which is what this
is (in disguise). Stomp on this one. Hard. Single hets can adopt, can't
they? And can adopt either sex, no?
>Again, these are not flames, but possible arguments for a 'con' side to the
>debate. Any comments, or suggestions? Actually, if anything, this post may
>show whether or not it is possible to get homework done on the 'net :)
Here you go...
Dave "will sometimes do others' homework for food" DeLaney
Chris Burman
> In article <1994Jan18.1...@abo.fi> CBU...@FINABO.ABO.FI (Chris Burman) writes:
> >ObMotss: Why do Presidential Candidates always have to be so damn _ugly_?
>
> I don't know *what* you're talking about; Bill was (and still is) cute as a
> button. I'd do him in a second...
Bill? Bill V{yrynen? No, that doesn't sound right. Bill Ahtisaari? No... Lillan
"Bill" Rehn? Close, but not quite... (Am I missing something ;-)
> Dave "it's only a rumor though (no, not *that* rumor)" DeLaney
___
Byron Lee
> Let's not even talk about children born with
> birthmarks or ::shudder:: deformities! Off them
> at birth to prevent that terrible psychological
> impact of being different from the other kids in
> school.
I am not denying that such people get different treatment from others. The
fact is that they do. Many people, when they look at someone who is mentally
retarded or has a stump for an arm usually do shudder. Maybe that's why
there are special programs for such children to allow them to better succeed
in life. Am I advocating their destruction? No. Did I ever hint at
supporting their destruction? No. Thus, your point is good-intentioned but
directed at the wrong person.
> I can't believe that people seriously use
> this argument as a reason to prevent gay
> people from raising children.
Me neither. I'm just stating that there WILL be a psychological impact.
I'm indifferent about this issue because it neither directly nor
indirectly affects me. It's just a fact that I presented, not an argument.
Byron
btw, please don't quote what I quoted in the previous message. It just
creates a bigger message for absolutely no reason at all
Greg Parkinson
>g...@panix.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
>> I can't believe that people seriously use
>> this argument as a reason to prevent gay
>> people from raising children.
>Me neither. I'm just stating that there WILL be a psychological impact.
And there WILL be psychological impacts from
all sorts of things. Why single out this as
different or worthy of comment?
>I'm indifferent about this issue because it neither directly nor
>indirectly affects me. It's just a fact that I presented, not an argument.
It's barely that.
Richard Carels
> This comment brings up a point I was thinking of posting about. I'm in 4th year
> sociology at the university below, and part of one of our classes' (Law, the
> Family, and the State, or somethin' like that) curriculum is a debate on the
> subject of our group's choice--and our topic is "Should homosexual couples be
> allowed to adopt?" We are to do both pro and con argument to this. The comment
> above addresses one of the 'con' sides--that the child will, in today's oh-so-
> tolerant society, be made fun of at school, etc. Other arguments (and this
> isn't a flame, BTW) include:
child (not his, from a previous marriage) has very easyly accepted my other
brother and his lover: just two men loving each other, like his mom and her
husband. I have known a child, raised by two lesbians, and he made no
problem of it either: he just had two mothers and no father. Most of his
friends had only one mother and no father, or a father they only saw once
every few weeks. Indeed, later, when they get older, they will start making
fun of this, and so will they with a child with glasses, red hair, small
ones, very tall ones, etc.
> -a question of whether or not the child will learn heterosexual behaviour (ie:
> act straight if the child is straight) with homosexual parents
> -a lament about heterosexual families who would be deprived of children to
> adopt
There are more than enough children needing to be adopted. Never has been
a problem.
> -a lack of research on whether it is 'proper' to raise children in a homosexual
> family (ie: using children as guinea pigs)
There is also a lack of research on whether it is 'improper', or whether
it is proper to raise a child in a hetero family that cannot handle a
child. Children are always guinea pigs to research whether the parents
are OK.
> -a question regarding whether a single homosexual should be able to adopt a
> child (particularly of the same sex)
Ah! Yes, of course! If I adopt a child I want a boy, so when he is old
enough (about 2.5 YO) I can have sex with him! Of course, this can happen,
just the same as with hetero couples or singles. At the moment there are
several cases in the Dutch newspapers about gruesome child-abuse, including
home-done abortions on the kitchen table if one of the children accidently
got pregnant etc. Most of them are fathers and friends of the family
with young girls. In some cases the mothers know about it and do the
financial side of the business. Most of the cases are heterosexual men
having sex with little girls. Why especially worry about homosexual men
or women having a good relation and wanting a child?
RC.
--
Richard Carels, University of Amsterdam, Computer Science Department
Kruislaan 403, 1098 SJ AMSTERDAM
Larry Henrik
homosexuals adopting children.]
OK - lemme address some of them:
1. - Guinea Pig Problem
Homosexual parents are no more adopting children to be guinea
pigs than heterosexual parents. They are adopting a child because
they want to care for it. The only people who see homosexuals as
"guinea pig" parents are the people who don't want the rules to change.
Remember that any homosexual can go out and make a baby any time
they like (and I know plenty that have, whether their wife knows
they're gay or not).
2. - Should a homosexual be allowed to adopt a child of the same sex?
Should a straight person be allowed to adopt a child of the
opposite sex? Remember, homosexuality != pedophilia.
3. - Will child act straight? Be straight?
Most homosexuals are brought into the world by and raised by
heterosexuals. They seem to find their homosexuality out and
act in the "appropriate" manner despite this.
4. - Will the other kids make fun of Rudolph?
Seriously, kids will make fun of you for anything if you are
another kid. Fact of life. Best any kid learns how to deal with
peer pressure of any sort early - the sooner they do, the sooner they
can cut through the kind of bullshit that promotes suggestions like
those we're discussing and can get a real life.
5. - What about draining the pool of adoptees for heterosexual parents?
Utterly specious argument, creatd by the same morons who come up
with bumper stickers like "Adoption, Not Abortion." Until they
start adopting some children (not just white, healthy babies) it
is hard to take them seriously. Orphanages are packed right now.
Anyone who's willing to ease the pain of a homeless kid should be
allowed to do it if they'll be an OK parent.
Besides, this is also discrimination - who says heterosexuals should
get preferred treatment anyway?
Sorry, but I think that all the arguments are really weak - they smack of
subtle and refined sensibilities in the area of discrimination. The sort
of thing that kept blacks at the back of the bus for far too long. I
am not interested in sitting in the back of the bus unless it pleases
me to do so.
larry...
Wrongway
>Sorry, but I think that all the arguments are really weak - they smack of
>subtle and refined sensibilities in the area of discrimination. The sort
>of thing that kept blacks at the back of the bus for far too long. I
>am not interested in sitting in the back of the bus unless it pleases
>me to do so.
Totally off the subject but, this reminds of of what my little cousin
said about what she was taught about Martin Luther King jr. Day.
Her teacher had told her that it used to be that whites would sit in
the front of the bus and blacks would sit in the back of the bus. Her
comment: "Isn't it good that we can sit in the back of the bus now
too, Mommy?"
--
____
\bi/ rpo...@panix.com ||| Real Life: A place to get
\/ (Watch this space) ||| quotes for your signature file. -><-
John G. Wilkinson
> This comment brings up a point I was thinking of posting about. I'm in 4th
> year
> sociology at the university below, and part of one of our classes' (Law, the
> Family, and the State, or somethin' like that) curriculum is a debate on the
> subject of our group's choice--and our topic is "Should homosexual couples be
> allowed to adopt?" We are to do both pro and con argument to this. The
> comment
> above addresses one of the 'con' sides--that the child will, in today's oh-so-
> tolerant society, be made fun of at school, etc.
The issue of potential intimidation of a child in a non-standard
family situation was dealt with by the United States Supreme
Court in Palmore v. Sidoti (466 U.S. 429 (1984)). There's a
discussion of the case in "Gays/Justice", by Richard Mohr, New
York: Columbia University Press, 1988, pp. 206-211.
The case arose out of the remarriage of a white woman to an
African-American man, with a subsequent claim by her former
husband that their child should be placed in his custody, with
his prime plea stated as the likelihood that their child would be
ridiculed for being part of a mixed-race family.
The court decided against her former husband, on the ground that
his plea amounted to support of the "bigot's veto."
The Court found that
"The question . . . is whether the reality of private
biases and the possible injury they may inflict are
permissible considerations. . . . We have little
difficulty concluding that they are not. The Constitution
cannot control such prejudices but neither can it
tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of
the law, but the law cannot directly or _indirectly_,
give them effect."
==============================================================================
John Wilkinson ____ There's more to love
jw...@eskimo.com \ / than "boy meets girl"
Seattle, Washington \/ -- Jimmy Somerville
Jim Allen
>They'd probably make fun of him every chance they get. Now THAT will
>definitely have a psychological impact on the child
Moon Zappa tells the story of her brother Omit who was so mad at his
parents for naming his that. It seems that all of his friends called
him "Omit Vomit" to make fun of him. He was so distressed by this that
he legally changed his name to Rick, at which point his friends called
him "Rick the Prick." From which Moon Unit draws the conclusion that
people dislike you for who you are, not what clever names they can think
up.
Pensively,
-Jim
Ann Burlingham
In a previous article, ax...@po.CWRU.Edu (Ann Burlingham) says:
> It's natural for parents to want to protect their children from
>unhappiness, pain, ostracism, etc., but I don't think it's a realistic goal
>of child-rearing. And I think a child too "protected" from reality has been
>done a disservice. Other children are cruel; people don't think before they
>speak; many people are unreasoningly prejudiced. Try not to be one, dear child.
^
of that kind
(*now*, she proff-reads)
(Proof-reads!)
--
Ann Burlingham
Sears Library Case Western Reserve University
368-5200 10900 Euclid Avenue toujours gai and
ax...@po.cwru.edu Cleveland, Ohio 44106 always a lady
Ann Burlingham
In a previous article, jw...@eskimo.com (John G. Wilkinson) says:
>The issue of potential intimidation of a child in a non-standard
>family situation was dealt with by the United States Supreme
>Court in Palmore v. Sidoti (466 U.S. 429 (1984)). There's a
>discussion of the case in "Gays/Justice", by Richard Mohr, New
>York: Columbia University Press, 1988, pp. 206-211.
>
>The case arose out of the remarriage of a white woman to an
>African-American man, with a subsequent claim by her former
>husband that their child should be placed in his custody, with
>his prime plea stated as the likelihood that their child would be
>ridiculed for being part of a mixed-race family.
>
>The court decided against her former husband, on the ground that
>his plea amounted to support of the "bigot's veto."
>
>The Court found that
>
> "The question . . . is whether the reality of private
> biases and the possible injury they may inflict are
> permissible considerations. . . . We have little
> difficulty concluding that they are not. The Constitution
> cannot control such prejudices but neither can it
> tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of
> the law, but the law cannot directly or _indirectly_,
> give them effect."
I'm glad that most of the posts I've seen so far about this subject have
been in this vein. I was surprised, the last time I spoke on a "sexuality"
("Hi! I'm bi! Ask your silliest question!") panel here at school, that two
gay people disagreed with me. They thought one should very seriously
consider the effects of other children *possible* taunts, etc. on any
children one might decide to have. While I think it's one thing to take
into consideration, I don't think that, as John quoted above, bigots should
decide this for me. My reaction has been more along the lines of trying to
make the world a better place for my children.
It's natural for parents to want to protect their children from
unhappiness, pain, ostracism, etc., but I don't think it's a realistic goal
of child-rearing. And I think a child too "protected" from reality has been
done a disservice. Other children are cruel; people don't think before they
speak; many people are unreasoningly prejudiced. Try not to be one, dear child.
Byron Lee
>
> And there WILL be psychological impacts from
> all sorts of things. Why single out this as
> different or worthy of comment?
Now that I have thought more deeply into the issue, here is my reply.
Yes, there WILL be psychological impacts from all sorts of things. As you
mentioned, psychological impacts occur from disfigurement, birth defects,
etc. However, these impacts are the cause of DNA mutations, accidents,
and other UNCONTROLLABLE circumstances. I single gay parenting out as
different and worthy of comment because it is a result of a CONTROLLABLE
circumstance. Think about it... This sort of discrimination should not
happen, yet it does.
> It's barely that.
Believe what you want to believe.
Byron
Greg Parkinson
But yet you conveniently dropped out the only Jews
in the neighborhood, the only blacks, the only people
who have funny accents, etc. No one would consider
telling these people that they shouldn't raise
children, yet they (and you) bring up the impact
on the children of same-sex parents as though it's
a reason for the state to deny these parents their
children.
Why the difference?
Ann Burlingham
In a previous article, by...@eis.calstate.edu (Byron Lee) says:
>g...@panix.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
>>
>> And there WILL be psychological impacts from
>> all sorts of things. Why single out this as
>> different or worthy of comment?
>
>Now that I have thought more deeply into the issue, here is my reply.
>Yes, there WILL be psychological impacts from all sorts of things. As you
>mentioned, psychological impacts occur from disfigurement, birth defects,
>etc. However, these impacts are the cause of DNA mutations, accidents,
>and other UNCONTROLLABLE circumstances. I single gay parenting out as
>different and worthy of comment because it is a result of a CONTROLLABLE
>circumstance.
So is religion. So is vegetarianis. So are political beliefs. Would you,
like some children, prefer that parents do their best to just fit in, not
stand out, be one of the crowd? "Mom! How can your wear that in public?
You're embarrassing me! I'll *die* if my friends see me!" Is that
reasonable? Do we all have to be Stepford Parents, so that our children can
have truly happy, *normal* lives?
Think about it... This sort of discrimination should not
>happen, yet it does.
Quite. So, if there's bigotry, we shouldn't have kids. Who won?
Ann Burlingham
In a previous article, ax...@po.CWRU.Edu (Ann Burlingham) says:
>So is religion. So is vegetarianis. So are political beliefs. Would you,
^^
m
Douglas J. Wyman
[a bunch of stuff]
: (Byron Lee) writes: [even more stuff]
I have been avoiding any comments on this because of the cross
posting. I have pared off the alt. groups.
Whenever I hear the "Think of the impact on the child of the
taunts...", I hear my mother. She used to rant on and on
about mixed marriages. "Think of how the children will be treated."
The children of mixed marriages that I have been fortunate enough to
know, have been treated with as much or more love than "normal"
marriages. They have also seen the bigotry in the world and have
learned, as do all minoritys, to ignore bigots.
I have known and do know dyke couples who are raising children. The
kids are just kids. They are no worse off than children of any other
union. In 1965, I met a couple of women who were raising the teen age
son of the "butch" member of the pair. I was intrigued by the thought
of raising young. I had the chance to help in the raising of one young
man and have been "nanny" to a number of my straight friends.
In my opinion, parenting abilities have no connection to one's
sexuality, and the actions of bigots towards children have much
less impact than bigots might wish. In fact, the biggest impact
if bigots on children is to teach them to avoid bigots.
My $0.02 Kachinggggg
--
( Doug Wyman - Washington State Patrol ---- Internet dwy...@halcyon.com )
( 206-649-4665 | Compu$erve 76020.3650 | Both numbers are work numbers )
( Any opinions are my own thank you. Thinking is free and encouraged )
Conrad J. Sabatier
In article <2hrucn$d...@eis.calstate.edu>, Byron Lee (by...@eis.calstate.edu) writes:
>g...@panix.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
>>
>> And there WILL be psychological impacts from
>> all sorts of things. Why single out this as
>> different or worthy of comment?
>
>Now that I have thought more deeply into the issue, here is my reply.
>Yes, there WILL be psychological impacts from all sorts of things. As you
>mentioned, psychological impacts occur from disfigurement, birth defects,
>etc. However, these impacts are the cause of DNA mutations, accidents,
>and other UNCONTROLLABLE circumstances. I single gay parenting out as
>different and worthy of comment because it is a result of a CONTROLLABLE
>circumstance.
How many children have CONTROL over who they get for parents?
>Think about it...
Try taking your own advice.
>This sort of discrimination should not
>happen, yet it does.
Wow! What profundity!
>
>> It's barely that.
>
>Believe what you want to believe.
Your motto perhaps?
Sacha Varma
In article <13...@nola.win.net>, con...@nola.win.net (Conrad J. Sabatier) writes:
|>
|> In article <2hrucn$d...@eis.calstate.edu>, Byron Lee (by...@eis.calstate.edu) writes:
|> >g...@panix.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
|> >>
|> >> And there WILL be psychological impacts from
|> >> all sorts of things. Why single out this as
|> >> different or worthy of comment?
|> >
|> >Now that I have thought more deeply into the issue, here is my reply.
|> >Yes, there WILL be psychological impacts from all sorts of things. As you
|> >mentioned, psychological impacts occur from disfigurement, birth defects,
|> >etc. However, these impacts are the cause of DNA mutations, accidents,
|> >and other UNCONTROLLABLE circumstances. I single gay parenting out as
|> >different and worthy of comment because it is a result of a CONTROLLABLE
|> >circumstance.
|>
|> How many children have CONTROL over who they get for parents?
|>
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying your argument is a bit shaky.
--
Aborto Erótico
Greg Parkinson
OK, then, address the point. Is there a good reason
why single gay men and lesbians or same sex couples should
be denied the ability to adopt children?
TAMARLEIGH GRACE GRENFELL
Well I know that speaking for myself as well as many of my friends that there
must be something genetic involved in sexual preference since there was
nothing in our environments that would ever have encouraged homo- or bisexualityin any way. This being the case, it would seem to me that for a kid growing
up with gay parents, that kid would have the added benefit of being influenced
both ways, having both gay and straight influences in his/her life and that
then s/he would have a much better chance of being comfortable with his/her
sexuality whichever it was. It seems highly unlikely that very many gay
parents would try to influence their children to be gay, having been victims
of that, in most cases, from their own parents, to be straight. It seems
that gay parents would encourage and love their kids regardless of their
sexual identities. Of course there will be screwed up gay parents but I think
the percentage of screwed up gay parents would be lower than that of screwed
up straight parents for one obvious reason--there wouldn't be a hell of a lot
of unplanned children!!
-----
Tamarleigh Grenfell Rarely do members of one family grow up
tgre...@lucy.wellesley.edu under the same roof. --Richard Bach
-----
Karin E Krieger
>Now that I have thought more deeply into the issue, here is my reply.
>Yes, there WILL be psychological impacts from all sorts of things. As you
>mentioned, psychological impacts occur from disfigurement, birth defects,
>etc. However, these impacts are the cause of DNA mutations, accidents,
>and other UNCONTROLLABLE circumstances. I single gay parenting out as
>different and worthy of comment because it is a result of a CONTROLLABLE
>circumstance. Think about it... This sort of discrimination should not
>happen, yet it does.
>Believe what you want to believe.
>Byron
Just a few points to ponder: Kids are nasty. Rude. Unkind. They will find
anything at all to ridicule other kids about. Glasses. Obesity. Race.
Height. Choice of clothing. Handwriting. I could obviously continue ad
infinitum/ ad nauseum depending on your perspective (!). Some of these things
are controllable circumstances. Some are not. But I am sure that you would
not argue that parents who do not buy their kid contacts or allow them to go
on a slim-fast diet should be subject to reprisal due to the fact that they as
parents did not protect their child from potential psychological impact due to
teasing from their peers. Quite the contrary, in some cases such measures
would be damaging to the child both physically and emotionally. In addition,
such extreme behaviour on the part of the parents is liable to .... what
else? give other kids something to tease"Johnny" about.
--
peg boucher murphy
(apparently) about children raised by same sex couples.
he said in one post:
>I seriously doubt that the child will be sexually influenced by the parents.
>However, what opinions would the child's classmates hold? They'd probably
>make fun of him every chance they get. Now THAT will definitely have a
>psychological impact on the child
well, this has not yet happened to my kids. <shrug> most
of their friends think i am "cool", those that even notice
who i live with. one kid has decided not to tell her parents,
because she thinks they will have trouble with it (i know
her parents from school type interactions, and i think that
she is wrong, but we aren't arguing with her).
no teachers, kids, parents or school office personnel have said
anything negative to my kids yet. at least, about me.
we have talked about what to do if such a thing happens. it
is interesting, because they worry about it in fits and bursts,
and it has yet to be a problem.
they get much more upset over getting teased for wearing glasses
or being a slow runner or wearing "uncool clothes". those
things do reflect on *them* after all, and not a third party
(me).
in yet another post, byron responds to:
>g...@panix.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
>> Let's not even talk about children born with
>> birthmarks or ::shudder:: deformities! Off them
>> at birth to prevent that terrible psychological
>> impact of being different from the other kids in
>> school.
>
>I am not denying that such people get different treatment from others. The
>fact is that they do. Many people, when they look at someone who is mentally
>retarded or has a stump for an arm usually do shudder. Maybe that's why
>there are special programs for such children to allow them to better succeed
>in life. Am I advocating their destruction? No. Did I ever hint at
>supporting their destruction? No. Thus, your point is good-intentioned but
>directed at the wrong person.
ah, but we aren't *talking* about the kids.
how do you feel about people with large birthmarks or
deformities (etc) *having* kids?
>> I can't believe that people seriously use
>> this argument as a reason to prevent gay
>> people from raising children.
>
>Me neither. I'm just stating that there WILL be a psychological impact.
>I'm indifferent about this issue because it neither directly nor
>indirectly affects me. It's just a fact that I presented, not an argument.
well, since you are so sure that children of same sex
couples *will* be psychologically impacted by teasing due
to their parents' sexuality -- you even call it a "fact" --
although it certainly does not match mine or my kids
experiences (any proof for this "fact", btw?), why don't
you support your "facts".
our kids are impacted psychologically by our sexuality,
imho, but almost totally in positive ways. <shrug>
>btw, please don't quote what I quoted in the previous message. It just
>creates a bigger message for absolutely no reason at all
actually, byron, there is a reason. if time has passed,
or people have not followed the whole thread, quoting puts
things into context.
and from one more message:
>Now that I have thought more deeply into the issue, here is my reply.
>Yes, there WILL be psychological impacts from all sorts of things. As you
>mentioned, psychological impacts occur from disfigurement, birth defects,
>etc. However, these impacts are the cause of DNA mutations, accidents,
>and other UNCONTROLLABLE circumstances.
what if people with birth defects have children? that
is certainly controllable. a friend of mine was blinded
in a horrible industrial accident. scarred, too. his
wife was pregnant (early on, too) with their first child.
they *controllobly* chose to not only have *that* child,
but to have another one 2 years later.
the accident, blindness and scarring was *uncontrollable*.
having a family was a *choice*, a controllable one.
>I single gay parenting out as
>different and worthy of comment because it is a result of a CONTROLLABLE
>circumstance.
being lesbian, gay or bisexual is (for most of us) an
*uncontrollable* situation. having a family is a choice.
why is my situation any different from my friend's?
i have another friend who is a caucasian woman married
to an african american man. they certainly had no say
in their race. but they chose to have 5 wonderful kids.
why is *this* different?
all of these kids went to school together. the only
ones to be teased or given grief over their parents are
the two girls who's father was blinded. their freinds,
when they were young, were afraid of him because of his
"weird eyes". until they got to know him. and that
ended by kindergarten.
>Think about it... This sort of discrimination should not
>happen, yet it does.
and confronting prejudices and exposing them as the false-
hoods that they are is the only way to make them disappear.
and the best place to start is with *children*.
it's amazing, but there are remarkably few racially or
sexual orientationally bigotted children in my life.
peg
peg boucher murphy
>--
>sociology at the university below, and part of one of our classes' (Law, the
>Family, and the State, or somethin' like that) curriculum is a debate on the
>subject of our group's choice--and our topic is "Should homosexual couples be
>allowed to adopt?" We are to do both pro and con argument to this.
> The comment
>above addresses one of the 'con' sides--that the child will, in today's oh-so-
>tolerant society, be made fun of at school, etc.
this argument was pretty thoroughly trashed when people of
different "races" were legally allowed to marry.
>-a question of whether or not the child will learn heterosexual behaviour
this one always befuddles me. queer kids seem to do just
fine learning "non-straight" behavior in a culture where until
fairly recently, *all* you saw was the het norm. even now,
the visibility of queers is an extrememly small portion of
the overwhelming media and cultural situation.
are we assuming that straight kids raised by queer parents
are just *stupider*? less able to pick up cultural cues?
unable to date because they don't know how to act with a
motos?
or are we worried about butch tomboys and swishy 9 year
olds? (i know some, they all come from straight families.)
if so, we are fearing and building stereotypes. other than
in relationships, "het behavior" and "homo behavior" are
basically the same. <shrug>
>-a lament about heterosexual families who would be deprived of children to
>adopt
there are children worldwide languishing in orphanages. not
to mention all the unwanted (read: less than perfect, or of
color, or older than 12 months old) children in this country
alone.
this argument makes no *sense* unless all available kids are
being adopted *now*. which they are *not*.
>-a lack of research on whether it is 'proper' to raise children in a
>homosexual family (ie: using children as guinea pigs)
queers have been raising children since time immemorial.
it's only recently that people have started noticing...
>-a question regarding whether a single homosexual should be able to adopt a
>child (particularly of the same sex)
do we let single women adopt little boys? do we let single
men adopt little girls?
>Again, these are not flames, but possible arguments for a 'con' side to the
>debate. Any comments, or suggestions? Actually, if anything, this post may
>show whether or not it is possible to get homework done on the 'net :)
most of your "objections" are based on stereotypes. rather than
reality. which makes them hard to support...
peg
-proud queer mom.
DanWarner
>Xref: henson alt.homosexual:8850 soc.motss:170205
>Newsgroups: alt.homosexual,soc.motss
>Path: henson!netnews.nwnet.net!news.clark.edu!lclark!news.reed.edu!batcomputer!nic.hookup.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!msuinfo!uchinews!quads!pmm7
>From: pm...@quads.uchicago.edu (peg boucher murphy)
>Subject: Re: A serious question from a straight -- honest!
>Message-ID: <1994Jan27....@midway.uchicago.edu>
>Sender: ne...@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
>Reply-To: pm...@midway.uchicago.edu
>Organization: University of Chicago
>References: <1994Jan18...@nickel.laurentian.ca>
>Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 00:10:50 GMT
>Lines: 65
To assert that children raised by a homosexual couple will turn out
homosexual is odd. Obviously some children raised by straight couples turn
out to be gay. In fact, I bet most gay and lesbian kids were raised by
straight couples. The kids turned out gay, and this notwithstanding the
enormous social pressures to be hets. So although a child raised by gays
might be more tolerant (actually children are taught intolerance), I don't
think--again given the social pressure--that there is a terrible danger that
the kid will be homosexual. Anyway, for what it's worth, my experience--two
families--is that the kids of gay parents turned out straight.
s560...@nickel.laurentian.ca
> most of your "objections" are based on stereotypes. rather than
> reality. which makes them hard to support...
Unfortunately, we're gonna have to try to support them, even if we don't
beleive them. Ahhh, higher education.
BTW, up here in Canada, homosexuals cannot be denied custody rights because
of their sexual orientation. *However*, one of the questions judges commonly
ask regards the standards of the community where the child would be living
with his/her homosexual parent. As an apparent result, lesbian mothers are
given custody only if they are pretty quiet about their sexual preference.
What is the situation in the States?
--