Marriage...

[Bill Glasheen]

Ethan

You've produced a number of thought-provoking posts in the last few days on "social" subjects. You tell us how you feel, and that's a good thing.

MOSTLY I agree with you. And then there is this voice inside my head that says "But..."

Here are some "But..." thoughts that came to my head in the past few days.

* Let's start with the assumption that a child needs two parents. Even though in my heart I believe that a child ideally should have a father and a mother at home, who am I to question what a gay or lesbian couple can accomplish? I don't have the data to prove that the difference between male/female parenting vs. male/male or female/female parenting is substantive. And if it was, well ... so what? If I found out that purple people made better parents than green people, is it my right even to question?

* Sacrifice and empathy in relationships are important. Enough said. But is a common need for frequent sex a bad thing for a couple to seek out? What of the couple that finds common ground for all the right reasons, but ends up being sexually incompatible in this way? Is the individual with the higher libido just supposed to ****** it up and deal with it? (Is the person with the lower libido supposed to live beyond his/her desires?)

When I think about my dating years, I remember wishing that I could take these features of Sue, those features of Mary, these features of Joan, and the looks of Wilma, and make this person of my dreams. Unfortunately most of us never will find that "perfect" person. We must settle on many fronts. After all, we aren't perfect, right? (Except for me of course... ) But it's not just perfection per se. There's no absolute scale here. We each possess unique traits that make us whom we are and determine our comfort level with others. (Meyers Briggs measures some of these.) Should we not seek out relationships where we don't have to try (sacrifice) so hard? Is it wrong to seek out a partner who doesn't drain us so much?

Of course once we take the plunge...

* In another thread, you talk about children needing God-fearing parents. Personally I was raised Catholic, but I'm frankly ambivalent about the existence of a God. You can't change that in a person. I'm not an atheist; I just don't see the need for a bearded guy and some dogma to live a good life based on fundamental ethics (more or less Judeo-Christian).

So... Other than the fact that folks who think this are into proselytizing, is it really a preference to have God-fearing parents? And if so, why?

Those are my "challenging" thoughts for you and others. I could play either side of the debate game here. I have my thoughts... But it's more fun letting others speak up here.

- Bill

[Redbeard]

Hi Bill,
Thanks for the thought provoking questions, discussion is a good thing, even disagreement can be a good thing when handled correctly like it is often done here. I will place my responces in bold print.

Bill wrote-
* Let's start with the assumption that a child needs two parents. Even though in my heart I believe that a child ideally should have a father and a mother at home, who am I to question what a gay or lesbian couple can accomplish? I don't have the data to prove that the difference between male/female parenting vs. male/male or female/female parenting is substantive. And if it was, well ... so what? If I found out that purple people made better parents than green people, is it my right even to question?

We can't choose our parents. I was blessed with parents who were pretty darn great, but they weren't perfect. I am not a perfect parent either. I have made many mistakes in the past, and I am sure to make more in the future. As I have said, we have to play the hand we are dealt. There are many children who find themselves born into rotten families with lousy parents. We (our society) does not and should not remove children unless they are obviously being abused in a way thats unacceptable to the point that the child is better off being torn away from its family than staying with them.
GIVING a child to be adopted is in my opinion a different issue. It is our job, as a society, to question the circumstances that we place children in, say when a couple wants to adopt a child.
100 years ago, homosexuality was designated as a mental illness, now it is not by a large part of the population. This (despite a large amount of propaganda), does not come from any scientific fact or discovery, but from a shift in cultural opinion.
20 years from now, beastiallity (sex with animals) may be seen as an acceptable practice. Should a child be given into the arms of a family that openly practices sex with donkeys? Is this an outrageous question? Some cultures have practiced this very thing and continue to do it now.

Bill wrote
* Sacrifice and empathy in relationships are important. Enough said. But is a common need for frequent sex a bad thing for a couple to seek out? What of the couple that finds common ground for all the right reasons, but ends up being sexually incompatible in this way? Is the individual with the higher libido just supposed to ****** it up and deal with it? (Is the person with the lower libido supposed to live beyond his/her desires?)

A fair question. Sex is important. We have an appetite and a need for it, this is the way we are wired.
In my experiance, sex can be approached on two levels, the physical need and the emotional need. What I mean by this is, my body lets me know when I need, and drives me to find fulfillment through sex. But what is it that tells us how we should fulfill that need?
When I am hungry, my body lets me know that I should eat. But then the question remains, WHAT should I eat. My past experiances let me know what I like, and my mind and the knowledge I have about food should help to determine my choices. I Love pizza, and when I am really hungry I could eat a whole large pepporoni and wash it down with some tasty mountain dew. But the scale has been telling me that this would not be the most beneficial choice to make.
Couldn't our appetites for sex be a little like our appetite for food?
Both are driven by a real need.
Both are influenced by past experiances.
Both need to be governed by self control, for the benefit of those involved.

In other words, what I am tempted to partake of and what I actually need may not always agree. I may be tempted to find fulfillment in 3 women at once, but I don't think my wife would be appriciative, and my marriage would suffer.
C.S. Lewis wrote a very interesting article entitled "We have no write to happiness". Sometimes a choice needs to be made as to what is more important, our own happiness, or our obligations, morals, honor, and duties.

Bill wrote-
When I think about my dating years, I remember wishing that I could take these features of Sue, those features of Mary, these features of Joan, and the looks of Wilma, and make this person of my dreams. Unfortunately most of us never will find that "perfect" person. We must settle on many fronts. After all, we aren't perfect, right? (Except for me of course... ) But it's not just perfection per se. There's no absolute scale here. We each possess unique traits that make us whom we are and determine our comfort level with others. (Meyers Briggs measures some of these.) Should we not seek out relationships where we don't have to try (sacrifice) so hard? Is it wrong to seek out a partner who doesn't drain us so much?

Of course once we take the plunge...

I agree with you here, I think the saying goes "If I only knew then what I know now"

Bill wrote-
* In another thread, you talk about children needing God-fearing parents. Personally I was raised Catholic, but I'm frankly ambivalent about the existence of a God. You can't change that in a person. I'm not an atheist; I just don't see the need for a bearded guy and some dogma to live a good life based on fundamental ethics (more or less Judeo-Christian).

So... Other than the fact that folks who think this are into proselytizing, is it really a preference to have God-fearing parents? And if so, why?


Many who have God-fearing parents become ungodly, and many who are ungodly become God-fearing. I believe that Jesus is truth, and I also believe that truth is a valuble and worthwhile legacy.
As a follower of Christ, I do not deny proselytizing and I don't appolagize for it either, not because I think I am smarter or better than anyone else, but because it brings me joy to see others receive the same hope and joy that I have recieved through Christ's sacrifice.
When being questioned by King Agrippa, the apostle Paul said "I would wish to God, that whether in a short or long time, not only you, but also all who hear me this day, might become such as I am, except for these chains."
But if we are being honest, isn't anyone who states their beliefs proselytizing, hopeing others might come to the same conclusions?

[benzocaine]

The reaction of some to the above post

[chef]

The reaction of others to the post:



I am in agreement with Redbeard and he gets my thumbs up.

Regards,
Vicki

[Bill Glasheen]

But if we are being honest, isn't anyone who states their beliefs proselytizing, hopeing others might come to the same conclusions?

Sometimes yes, and sometimes no.

I honestly have a live-and-let-live attitude about religion. I believe what I believe, which is a strong sense of ambivalence. Been there, done that. I did 8 years with nuns in a parochial school, and was an altar boy who often helped with mass 7 days a week. Now I don't really care about it all, but I value my Judeo-Christian training for many reasons. The UU church works for me because it's inclusive and doesn't really care what I believe

Meanwhile...I'm sending my sons to low-key Christian schools. I want to give them Judeo-Christian training, and give them the option to make their own decisions about it all. And I value my Jewish and Muslim friends, and support them in their individual spiritual paths. And I have a lifelong friend who is a hard-core, avowed athiest. Fine by me.

Some folks proselytize, and some don't. Being firm in your personal beliefs doesn't always mean you want others to feel the same way. I frankly love the diversity of opinions, so long as people learn to get along.

Ben

You're not going to get away with a dis-and-run comment. Speak up, dude! You are amongst friends.

- Bill

[Redbeard]

Nice to know your thoughts everyone. Like I said, disagreement is ok, but Bill is right, keep your cool and remember that this is just a discussion. Remember too, that anger is the sign of a losing argument. or

[benzocaine]

I've seen this subject discussed at least 20 times on these forums, and Ian usually comes out swinging. Hence the emoticons.

I look forward to watching another debate on the subject.

I'm a bad candidate to join the discussion because am completely detached from the subject and could probably argue either side.

[Bill Glasheen]

Ian often comes out swinging on subjects meaningful to him and his world. If you ever get the opportunity to meet and spend time with him, you will see what he has to offer and understand more.

There are many more people who have a dog in this fight (so to speak) but choose not to post for personal reasons. Sometimes when I play devil's advocate, I am doing so on behalf of friends very dear to me.

I value all my friends.

- Bill

[benzocaine]

I'd like to meet everyone who posts here.

So far I've met Bill, Rich, Dana, Raffi, and Chef. All good people.

That was a pretty inflammatory statement by Red Beard

It is our job, as a society, to question the circumstances that we place children in, say when a couple wants to adopt a child.
100 years ago, homosexuality was designated as a mental illness, now it is not by a large part of the population. This (despite a large amount of propaganda), does not come from any scientific fact or discovery, but from a shift in cultural opinion.
20 years from now, beastiallity (sex with animals) may be seen as an acceptable practice. Should a child be given into the arms of a family that openly practices sex with donkeys? Is this an outrageous question? Some cultures have practiced this very thing and continue to do it now.

I guess I should have been more clear as to what this emoticon was for The popcorn emoticon was me anticipating someone countering that statement (which is like comparing apples and oranges IMHO.. very similar to comparing homosexuality to pedophillia, in that it shouldn't be compared. They are 2 completely different things.).

OOPs! Looks like I took a side

[Redbeard]

Ben,
My statement was not meant to anger anyone, I don't take pleasure in causing anyone grief or frustration. My intention was not to tick anyone off or cause pain, but my opinions are my opinions, and I don't appologize for them.

I guess I should have been more clear as to what this emoticon was for The popcorn emoticon was me anticipating someone countering that statement (which is like comparing apples and oranges IMHO.. very similar to comparing homosexuality to pedophillia, in that it shouldn't be compared. They are 2 completely different things.).

OOPs! Looks like I took a side

Since you don't agree with my statement, why don't you elaborate on the reason why?

By the way, I didn't compare homosexuality to pedaphilia, so I don't feel this is a fair objection to my statement.


Ethan

[benzocaine]

By the way, I didn't compare homosexuality to pedaphilia, so I don't feel this is a fair objection to my statement

I never said you did.. you compared it to bestiality, which is the same tactic used by Jerry Falwell types who argue that people are not born gay , that they chose it.

Homosexuality involves (or is supposed to involve) two consenting adults. Bestiality has nothing to do with two consenting human adults and to put that on the same plane is IMHO just not fair,and insulting to gay people.

[Redbeard]

Ben wrote:
I never said you did.. you compared it to bestiality, which is the same tactic used by Jerry Falwell types who argue that people are not born gay , that they chose it.

Are you insinuating that I am a Jerry Falwell type? If so, you might want to remember that personal attacks against others don't strengthen or support your own arguments.

So, do you believe that homosexual people are born that way? If so I would like you to support your opinion with reasoning or facts.

I never said that the lifestyle is chosen, but again, you might want to be more careful about putting words in the mouths of others.

To clarify my side of the issue, I believe that most homosexual people are suffering from a psychological developmental disability. In other words, in the early years of life, a homosexual young man did not bond with a strong male role model, and through becoming overattached to his mother or another female figure took on feminine traits and charachteristics. The opposite would be true for a lesbian women.

Sexual abuse at an early age can also play a part in the unhealthy development of sexuality.

I am not saying this is the absolute truth in all cases, it is just what I believe to be true after looking into the subject.

An excellent book on the subject is "Preventing Homosexuality; A Parent's Guide" written by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. Here can be found some very informative case studies and first hand experiance by experts in the field, which I personally prefer to popular cultural opinion and propaganda.

Homosexual tendancies and temptations are not a choice, but homosexual actions are a choice.

In my opinion, someone who indulges in homosexual activity is no more guilty or inoccent than a straight person who participates in fornication or a married person who gets caught up in adultry. We all have temptations to face and overcome, thats what makes us human.

Ben wrote:
Homosexuality involves (or is supposed to involve) two consenting adults. Bestiality has nothing to do with two consenting human adults and to put that on the same plane is IMHO just not fair,and insulting to gay people.

Who says beastiality can't involve two concenting adults?

What about a man by himself watching gay pornography?

It is not my intention to insult, just to search for truth and not be afriad to speak it when I find it.

Keep it in mind that you guys aern't the only ones with homosexual family and or friends.

[benzocaine]

Are you insinuating that I am a Jerry Falwell type? If so, you might want to remember that personal attacks against others don't strengthen or support your own arguments.

This is my 965th post here. If I was into personal attacks I'd have been banned by now. I was saying that you use a similiar argument used by Jerry Falwell types.

I never said that the lifestyle is chosen, but again, you might want to be more careful about putting words in the mouths of others.

Read what you just wrote and then re read my posts. Who's putting words in mouths?

An excellent book on the subject is "Preventing Homosexuality; A Parent's Guide" written by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.

How about I love my son unconditionally?.. not saying you don't love your kids.

[Redbeard]

How about I love my son unconditionally?.. not saying you don't love your kids.

You should, and I do too.

[IJ]

"If so I would like you to support your opinion with reasoning or facts."

The APA position statement on this matter might be enlightening. At a minimum, it is less biased then conservative christian "research" into the matter.

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

"In other words, in the early years of life, a homosexual young man did not bond with a strong male role model, and through becoming overattached to his mother or another female figure took on feminine traits and charachteristics. The opposite would be true for a lesbian women."

An interesting but invalidated argument stemming from Freud's work. As you probably know, Frued developed his theories based on interactions with members of the primarily upper class of Victorian european society in the late 1800s and early 1900s. He believed what he saw and all the neuroses about sex represented human truth, but this is far from reality. Is it surprising culture has reassessed homosexuality? He also thought cocaine was helpful and we've reconsidered that, appropriately so.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/freud.htm#Back ... %20Thought

Click on infantile sexuality for a brief comment.

Re: "Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.... Here can be found some very informative case studies," he is doing his work based off of.... people who seek out the director of the Thomas Acquinas Psychological Clinic for cure! There are a great many people tortured over their sexual identity many of whom would like to be "cured," and some, especially those seeking a religious experience or raised in one, seek religious help. These are clearly not a representative group and many of the supposed successes are far from it. A person who ALWAYS has homosexual attractions but represses them is "cured," by those standards; two "ex-gay" celebrities who pushed the idea of cure and were actual posterchildren for the movement later fell in love and abandoned it; another was caught cruising in a DC gay bar by people who recognized him from, I think Newsweek.

Neither of us are going to change our minds on this... My suggestion is, ask a gay person before you make up your mind. NOT (just) one who felt ill enough to seek a quasi religious cure.

Here are some links on Dr. N.

http://ivpress.gospelcom.net/title/int/2379.php
http://www.narth.com/docs/repair.html

And here's one not from the source itself or with "gospel" in the address, but from someone who thought about it. I grabbed it off google initially b/c it had "ucsd" in it:

http://math.ucsd.edu/~weinrich/NCLSWNRC.HTML

"We all have temptations to face and overcome, thats what makes us human"

Notice that you give heterosexuals a way to act on their feelings (aka "temptations") within marriage--is this a fair setup for people who can't get married (with some exceptions now)?

"Who says beastiality can't involve two concenting adults?"

It always involves an animal; animals can't consent. That's the point.

"It is our job, as a society, to question the circumstances that we place children in, say when a couple wants to adopt a child."

Agreed! Now let's make SOME kind of a case against same sex parents to support this statement as it applies to same sexers? Try the work of Charlotte Patterson (UVA) on this. Or, cite whatever, keeping in mind it would be easier for anyone to show poorer outcomes with black parents than white. And this means.....??

"This (despite a large amount of propaganda), does not come from any scientific fact or discovery, but from a shift in cultural opinion."

That's because there is no data to drive this decision as an illness. There never was, so the original designation was suspect. (However, it WAS done because it was felt to be compassionate. To give gay people an "excuse" basically... rather than to view them just as villains.) All decisions about such things have to be made over and over in light of new thinking. Your concern is the slippery slope. If we let gays adopt--then soon we'll all be having donkey sex with infants!

But the fact of the matter is that heterosexual cultural mores have been changing all the time. And if they hadn't:
--women would be property at marriage
--Often at 12-15 years of age to an older man
--wouldn't have rights / options outside of home / childbearing
--couldn't refuse sex or be "raped" by a husband
--couldn't control fertility
--couldn't choose mates or choose to leave em
--could be killed or beaten or whatever for various offenses such as adultery

If changes to these standards were proposed a while back, would you have been warning about donkey kid sex if anything at all was changed? Or would you have said the rational thing to do would be to consider every change rationally?