Homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 7164
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LooseCannon said:
Human Events is not considered a critical resource.
Click to expand...
Have I stated the opposite?

LooseCannon said:
It's like taking a Top 10 list from Jay Leno and declaring it fact.
Click to expand...
It is, however, a fact that the list exists. What I meant to do was to stir up discussion, that's all.
What does it say about society that such comparisons are being made? Why is homosexuality seen as a threat at all?
 
Well, I apologize for the slightly sarcastic comment then :D

It's an interesting experience how much resistance there is in some areas.  Most of Canada doesn't seem to care, but I live in this town that is a small town of hate and repression surrounding the kernel of a liberal university.  It leads to some clashes...and a lot of hate-related violence for such a small town.
 
The reason why Kinsey was put on the hate-list was the following: "The reports were designed to give a scientific gloss to the normalization of promiscuity and deviancy." Any sexual experience with a member of the same sex being clearly seen as deviant - Kinsey states, among other things, that 37 percent of adult males had at least one homosexual experience.

Sure, the report was published in the forties, but what do you say, gentlemen, to this statistic today? Would you admit having had such experience yourselves? If not, why not? Are we just declaring how liberal we all are?

(Personally, I see myself as bisexual, and feel pretty normal at that :))
 
I've had enough experience to understand that I am straight...but I would be reluctant to describe any sexual experiences, regardless of whom they are with.
 
LooseCannon said:
...but I would be reluctant to describe any sexual experiences, regardless of whom they are with.
Click to expand...
Same here, and I didn't ask you to either :)

Some people feel uncomfortable with anything homosexual, just as some feel uncomfortable with anything sexual. But clearly it's not just that - open homosexuality ignites hatred. Maybe it's the fear of human race whose concept is to procreate.
 
The justifications (as shown in the earlier protestations in this thread) are a multitude of nonsense.  I think it comes down to more of the same - people are afraid of things that are different.  Unlike racism, though, homophobia is fired by the fear that "one of the gays" could be anywhere...at any time.  Kinda like the Communist paranoia of the 50s - and I think that's a much closer parallel psychologically than racism.
 
I think this fits here: Today the Norwegian parliament voted in favor of a law change which allows the following:

- Homosexual partnerships are in all legal ways now considered equal with marriage/partnership between man and woman.
- The Church of Norway can also wed gay couples - but the individual congregation and/or priest can also refuse to do so (I guess it would cause to much uproar if any priest was obliged to do so, as the church in Norway is divided in this question)
- Homosexual couples have the right to apply for adoption of children just like heterosexual couples.
- Finally, the really hot potato: Lesbian couples have the right to be considered for assisted reproduction, on equal footing with a heterosexual couple.

I might be a little conservative - at least by Norwegian standards - but I have no problem with the first two. That legal rights are the same for any couple that have "formalized" their relationship is just as it should be. The church thing, I guess, will create some controversy, but not more than the entire debate on homosexuality has already made inside the church.

But I wonder why it's such a big issue for gay people having the right to be considered for adoption, or even getting artificial insemination. The former is mainly the combination of giving a child in a difficult situation the chance to grow up in a better situation and at the same time give a couple who could not reproduce themselves because of infertility. The latter is to help those who have tried to have a child and could not. But when a woman wants to live with another woman, a natural consequence is that she can not have a child with the person she loves, even though they are both perfectly healthy.

My point is; a relationship between two people of the same sex could never give a child anyway - why should they then have the right to be helped to have one? Maybe I'm just narrow-minded, but I actually think that it is better for a kid to grow up with both a mother and a father. Not two mothers. (Of course, given a normal life situation - not with a father who drinks and a mother who is manic-depressive).

So, what do people think?
 
Eddies Wingman said:
My point is; a relationship between two people of the same sex could never give a child anyway - why should they then have the right to be helped to have one? Maybe I'm just narrow-minded, but I actually think that it is better for a kid to grow up with both a mother and a father. Not two mothers. (Of course, given a normal life situation - not with a father who drinks and a mother who is manic-depressive).
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a normal life situation.  And there is no logical reason why two gay people can't show the same love and affection for a child that a man and woman can.  What's more important, when considering adoption, is can the parents in question provide a stable life for a baby.  They can raise the child, provide life lessons, explain the bird and the bees...they can hold a child when he skins his knee; they can comfort a teenage girl when her first boyfriend dumps her.  They can pay for university education and they can even walk their adult daughter down the aisle at her wedding.  They can spoil a grandchild, and be mourned by their children and family when they pass.

The fact that they love someone of the same gender nullifies none of this.
 
I see no problem with a homosexual couple raising a child. I do understand that the kid might have a more difficult puberty than most others, especially when it comes to exploring its own sexuality, but that is something that can be overcome. If the argument "they couldn't have a child naturally" is supposed to be valid, then you might as well ban adoption entirely, because it is mostly done by (straight) people who can't have children for some reason.
 
Very true.  The other thing to remember is that yes, the children may have an interesting and sometime difficult puberty...but imagine how difficult puberty is for gay children in a repressive straight household...or just ask someone who's experienced it.
 
Forostar said:
Indeed. And there is no logical reason why two gay people can't have the same love and affection for a child that a man and woman can.
Click to expand...
Nor was I attempting to say otherwise.  :bigsmile:
 
Acacia said:
The reason why Kinsey was put on the hate-list was the following: "The reports were designed to give a scientific gloss to the normalization of promiscuity and deviancy." Any sexual experience with a member of the same sex being clearly seen as deviant - Kinsey states, among other things, that 37 percent of adult males had at least one homosexual experience.

Sure, the report was published in the forties, but what do you say, gentlemen, to this statistic today? Would you admit having had such experience yourselves? If not, why not? Are we just declaring how liberal we all are?

(Personally, I see myself as bisexual, and feel pretty normal at that :))
Click to expand...

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Kinsey Report is overrated and unreliable, his "stats" can hardly be taken serious by today's standards of research. From the way he collected to the jumps he makes. Needless to say that study has to be done again, period.

Also, I went to Old Bisbee this weekend and it happened to be Gay Pride Weekend. My friends and I went to a bar and I got hit on by some burly, goateed, biker dude LOL. It was funny. Funny because I'm not, yet most of my coworkers (all women) and most of my friends thought/think I am :D
 
The Kinsey Report is a landmark report, and it makes many good inferences, but because the report was assembled by a team of men working with zero funding and with zero accoutability or facilities, it can hardly be considered 100% factual.  In fact, in its own way, it is like The Origin of Species - correct idea, with terribly inaccurate workings and research.
 
Perun said:
I see no problem with a homosexual couple raising a child. I do understand that the kid might have a more difficult puberty than most others, especially when it comes to exploring its own sexuality, but that is something that can be overcome. If the argument "they couldn't have a child naturally" is supposed to be valid, then you might as well ban adoption entirely, because it is mostly done by (straight) people who can't have children for some reason.
Click to expand...

Exactly.  If we lived in an age of limited technology, yet in a world of acceptance of homosexuality, gay couples would conceive by donating their sperm so that male-male and female-female couples could procreate.  Modern technology just makes it easier for both straight and gay people to have kids.

@Natalie: Kudos to you for coming out on IMF.  You've hinted at it before, but it takes a lot of courage.
 
Forostar said:
-overrated
-unreliable
-"stats"
-can't be taken serious
-jumps

I find these not very convincing arguments. Sounds more like someone who tries to explain why he dislikes a Maiden song, without knowing how to do that. I might be wrong but I have the idea that you dislike the idea (like you dislike a song) and that's it.
Click to expand...

I like the idea, We went over it extensively both in Family and Households class as well as Stats class and both came to the same conclusion. Kinsey's research methods were inadequate and he exaggerated his findings. I think you missed the part where I state that this study has to be done again, how is that being against it? Like all information it needs an update, period. Citing Kinsey today is like relying on Freud for psychoanalytical information. LC explained it well, but thought I'd respond myself.
 
Forostar, I have only really lived in three countries but I will oblige by laying out some of my impressions.

Firstly, Austria. Not a very tolerant country in terms of homosexuality. I had a bit of a different experience because I went to an international school and I lived in Vienna which is the most liberal part of Austria. However, there's always the feeling that being gay is only alright as long as nobody else knows about it, that is, being openly gay is like committing social suicide. Certainly all those old grannies running around Vienna would disapprove ;).

Second, Sweden. More liberal than Austria but of course it depends where you live, obviously the big cities are more tolerant than out on the farm. However, I feel as if homosexuality isn't such a taboo here. Yesterday in the news there was a report on the first same sex marriage in California between two old ladies (83 and 87) who've lived together for 40+ years. Now that's what I call beautiful.

Third, United States. I have a skewed view because I go to college in Boston, MA (the "gay" state). MA is generally very liberal even at the catholic university I go to, but I have heard gay students talk about their experiences growing up in places like Alabama or Tennessee, where the climate is quite different for gays. Regardless of those states where gays are made to feel as if they have the devil inside them and they are evil, I feel the most comfortable in MA because I don't feel as if I'm being judged all the time. Out of all states in America, I think you'd appreciate MA the most Forostar (it's perhaps the most European state).

@GK: Thanks :).

@Onhell, I agree that the Kinsey scale thing is oversimplified and more research needs to be done, but when you're trying to explain psychoanalysis to a beginner you can't very well leave out Freud can you? So in the same tradition, I put forth Kinsey in order to begin somewhere with queer theory :).
 
Natalie said:
Yesterday in the news there was a report on the first same sex marriage in California between two old ladies (83 and 87) who've lived together for 40+ years. Now that's what I call beautiful.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it gorgeous?  Apparently I had some dust in my eye at the exact same time when I saw that on the news.  George Takei got married yesterday as well to his longtime partner as well.  It's both amazing and terrifying.  Amazing that the moment is here...terrifying that it is 2008 and the moment is *just* here.

The attitudes taken in the Deep South towards people's personal lives is something I find disgusting.  I see what happens in a little town like I grew up in...and I imagine how much worse it must be there.  And that is just the tip of the iceberg...but just maybe, everyone is going to learn to be accepting.
 
Natalie said:
@Onhell, I agree that the Kinsey scale thing is oversimplified and more research needs to be done, but when you're trying to explain psychoanalysis to a beginner you can't very well leave out Freud can you? So in the same tradition, I put forth Kinsey in order to begin somewhere with queer theory :).
Click to expand...

Very true, however I like to think that our community is much more 'versed".

When I saw the news that California legalized same-sexed marriages I was very happy, however I think that only makes 5 states with legalized same-sex marriages if not less.
 
3 states, Onhell. CA and MA have gay marriage; VT allows civil unions.

But here's the issue that gets all the anti-gay-marriage people worried:

It's traditional for a marriage performed in any state to be recognized in every other state. Otherwise a couple would have to get re-married every time they moved before they could legally (for example) file their taxes as a married couple. So people might not care about gay marriages in CA, except for the fact that the gay couple could move to another state and be regarded as married there too.

I vaguely recall, when gay marriage was legalized in MA, a few states even passed laws that they would not recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

So this issue will continue to be divisive until all 50 states come to an agreement. And I can't imagine that happening anytime soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top