About Normal and Abnormal Sexuality

reply to post by LordBucket

OK so as a homosexual I can sympathise with their desires and unfounded paranoia.
But that's about it. Sorry I'm not going back to the closet and pre-Stonewall days when the insults, murders and pseudo-scientific treatments had legal backing, just because some people have psychological insecurities.

Because their anti-gay sentiments spring from The Bible they believe that God did not create homosexuals, so they only see homosexuality as a sin. As such they do not recognize fixed homosexuality, or gay people. Instead they think this sin will spread and eventually homosexualize all of society.
The irony is that they then also don't recognize heterosexuality as fixed, and this God-ordained "natural" state appears rather flimsy by their own arguments.
So they wilfully and consistently misinterpret our attempt to roll back discrimination for our minority (as we see it) as an attempt to make everybody gay!
Oh how I wish that were true - but a straight guy will always be a straight guy, whether he's gay-friendly or homophobic.
So they must just learn to relax. And yes, some of their children will be gay - but that's beyond anyone's control.

As for teaching youngsters ABOUT homosexuality, I think it's a good idea. It's certainly not the same as brainwashing them to be gay (not possible, they tried to brainwash me into being straight, and it didn't work).
It's better to have an educated young person than somebody who commits a hate crime and goes to prison for life.

Are you sure they wouldn't eradicate homosexuality if they could? I'm not convinced at all that they wouldn't. It depends which individual in the broad anti-gay movement you mean.
There have been propositions to dismiss gay teachers since the 1970s. Now that's an attack on somebody's livelihood. Their only problem is the continuing gay scandals in the right-wing churches and circles. If homophobia became law again many of them would be sitting in jail, so obviously they're not gonna ruin the act for their sheeple and shoot themselves in the foot. Similarly they don't campaign against divorce, although it's un-Biblical. Most of them have had a few.

Originally posted by LordBucket

Which is probably why many people object to wide acceptance of behaviors they find uncomfortable. If homosexuality were to be widely practiced, it would by definition become "normal."

...

What they want is to prevent the society that they live in from becoming a society in which they themselves are perceived to be the abnormal ones, simply for doing what they believe is right.

That's the case. And then there would be danger, that homosexual people would like to oppress heterosexuals. They could march and have slogans like "Heterosexuality is a sin!". So maybe the angst ans resistance is all about the power?

-v

Well guys, teaching homosexuality to kids is another issue - not saying that it is off topic, but it needs some attention..

Another one is the "rainbow families" and the question "Should homosexual have the right to adopt children?"

Whad do you think?

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong teaching about homosexuality - as long as it happens objectively and in proper conditions and without any pressure. So far the teaching is again the quality of "it's a terrible thing and you'll get HIV". Even there's a far greater change of catching HIV, there shouldn't be valuated and opionated information... Is there a chance, that when giving objective information about homosexuality to the kids, that some of these kids would become homosexual? Are there possibilities, that if our society had more positive attitude towards homosexuality, few more would "step out from closet"? Can one be converted in homosexuality (halfoldman says no, although I am not completely convinced...) or is it rather a trait based on genes? Is it rather a cultural thing? Or perhaps natural per se, because it is apparent even in wild animals?

If I have to give my opinion, I'd say that homosexuality (and any sexuality) are bound by genes AND culture. From genes you perhaps inherit certain traits, like qualities typical to opposite sex that you physically are.. Probably the rest comes within the culture.

What about the kids then? Should gaypair have the right for adoption? Will their "offsprings" grow up gay also? What would it feel like from the perspective of the kid, to have two dads or moms? If there would be no cultrual prejudices, and homosexuality would be widely accepted, I'd imagine the children wouldn't really care. But since we tend to be so bigoted and closeminded, the children with two same sex parent propably will get teased - further more they will have difficulties in later life, because having two same sex parents may seem odd when marrying. Imagine the two dads on the church walking their daughter to the altar?

As we can see, there are lot of issues which many would quite likely need their own thread..

-v

reply to post by halfoldman

As for teaching youngsters ABOUT homosexuality, I think it's a good idea.

Why?

Let's assume for the moment that homosexuality is harmless. Why is it a "good idea" to make a point of teaching children about it? Let's take something else that's probably harmless. Let's say...mastrubing with shoes. There are people who do that. And it doesn't hurt anybody. But is there any benefit to going out of our way to teach children about it? Does it make sense to, as part of the standard curriculum say "ok, there are men who like to have sex with women, and there are men who like to masturbate on shoes. Any questions?"

Is there any particular benefit to going out of our way to announce homosexuality as an available option? Is it an option? Sure. But so is masturbating on shoes. It doesn't need its own chapter in the sex ed book.

they tried to brainwash me into being straight

Seriously? Who? How? Personally, I never received any indoctrination that it was specifically only proper to have sex with women. When I did sex ed, the focus was on biology and disease prevention. It wasn't a how-to, we didn't go over techniques, and there was no philosphy on what was and wasn't proper to have sex with. Man-on-woman intercourse was presented in the context of making babies. And in that context there's no more reason to talk about homosexuality than there is to talk about masturbating on shoes.

Now, if your family or your friends found out you were gay, and gave you a guilt trip over it...that's your problem, and it has nothing to do with the public school system.

Are you sure they wouldn't eradicate homosexuality if they could?

Surely there are a few who would. But personally, even the die-hard, church going, married-a-virgin, play in the church band types I know...even they agree it's none of their business what people do in the privacy of their own homes. But they also insist that it's none of your business what their children are taught about sex.

reply to post by v01i0

"Should homosexual have the right to adopt children?"

Whad do you think?

My own personal views on gender are largely hermetic. I do percieve benefit to a child to being exposed to both healthy mascline as well as healthy feminine energies. Depriving a child of exposure to either is likely to have consequences. I don't disclude the possibility that a homosexual couple may be able to express both those qualities...but I suspect that it probably doesn't happen very often.

So I would say that in general, homosexual adoptions are probably not ideal. But I also recognize that the whole problem of having children needing adoption in the first place is also not ideal. If it were me personally being the one adopted, I think I might prefer to be adopted by gay parents than remain in a government run foster home. But if the option were to pass up a homosexual couple and wait in the foster home for an extra month for a heterosexual couple...I think I'd wait.

So if the whole situation is a problem, then in the interest of solving that problem, I would propose two solutions:

First, when possible, ask the child. It will affect their life more than anyone. The desire of a homosexual couple to adopt a child, the desire of a heterosexual couple to prevent a homosexual couple from adopting that child...neither of these desires are as important as the desires of the child whose life will be affected. Whenever possible, I would allow them to make that decision.

Second, there are cases in which asking may be impractical. We can't expect a two year old to answer a question like that, so unfortuantely we decide on their behalf. All we can do is the best we can do. Let me repeat that: All we can do is the best we can do. But we don't all agree on what the best is. However, I suspect that the majorty of people who believe one way or another that homsexual couples do or don't make healthy adoptive parents...don't know. They're simply promoting their own personal views. They approve of homosexuality? Then of course homosexuals can raise children. They don't approve? Then of course homosexuals can't raise children. Nobody really knows. They're simply promoting their own personal worldviews. So...I would propose that we make a national project of it. (Well, state by state. It's none of the business of the federal government to decide these things.) Gather up volunteers from both sides to draft a set of criteria to test the idea. Get both sides to agree in advance on what critera qualifies as a pass and what criteria qualifies as fail. And only after those criteria are agreed upon, go and examine the data and see what the results are. So far as I know, that's never been done. Studies on children raised by homosexuals have been performed, but by individual groups with their own views and their own agendas. It's easy to interpret data after the fact to come to the conclusion you want. The criteria for pass and fail must be decided before the data is gathered.

What criteria? Doesn't really matter. Whatever both sides can agree on. But personally, I would suggest tracking down all the people who are now adults who were raised by homsexual parents, and asking them whether they think it's a good idea. And, whichever percentage is greater, yes or no...do it that way.

All we can do is the best we can do. And doing the best we can is more important than promoting individual agendas.

reply to post by LordBucket


Good post

As a sum up from your thoughts, the best solution would be to think the best of the child, in each case as required. However, people have distinct opinions what is best for the children

You are right, we can only do the best which should be sufficient.

I must also mention, that wanting a child often originates from egoistic motives, so each and one individual should carefully be able to reflect their own motives. When child has a family which sole motive is genuinely the best of child, one is lucky.

-v

reply to post by LordBucket

Why not track doen every gay child who was raised by heterosexual parents too?
Your model of only tracking kids raised by gay couples already looks for fault in its methodology.

I grew up in the old Apartheid South Africa.
Homosexual acts were punished by up to 7 years in prison.
Never mind how heteronormativity is spread with Bible stories (Adam and Eve, the animals on the ark), or popular culture, or only having straight or silent (gay) people around you.
But why make a thread on normal vs. abnormal concepts of sexuality into another straight vs. gay thread?
Until the mid 1980s race-mixing was still illegal in SA (the Immorality Law), and socially frowned upon else where. Even film still avoids it, because conservative audiences are STILL uncomfortable with it. Even my favorite film on the Native Americans - Dances with Wolves - has the protagonist pairing with a white woman that he happens to find amongst the plain's tribes.
So it seems that whatever happens in real life may not be described or shown to kids.
Still today it is an issue from both races.
That (race-mixing) was once seen as a fetish.

Studies have mentioned that adult homosexuality is often preceeded by childhood gender non-conformity.
That's discussed at length in both pro and anti-gay studies.
Now a boy who plays with dolls and prefers Barbie instead of G.I Joe does not have an easy time in a militaristic society.
They've actually done studies where they tried to force a boy to like more manly toys.
I think Simon LaVey discusses such things.
In any case the boy was still gay in his twenties - he was just a more "butch" (macho) gay man.

It sounds like no mention must be made in current US sex-ed books about homosexuality.
That would make them more conservative (and censored) than some British sex-ed books from the 1950s that I have on my shelf.
Although the point in these older books is to reassure teenage males that same-sex crushes do not make them gay (healthy heterosexuality goes through gay phases), they also mention that homosexuality is preferred by a few people.

Well, strictly speaking only heterosexual penetrative sex is normal when it wants to make a baby.
Everything else is a fetish and biologically indefensible.
Without procreative intent sex is fun - like smoking crack or drinking alcohol.
Religious morality has little place for self-indulgent fun.

According to Freud, the fetish can be good when it leads to procreation.
So unless you have a baby everytime you have sex, your sexuality is not normal.
And producing a mixed-race baby is still stigmatized.
What are the opinions of this considering "Jim Crow" American sates in the 1950s, and many sects and attitudes today?
Is it normal, some would also ask?
Would studies of kids amongst mixed-race parents show it is normal?

Would we teach kids about the patriarchal power of the white, heterosexual, colonial male?
Wouild we teach about how some US Presidents impregnated their slaves, and made their black/Indian children fatherless?


How normal - just don't mention gays, and then suddenly quote Leviticus.

reply to post by halfoldman

Why not track doen every gay child who was raised by heterosexual parents too?

If you can demonstrate that the majority of children adopted by heterosexuals look back and wish they'd instead been adopted by homosexuals...I'd be willing to live in a country where adoption by heterosexuals was illegal.

And that's the beauty of the solution that I propose. I'm willing to live with the consequences of it.

Are you?

And if you're not, then clearly you're more interested in your agenda than what's best for the children.

Why not track doen every gay child who was raised by heterosexual parents too?
Your model of only tracking kids raised by gay couples already looks for fault in its methodology.

Isn't it interesting that you accuse me of faulted methodology, and yet you propose to track down only the gay kids raised by heterosexuals? If you want to see if homosexuals make suitable foster parents, it makes an awful lot of sense to examine homosexual foster parents, doesn't it?

reply to post by LordBucket

No, no, my interest was to balance your statement.
You brought up the issue of investigating adopted kids raised by gay parents, so I'm saying it must be done in context.
All the issues here were quite a while back, and I'd first have to re-read a lot of it.
I don't personally know anyone who was adopted by a gay couple but I know the biased positions.
I know one white gay couple who are raising an HIV-positive black child (that would be abandoned in an orphanage otherwise).
I just know that our criteria for adoptive parents is very high, and children are not simply dished out to irresponsible parents.

Sexuality is a strange thing.

I'll play devils advocate here.

Most animals do whatever their hormones tell them. But we humans are different. Some hormones are okay, like if you're a homo. But other hormones are not okay, like if you are attracted to teenagers or children.

We also have laws where, even if you have a fully working reproductive system, you can't give consent to intercourse to people who are legal adults. It's natural for other animals to just do it when they're attracted to you.

So you are forbidden to do it everyday, all the time, then BAM, you're suddenly an adult one day and it's okay for other adults to do you. Otherwise it's rape even if you consent and desire it.

So tell me this people, if normal or not does not matter, and "it's natural" is the excuse used to justify acting on some hormones, why is it not okay if it feels natural for some legal adult to be attracted to teenagers or children. It's obviously natural, otherwise no one would have hormones making them attracted in the first place, and animals do it whenever they are told by chemicals, and the minor consents to it. Why is it still a crime?

In fact, it's completely unnatural for animals to be considered adults on some magical day where nature decides you are allowed to reproduce. Nature has homo animals, but also pedo animals. Since normal doesn't count, what does? How do we resolve this issue?

I'll stop playing devil's advocate here.

I postulate that in the future, when we're all senile old people, pedos will make similar arguments to what homos made, and will also win support of the majority. We'll, of course, be disgusted, but we'll be irrelevant too. We'll be viewed in the future the same way we view an old grandpa who is prejudiced against homos today.

reply to post by 547000

Legal homosexuality in some form was legal for most of humanity's history. At least I would assume so, based on classical and anthropological studies. We've just come from a homophobic period that was unnatural.

Whether pedophilia is natural or not (tobacco is natural) doesn't matter by my estimation. Some say it is even religious, and the Bible has no legal age of consent, and Mohammed had a child-bride (I put this very simply, there are many debates on it). Nevertheless children are still developing and no adult has the right to sexually violate that development. It is harmful to the child.

The problem is that some of who we call children have fully working reproductive systems. The idea of what separates an adult from a child is arbitrary.

Don't get me wrong. I don't support pedos. But pedophilia is as natural as homosexuality.

In the olden days many would marry those who we would consider children today.