Tuesday, July 2, 2013

For the Last Time: It's not a Choice!

As expected, the anti-gay marriage folks are in full force as of late as a result of the recent Supreme
Court rulings on California's Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  If I were to believe what I read, then I should be stocking up on guns, ammunition, and food soon, because allowing homosexuals to marry is apparently the first sign of the end-times.

There has been some fairly fierce debate, and in my opinion, the anti-gay marriage crowd appears to be on-the-ropes most of the time.  What do I mean by that?  Well, the debate usually goes like this:

Dude:  Gay marriage should be legalized everywhere.

Bro:  No it shouldn't, gay marriage is immoral because it says so in the bible.  That's the word of God.

Dude:  Don't you think that's a bit harsh for a God that's supposedly all about love and mercy?  I mean, should homosexuals feel like they are permanently screwed because their very nature is "sinful"?

Bro:  That's their fault for being gay.  Homosexuality is a choice.

Dude:  What?

Bro:  Yeah man, like, sometimes I have the urge to steal stuff, but I don't steal stuff because it's wrong.

Dude:  So, you're in love with your wife, right?

Bro:  Yeah.

Dude:  Could you stop loving her, like, right now?  Could you just stop being physically attracted to her for no reason?

Bro:  Of course not!  I could never stop loving her!  I fell in love with her the moment I saw her.  She's my soulmate.

Dude:  But when a man is attracted to another man, that's a choice . . . right?

Bro:  Yes!  Didn't I already say that?

Hopefully you get the picture.  Here is the deal, friends.  Physical attraction is not a choice.  I know that some hard core religious people like to think that homosexuality is a choice, but being attracted to someone of the same sex is no more a choice than being attracted to someone of the opposite sex.  I hate to break it to the fundamentalist Christian crowd, but physical attraction is based on brain chemistry that simply cannot be altered.

No one simply "makes a choice" whether to be gay or straight.  I don't seem to recall a time in my life where I woke up one morning and said to myself, "well, it's time to decide whether I like dudes or chicks!"  If you think being gay is a choice, and if you think that what I just said sounds ridiculous, well guess what: it is ridiculous.

If sexual orientation is a choice, then that would mean that every single person can, at any moment, choose whether to be straight or gay.  So all of you straight Christian men out there: this means that you all have the potential to choose to be attracted to other men.

If you responded "no way, Jack!  That's gross," then you just proved my point.  Because of your brain chemistry, there is probably nothing on this earth that will ever cause you to be sexually attracted to other men.  And if you responded "I would never be gay, because being gay is a sin," well then that answer is much more fun because it means that if you wanted, you could totally be gay.  But you don't want to because God says its wrong.  So either sexual orientation is a part of brain chemistry that you can't overcome, or every one of us has the potential to be gay given that we don't give a shit about what the bible says.

Honestly, it's no different than any preference you may have.  For example, I love chicks with tattoos and some piercings, but I don't like a chick that's completely covered in ugly tattoos, and I don't like chicks who look like pincushions.  I am totally into red heads.  I prefer pale skin to tanned.  And I find that, for me, well-shaped breasts proportional to a woman's body are more important than the actual size.  I didn't decide on any of that.  All I know is what gets me going, and that has to do with how my brain chemistry reacts to particular stimuli.

So no, being gay is not a choice.  Two gay men can love each other and be just as dedicated to each other as a man and a woman.  So why would we want to deny them the chance to spend their lives together?  Why do some people want to deny them happiness and status?  Just because I'm not attracted to 600 lb. women doesn't mean that there should be a law against marrying them (sorry if any of my readers are that big).

A professor of mine, devoutly Catholic, once said that marriage is God's way of demonstrating the magnitude of his love for us.  He asked "do you really think that God only meant for married heterosexual couples to experience his love?"

Well, do you?

38 comments:

Silverfiddle said...

I don't fell like rearguing the whole thing, but you woman argument breaks down.

If you were forced to live in a land where only dark, heavy-set women with non-proportional breasts lived, you would conform in time.

I do believe a part of sexual preference is learned and acculturated, and I believe some basic anthropology backs that up.

That does not disprove the 'born that way' argument however.

Here's an article that poses an interesting question: What if a biological cause for homosexuality can be isolated?

Further, what if it could be corrected in the womb?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/06/biological_basis_for_homosexuality_the_fraternal_birth_order_explanation.html

Micky said...

I dont care if they have unions with all the rights of married hetero couples.
Let them adopt if qualified, share capital venture.
But, because I feel that those who can procreate, make new beautiful lives ROCK !
They should get the title "marriage".

I do have to get over myself a little, because I would try to create legislation banning men from kissing public.
Women however can hook up in front of me anyway they want.

(oh shit, I'm gonna hear it now)

Seriously, what they do is the one reason we are all here so can we just give them that little consolation ?

Jack Camwell said...

Sure, if I lived in a society with only a certain type of woman, then I might develop physical attraction to them. But still, it wouldn't be a choice.

I mean, you can say "well I guess there's nothing better," but you can't lie about your own biological urges. Settling is a choice, but who you actually find physically attractive is not.

I can tell you this right now: there is nothing on this planet that would ever move me to be attracted to other men. There is no way that I could learn to find men sexually appealing. Dude on dude action is repulsive to me. But as I have said before, just because I think it's gross doesn't mean it's morally wrong.

You pose an interesting thought: what if, through science, we could "correct," it in the womb. My question is: why bother?

I don't think there is a "gay gene." There are probably a bunch of genetic factors that determine how human sexuality develops. But it's not about environment or upbringing.

Most gay people did not suffer from any sort of trauma, nor were they raised to be gay. They had lives as normal as yours or mine. It's just that when their sexuality developed, they found members of the same sex to be appealing. It's nature, not nurture in this case.

Micky,
I've long admitted to the big double standard that I have. While I find dude-on-dude action (as I like to call it) repulsive, I am totally okay with two hot chicks doing whatever.

For me, coming to that realization was the first step that led me to believe that homosexuality is probably not morally wrong. But we humans often like to equate things that we consider to be deviant or repulsive with wrongness.

Micky said...

I think its a hormonal imbalance.

Everyone carries different levels of hormones and chemicals that effect every function we perform.

Seriously, are there really people ho believe people wake up one day and decide to have sex with the same gender ?
Yeah, and they're an embarrassment to conservatives and even the republican party.
At least they should be.

Jack Camwell said...

"Seriously, are there really people ho believe people wake up one day and decide to have sex with the same gender?"

Yes.

Micky said...

"I've long admitted to the big double standard that I have. While I find dude-on-dude action (as I like to call it) repulsive, I am totally okay with two hot chicks doing whatever.

For me, coming to that realization was the first step that led me to believe that homosexuality is probably not morally wrong. But we humans often like to equate things that we consider to be deviant or repulsive with wrongness."

I'm not meaning to be too graphic or cheapen the dialogue but with this issue I have to say;

I never understood he attraction behind sticking your pecker in an asshole.
Call it a shitty deal, but thats just me.
============

On a more serious note.

Morality ?

Theres some pretty definite rules to that, murder, rape, theft, child molestation etc...

But if were going to draw parameters on sexual morality then everything beyond strict missionary positions, foreplay etc, for the purpose of procreation itself would send 99.9% of us to hell. That of course is morality in the strict Christian context where you could interpret the slightest harm to your body a sin or immoral.
If being gay is an immoral choice that can end you up in hell then I'm going there a whole lot more than once for all the shit I've done.

Micky said...

oops, for clarification, I've never had a gay encounter, but in my drunken meth coke heroin pcp acid stoopers I have pondered trying it to see if there was a part of me that might like it.
The majority of us guys are brought up to believe homosexuality is wrong, disgusting and deviant so I'm only guessing theres a few guys out there wondering if part of their true sexual nature was oppressed by their upbringing and so... they ventured.

I myself couldnt get past gagging bile in my throat imagining me being part of the act.

The movie rolls in my head and every time it plays the civil defense ticker starts scrolling across the screen.
Shit, I still cant bring myself to watch Brokeback Mountain no matter how many Oscars and awards it got.

The Smoking Man said...

@Silverfiddle

What if left-handedness could be "corrected" in utero?

Homosexuality and left-handedness are equally natural "conditions" and neither prevents an individual from leading a fulfilling life. That is, assuming society isn't backwards and malicious enough to try and prevent them from doing so.

The worlds population is 7 billion strong and set to double by 2050. We aren't short on breeding couples. Having a large group of people who are more likely to adopt children is probably a good thing.

TSM

Micky said...

Well, thats very true, but I would hope theres more reason to tolerate homosexual couples than just their ability to adopt.
I'm going to take a leap and say that I dont think additional same sex couples to the population would help empty out orphanages.
Better familys and responsible sex would be more likely to solve thast problem.
Plus, while I believe same sex partners can make great parents, the ultimate ideal environment to raise a child in would be that of a man and woman

Jersey McJones said...

I don't see why it would matter whether it's a choice or not, and I always thought the gay community was better off ignoring that argument. It doesn't matter. We know they can form stable, loving relationships just like everyone else. There is nothing in and of itself wrong with what they're doing. And they're not hurting anyone by doing it. People who are against gay marriage are just deeply insecure reactionaries with no standing in the matter whatsoever. Busybodies.

JMJ

The Smoking Man said...

"Well, thats very true, but I would hope theres more reason to tolerate homosexual couples than just their ability to adopt."

I'm sorry, you what mate?

I did not mention adoption as a "reason" why they should to be tolerated. They DESERVE to be tolerated because they are human beings and their lifestyle doesn't negatively impact you any more than a left-handed person's lifestyle would negatively impact the lives of right-handed people.

"Plus, while I believe same sex partners can make great parents, the ultimate ideal environment to raise a child in would be that of a man and woman"

I didn't realize you were a family psychologist. Please, show us your research on this. Surely you would would never confuse opinion with fact.

TSM

Anonymous said...

OK so my opinion for what little it is worth, is that homosexuality is psychological. I also don't think this is a conscious choice that you can control, I feel that it is either something you are precluded to, or you are not.

In the interest of disclosure:

Unlike Jackie, I find brunettes and particularly jet black hair and brown eyes with a distinct facial shape to get my motor running to the redline instantly.

Sometimes green eyes really does it for me too, don't really know why.

Examples: Rachael Leigh Cook
Katie Holmes
Robin Tunney
Halle Berry

also ... old school Jamie Gertz and Moira Kelly

Anyways, I suppose my point in all this is to say that I am not sure I could change my wiring as it were. If the day ever comes when a woman who wasn't wrapped up in her own bullshit happens to like my particular flavor of crazy, I could grow to love her, without her physical attributes matching my kryptonite... but it wouldn't be the same.

Also, despite all this, I certainly couldn't change it to prefer dudes.

My issue with the "gay rights movement" is again, like the racial issue, they already do have rights. They aren't going to throw you in fucking jail if you screw another man up the ass during consensual sex, or if two women get their filet-o-fish action in.

Not having rights would be if some legally appointed authority was implementing actual enforcement against homosexual relationships.

Not a word about DOMA from the taxpayer built suite seats because they knew it was bullshit when it was signed, they just didn't want to trample Billy's image because to the left a confession of an actual failure of more bureaucracy is a concession of failure of the entire liberal mindset.

The authority to grant marriage licenses lies with the state, not the federal government, and it is my belief that same-sex marriage will be universally accepted in this country within our lifetime because it harms absolutely nobody and the alternative makes absolutely no sense.

I agree with TSM that from a sheer population control standpoint it is logical to just allow these people to live their life without government hassle.

Just as a food for thought that leads into my closing gender rant eventually... Children have been found to demonstrate a higher base IQ and have the easiest time with accelerated learning programs not when their are two straight parents, or two of any parents... but when they were raised by a single FATHER. That's right, a single father can put you on the fast track to realizing intellectual potential... sit on it and spin 720 you feminazis.

Anonymous said...

It's late/early let the "their" slip past.

Oh the irony given the context of that paragraph.

Silverfiddle said...

@ TSM: The worlds population is 7 billion strong and set to double by 2050.

Set to double? Who says?

Populations are trending down, not up.

Micky said...

"I'm sorry, you what mate?"

I did not mention adoption as a "reason" why they should to be tolerated."

i never said you did

" They DESERVE to be tolerated because they are human beings and their lifestyle doesn't negatively impact you any more than a left-handed person's lifestyle would negatively impact the lives of right-handed people."

Yeah, so whats your point ?
Where did I imply they shouldnt be tolerated for any reason ?

But, I do believe tolerance is earned and not given out of idealism.
We dont tolerate people just because they're human.
By your logic child molesters should be tolerated because they're humans.


"I didn't realize you were a family psychologist. Please, show us your research on this. Surely you would would never confuse opinion with fact."

Are you a family psychologist ?


Look, it was a belief, an opinion based on natures selection and the fact that gender roles play an important part of child rearing.

Theres plenty of dysfunctional abusive hetero families, trust me, I know, I work with drunks and addicts in recovery.
More states and judges, child protective services opt for a household with both genders as foster parents than they do single men, women, or gay couples for a reason.

I'm not going to get into an exchange of studies that back one position or the other.
I already stated that I believe gays can make wonderful parents.
But only an idiot would argue that the male and female who created that child would not be the ideal parents.

Jack Camwell said...

"But only an idiot would argue that the male and female who created that child would not be the ideal parents."

I can make those sort of unsubstantiated statements, too.

Watch.

Only an idiot would argue something so subjective as an "ideal" family makeup.

What children need are strong, positive adult role-models who will love them and do their best to raise them to be well-adjusted, productive adults.

To me, THAT is the ideal parenting situation for kid, and two gay people can provide that just as much as a heterosexual couple.

And TSM was asking you to present facts to support your worldview. If you know that your opinion does not have any evidence to support its veracity, why even hold it as an opinion?

Micky said...

Look Jack, most everything folks say on blogs is considered opinion uless construed as fact.

Theres many things in life that are common sense and go without saying. But because vwe have idealistic weenies on agendas we still have to explain it to them.

Nature gave us men and women to create babies.
Therefor it only makes sense that those two who created that child are in most cases the ideal parents BECAUSE THEY ARE THE PARENTS !!!

"why even hold it as an opinion?"

Because I stated it as a "BELIEF".

"Plus, while I believe same sex partners can make great parents, the ultimate ideal environment to raise a child in would be that of a man and woman".

Just like I believe the crap they put biology students thru is stupid, that doesnt change the fact that it seems to be the best way of weeding out the best candidates.
I could bring all kinds of studies showing kids do better raised by hetero parents. And you could bring plenty of studies showing gays make just as good parents.
I've had this retarded debate many times and it wont change the fact that I see creation giving children male and female parents.
I also believe that its important for kids to learn from watching their parents just how men and women should interact in a loving caring relationship and the roles the two play in natures selection.
My dad taught me how to treat a woman, how to fish, hunt, defend myself and maintain my manly-hood in situations that could otherwise diminish me.
If I think someone is an idiot for not recognizing the superiority of a traditional family then frankly I dont know what to tell you.

""But only an idiot would argue that the male and female who created that child would not be the ideal parents."

A gay couple can give that child everything the biological parents can give that kid.
Accept the fact that they are in fact its real parents.
Theres a reason so many adopted kids go looking for their paternal parents later in life.

Must I present a slew of studies to explain that also ?

I'm not Jersy.
If I state an opinion then thats exactly what it is.
If I state something as fact, I prove it.

Micky said...

"Except", not "accept"... sorry

Jack Camwell said...

Again, your notion of "superior" is completely subjective. I was raised in a single-parent household by my mother. You would say that my situation was "inferior" to being raised by both my mom and my dad in one household, but honestly, it makes very little difference.

I turned out to be just fine despite my less than ideal situation, as did my brothers. The three of us are generally good people, we treat women well and we understand gender roles despite not having a father in the home 24/7.

Just as well, I know a few people who were adopted and have turned out to be very successful. When adopted kids go looking for their biological parents, it's usually out of a sense of sheer curiosity and just wanting to see the person that created them. It generally doesn't have to do with upbrining.

Let me pose this question again but in a slightly different way: what's the point of having a belief if you don't have evidence to support your worldview?

Usually, when someone says "well that's just my belief," what they are really saying is "that is the idea that FEELS right to me." And when presented with information that suggests that someone's belief may simply be a product of personal preference and inner feelings--and not objective truth outside of one's mind--we usually resort to the statement "well that's my belief."

So again, why would you want to "believe" in something when you know there is no evidence to support said belief?

Here is the truth. There is no evidence suggesting that children who are raised by two parents of the same-sex have, in some way, a greater potential to be psychologically damaged any more or less than children who are raised by two heterosexual parents.

Micky said...

Micky;

"I do have to get over myself a little, because I would try to create legislation banning men from kissing public."

Jack;

"I've long admitted to the big double standard that I have. While I find dude-on-dude action (as I like to call it) repulsive,"

Well then I guess its a good thing neither of us was raised by two homosexual men.

Doesnt sound like it would of been too ideal a situation...

does it Jack ?

Micky said...

"Just as well, I know a few people who were adopted and have turned out to be very successful. When adopted kids go looking for their biological parents, it's usually out of a sense of sheer curiosity and just wanting to see the person that created them. It generally doesn't have to do with upbrining."

Actually, the majority of the addicts I've worked with that came from foster or adoptive households wanted to know why their parents didnt want them or couldnt have them and suffered from rejection related anxieties.My genetic father divorced my mother when I was 3, and he fought vogorously for custody.

That was good to know and means very much to me til this day.

Micky said...

"Let me pose this question again but in a slightly different way: what's the point of having a belief if you don't have evidence to support your worldview?

I believe in God and I dont have to prove to anyone an existence I believe in.
And no one can prove to me he doesnt exist.

The exidence is self evident.

Everything around us works too damn well for their not to be some entity/deity with purpose in mind.

And mind you.
I'm much like you in the sense that I'm a christian fearing God man.

I'm no fan of organized collective religion and its mindless lemmings but do believe in God

Jack Camwell said...

"Well then I guess its a good thing neither of us was raised by two homosexual men."

My mom never told me that I'm supposed to like girls. I just do. Furthermore, I've never told my son that he's supposed to like girls. He just does. My daughter is too young to be interested in anything other than Spongebob and wearing pink dresses.

Also, how many gay men do you know that were raised by two gay men? I have a few gay friends, and they were all raised in perfectly "ideal" households (ideal by your standard of having two heterosexual parents living in the same house).

As for proving beliefs, God is a poor example because the existence of God can never be proved. The issue we're talking about here can be proved empirically, but as of now there is no evidence suggesting that your belief in the "ideal" family makeup holds any merit.

I appreciate your sentiment, and you're right: you don't have to prove jack shit to anyone. Every human being is free to believe whatever they so desire. But part of my purpose on this blog is to force people to prove what they believe. Unproven beliefs are fine and dandy if you don't express them, but once you make a truth-claim, it's pretty important that you have something objective to support your truth claim.

***Keep in mind that I do understand that you're not suggesting we curtail the rights of homosexuals to adopt. And I truly appreciate your relative civility in this discussion.***

Anonymous said...

Not one bite on what I threw out there then?

So, Mick I gotta ask a couple things... it seems like what you are suggesting is some of your beliefs you hold self-evident requiring no proof.

However, clearly you would have to base those beliefs on something yes?

We don't have to prove gravity "exists", we just have to prove that a concept like gravity is at work and we can reliably demonstrate that there is.

So... as a "deist" I suppose... I have to ask why not Zeus, Ra, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Djinns, and Joe Smith?


Jackie... only one question:

CB?

Micky said...

Yadda yadda.

Look Jack, you can spin, rationalize, moralize all you want.

No one is going to convince me that a heterosexual parenting is equal to or lesser than a gay couple raising a kid.

God is an excellent example of valid belief.
I believe God rocks as do traditional families and I dont have to prove either one to you.

BUT !!!

Until theres more evidence that gay parents are as ideal as traditional ones theres going to have to be just as many as the other to prove anything.
Until then I can only go with Adam and EVE....

not Adam and Steve

Micky said...

I was looking for sources backing the superiority of hetero parenting.

Its useless because you cant get objective studies.

Check this out...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/10/study-children-fare-better-traditional-mom-dad-fam/?page=all

Everyone wants something to substantiate my beleifs and opinion.
I can only go by what I know of natures natural selection, my faith (the two dont necessarily have to be fused) evolution, creationism...

they all point to more often than not to hetero family environments being the most conducive to successful child upbringings.

I have no doubt that single parents, gay parents can provide wonderful love filled households that raise well adjusted happy kids.

I hate to say this as some condescending bullshit, but I do have many gay friends, and they've agreed with me that a child raised in the traditional hetero male/female atmosphere is preferable for simple reasons of there being better chances of a child understanding the balance and function of women and men in a myriad of roles from parenting to society in general.

These questions might sound trivial in some sorts, but, even though sounding like some fabricated analogies, I think they make a very valid point.

If a baby is adopted at birth will it do better on formula or its own mothers breast milk ?

If the child of a gay couple wants a sister will it feel better connected/bonded knowing that sister was adopted from God knows where, or if that sister was of the same genetic and dna makeup ?

I found out at around 8 years old that the father who raised me was not my genetic father.
He was a wonderful man, God rest his soul.
But I still wondered at some point if he was not happy with me me, never mind children at all.
At a later age I did not seek him out just out of curiosity. I wanted, and needed to know if there was something about me that caused him to give up the fight for custody.
I found him, and found out that he saw my mother just as much a neurotic bitch as I did()when I got old enough to understand) and did not want me raised around the two of them fighting constantly. But Danish law dictated mom rules.

Lets ponder that before we diminish the real genetic parent and their effect on a growing child.

He made the right choice.
My adoptive father, who married my mom when I was three moved us to the states from Denmark...in the 15 years after that taught me how to treat and deal with a woman no matter how psychotic violent and full of shit she could be.

That parenting, as fucked up as it was (mostly on my moms part) taught me huge lessons in tolerance for a number of things ranging from basic chivalry to tolerating women at their most emotional and sensitive times.

Jack Camwell said...

No CB today. I have the kids.

The Smoking Man said...

Silverfiddle:

Set to double? Who says?

Populations are trending down, not up.


Population estimates are difficult and have changed a lot recently. Doubling by 2050 was a shocking estimate from not too long ago. Right now estimates are closer to 9-10 billion by 2050, which would mean that population is beginning to plateau, which is disturbing in a slightly different way. In any case, the population is still rising. My point was simply that we are in no danger of extinction due to lack of procreation. The situation is the exact opposite.

Micky:

i never said you did

That is exactly what you implied.

Yeah, so whats your point ?
Where did I imply they shouldnt be tolerated for any reason ?


You stated that there should be a better reason to tolerate homosexuals. You are the one who put it out on the table that a case needs to be made for why homosexuals should be tolerated, which implies that you believe they shouldn't by default.

But, I do believe tolerance is earned and not given out of idealism.
We dont tolerate people just because they're human.
By your logic child molesters should be tolerated because they're humans.


Are you seriously going to compare homosexuality to child molesters? One is a consensual act between two adults that doesn't affect anyone but themselves. The other is an act by an adult who is able to exploit the trust and naivety of a minor to do potentially irreparable psychological and in some cases physical injury to them. Your comparison is absolutely ludicrous.

Tolerance shouldn't have to be earned. A valid reason for intolerance should have to be proven. What you suggest is equivalent of guilty until proven innocent.

Are you a family psychologist?

It's irrelevant what I am. When you make an argument such as the one you made, the burden of proof lies with you to substantiate your argument, not with everyone else to disprove it.

More states and judges, child protective services opt for a household with both genders as foster parents than they do single men, women, or gay couples for a reason

You assume they have a valid reason, despite the fact that you cannot actually say what that reason is. You simply have your own hypothesis.

But only an idiot would argue that the male and female who created that child would not be the ideal parents.

I would have to disagree. This statement itself sounds more like the kind of thing an idiot would say. It's just more conjecture being passed off as truth.

TSM

Micky said...

Wha ?

That last post was submitted in hast.

In a nut hell, at a certain point in life I wondered if my real dad wanted me or not.

Micky said...

Yeah, sorry, but only an idiot thinks real parents arent the ideal parents.

You guys want to argue some bullshit against that you might as well argue that the sun comes up in the West depending on which way you're facing.
Adoption agenies almost always opt for the male female married couple before any other alternatives..

for reasons you guys cant seem to understand.

You sound like a bunch of liberals more interested in fairness than reality.

BTW, I never called anyone an idiot.
I only said you'd have to be one if...


The choices are yours.


" This statement itself sounds more like the kind of thing an idiot would say. It's just more conjecture being passed off as truth."

I could say the same thing about your shit

Micky said...

In addition, I submitted a link that gives sources to studies backing both positions.
So, I am as a matter of fact giving some reference to back why I hold the opinion I do.
Thats more than anyone disagreeing with me has had to offer

Jack Camwell said...

Yes, and you presented those links right after saying "it's useless because you can't get objective studies."

So which is it? Your evidence does back up your claim, or it's biased and pointless to the discussion? It's fine to have evidence and data, but not when it comes from a group of people with an agenda.

And don't try to hoodwink us by saying "oh I didn't directly call anyone an idiot." Shall I point out to you exactly how you did that? I'll spare you.

And this argument has absolutely NOTHING to do with fairness or being liberal or conservative. Is everyone who disagrees with you a liberal overly concerned with fairness rather than reality?

The reality is that you have zero credible evidence to back up your claim other than some gay friends of yours who agree with you. And unfortunately for you, the reality you claim to be concerned with eludes you because, as I said, there are plenty of children who have been raised by homosexual parents who came out alright and straight.

And since we're on the subject of reality, this whole article was about how anti-gay marriage people will say just about anything to "prove" that gay marriage is the end times.

They will right out defy what biology, psychology, and physiology tell us about human sexuality and make some silly claim that being attracted to the same sex is a choice. So of course they're going to conduct "studies" that show homosexual parents ruin their kids.

You're arguing from your heart, and that is rarely a good idea.

And one last thing: the reality is that for thousands of years, most children have been reared in two-parent households of heterosexual couples. This is a pretty fucked up world. So does the "ideal" parenting situation even really matter? Probably not.

Micky said...

"Yes, and you presented those links right after saying "it's useless because you can't get objective studies.""

Yes Jack, thats why I presented them, to show the lack of objectivity and also that there are studies backing each position.

So, now that weve established science cant be anymore objective about this than it is about global warming I guess were going to have to go by default of history and common sense.

Of course I guess since the common sense around here that traditional families are ideal is seriously lacking that leaves me pretty much fucked.

"So which is it? Your evidence does back up your claim, or it's biased and pointless to the discussion? It's fine to have evidence and data, but not when it comes from a group of people with an agenda."

Well, all I've got out of everyone here so far is their opinion based on...

1)
you being raised by a single parent.
Hardly a good example of a gay couple raising a kid.

2)
Numerous opinions that say theres no difference between traditional and gay child rearing.

"And don't try to hoodwink us by saying "oh I didn't directly call anyone an idiot." Shall I point out to you exactly how you did that? I'll spare you."


Yes Jack, I indirectly called people idiots.


"
And this argument has absolutely NOTHING to do with fairness or being liberal or conservative."

Thats a bunch of crap.
No one here seems to want to offer up any advantages that make anything better or worse.
Its all the same no matter which team actually performs better. In true liberal fashion "everyone gets a trophy"
To further the "liberal" notion, I'm getting the impression here that the traditional American family isnt worth a fuck to anyone, but me.

" Is everyone who disagrees with you a liberal overly concerned with fairness rather than reality?"

I love it when people claim their reality is the epitome of reality.

Your reality is an opinion that gays make just as good parents as a hetero male and female.

My reality is that gays cant produce thre breast milk that is the single most important aspect of raising a child.
The childs mother can feed it with no substitution or help from any one.
Lets see a gay couple trump that design.

"The reality is that you have zero credible evidence to back up your claim"


Yeah, that goes fior you too.

" other than some gay friends of yours who agree with you."

Your example of being raised by a single parent doesnt really address gay parenting.

And unfortunately for you, the reality you claim to be concerned with eludes you because, as I said, there are plenty of children who have been raised by homosexual parents who came out alright and straight."

And there are more kids who came out just fine from traditional couples for the last few million years.
Hetero parents can make kids.
Homosexual parents cant.

That makes hetero parents superior.

Micky said...


"And since we're on the subject of reality, this whole article was about how anti-gay marriage people will say just about anything to "prove" that gay marriage is the end times."


Yeah, I'm not of that position.
I've stated my feelings about gays being born the way they are and some of the more decent people I've met.

"They will right out defy what biology, psychology, and physiology tell us about human sexuality and make some silly claim that being attracted to the same sex is a choice. So of course they're going to conduct "studies" that show homosexual parents ruin their kids."

You're absolutely right.
But I'd like to think theres at least one study or shred of evidence that can back the fact that child protective services, foster placement services, and adoption agencies tend to look for households that have both gender roles present before they go with single or gay parents.
That may not make them right all the time but they're simply going by the evidence weve seen over the last few thousand years showing that traditional families work.

"You're arguing from your heart, and that is rarely a good idea."

Hardly, I'm arguing from a default concept.
If I had to remove all doubt, I'd go with traditional families.
Also a basic concept that for some reason seems alien to some here.

"Moms and Dads make better parents"

Never in my life did I think I'd get attacked for saying that.
Matter of fact, this is the only blog in 7 years thats argued with me for saying "I think traditional families are ideal"

And one last thing: the reality is that for thousands of years, most children have been reared in two-parent households of heterosexual couples. This is a pretty fucked up world. So does the "ideal" parenting situation even really matter? Probably not."


I guess were at a loss if I have to explain the value in preserving traditional households.
No offense, but you sound like the liberals who want to tear down traditional families so the government and anything but the real parents can raise their kids

Who needs daddy ?
Who needs mommy ?
Theres plenty of gays willing to adopt (actually, I wonderr just how many are actually willing to shop the orphanages, or want kids at all?)
And of course we all know that public schools are doing the best they can to strip traditional parenting of all its teeth.

Sorry Jack, you say you were raised very well by a single parent.
This seems to be true.

But still, its not ideal for you and I to of maybe grown up watching our two daddies kiss.
I imagine after seeing that a few times in my teens I'd of run away from home.
And in the ultimate situation when families had no more than a spear and a cave there was no other person on earth that could feed that baby other than its mother.
Its design by nature and selection by non monogamous animals that choose to be monogamous.

Whats the ratio of survival in hetero marriages compared to gay marriages ?

We dont know yet ?
Not enough gay marriages in the annals yet to make that study ?

Yup, its a fucked up world alright.
And loosing the value of a traditional household sure as hell wont make it any better.
------------------


"Are you a family psychologist?

It's irrelevant what I am. When you make an argument such as the one you made, the burden of proof lies with you to substantiate your argument, not with everyone else to disprove it."

No, what you are is very relevant.

If you're going to counter my argument then counter it !
And not detract like some liberal who asks what college I grad from or what qualifies my opinion.
I substantiated my argument.
The balls in your court and I dont care what credentials back your rebuttal.

Got it ?

Jack Camwell said...

"But still, its not ideal for you and I to of maybe grown up watching our two daddies kiss."

That is subjective, but at the same time, most kids aren't particularly thrilled to see mommy and daddy kiss. But if you truly believe that homosexuality is not immoral, then it really wouldn't matter what the kid sees, now would it?

"No one here seems to want to offer up any advantages that make anything better or worse."

You're right. That's what we've been saying literally the ENTIRE TIME. Right now, there is no empirical evidence suggesting that a homosexual parenting situation is any worse than a heterosexual situation in terms of how healthy the child turns out.

You admit that there is no evidence supporting either you or me, but there is still a huge difference in the points that you and I are arguing. Here's the logical basis for my argument:

Since there is no evidence suggesting that children of homosexual parents turn out to be pyschologically damaged, moreso than children of heterosexual parents, then it's **safer to assume** that a homosexual parenting situation is just as effective as a heterosexual parenting situation. The problem with your argument is that you are assuming that there is something wrong when there is no data to suggest that there is something wrong. That makes your assumption far more fantastical than mine. And the only reason you make that leap is because you find dude-on-dude action gross, and you're imagining that a child would see it that way as well.

THAT is objective. Until there is actual *real* evidence that a homosexual parenting situation actually damages the mental health of a child, then all we can do is assume that it's just as effective as a traditional family makeup.

By bringing up my single parent situation, my point was to show you that the notion of "ideal" is largely meaningless. The "ideal" is based on the subjective opinion of society. Considering 50% of marriages end in divorce, we can assume there are a lot of single-parent households. Just about everyone I know who grew up in a single-parent household turned out just fine, and so do most people.

This suggests that how a child turns out is largely based on the parenting style and the child's own unique psychology, not how many parents are in the home or what the sexual orientation of the parents is.

I don't know if you have kids or not, but as a parent I can tell you that all kids really want/need is someone in the home who lets them know that they are loved. I'm not accusing you of this, but the whole notion of "traditional family," and "ideal" is just a tool used by people who are uncomfortable with change and what they perceive as "abnormal."

Micky said...

"That is subjective, but at the same time, most kids aren't particularly thrilled to see mommy and daddy kiss. But if you truly believe that homosexuality is not immoral, then it really wouldn't matter what the kid sees, now would it?"

This is quite possibly the most intellectually dishonest conversation on earth.

This has nothing to do with morality.

It has to do with what would be the ideal household to raise a child in.

You assume most kids would want to know who their parents are out of curiosity.
Well Jack, curiosity is subjective as well.

My son, my daughter, my wife, are all raised in traditional families where they knew that they were planned, looked forward to, and wanted by their parents.
That is about the most homogenous loving feeling a kid can get and it aint going to happen with a kid who knows he was adopted and may never know why he was given up in the first place.

I work with addicts and junkies and can most assuredly tell you that the good part of them are the way they are because they grew up feeling rejected no matter who adopted or fostered them.

We like knowing our lineage, our ancestory, our relatives, the grounding effect of lessons handed down by generations, having our grandmas, uncles, aunts, grandpas, moms and dads that are all of the same blood line.
The majority of families in America are this way because we like them this way and no gay couple with all the love in their heart can ever replace that.

Seeing mom n dad kiss only reassured me that I was living in a secure home.
Knowing that we are each others blood and flesh obviously has meaning that seems to get past everyone here.
Really, I'm sorry.
Excuse the fuck out of me for assuming, opining, and believing that a traditional family with my real mother and father is somehow not any better than being raised by anyone else but them.

I never really said there was anything wrong with homosexual parenting, only that it had some perceived shortcomings.
I dont see homosexual parenting as wrong, but rather a wonderful thing for homeless kids.
I only stated that hetero parenting is ideal because its simply the way nature and God (if you want to bring him in to this) designed the whole deal.

I spend more time with damaged kids than most people, and more than likely more than anyone here.
I do interventions with and for family members, I go to the prisons, the hospitals, the shelters...

whenever someone in any of these places shows signs of wanting to sober up, clean up, straighten out, the staff calls me to come speak with them.
I've been doing this for almost 20 years and meet more people of broken or dysfunctional families than you can imagine.
Also, I'm glad your being raised by a single parent worked out well for you.
I've taken courses in parenting as protocol to what I do.
And while it may be true that the kids of single parent families that "you know" turned out fine theres still a huge difference between single parent homes, and homes that have both parents.
Kids raised around both their parents are likely to do much better than those that arent.
There are statistical facts to back this.
There are statistical facts that show kids from broken homes are much more likely to fail in a number of areas.

I support and applaud gays adopting.
But no one will ever change my mind that having your real parents or a hetero couple doing the parenting is not the ideal situation.

If I had to place my bets, with as much being relevant as possible, I'd always put my money on the traditional family first because its about the kids, the questions they ask themselves and how they'll perceive themselves.
Its not about changing the minds of an ignorant society

Micky said...

Anyway...

I do get passionate and combative in my arguments.
But all in all, its more important to me that I wish you a great 4th celebrating I know you love for all the right reasons.

Toss back a shot of Jack (Dniels) for me and have a most excellent day.

Micky said...

I'm loosing it.

Shoulda said;

But all in all, its more important to me that I wish you a great 4th celebrating "THE COUNTRY" I know you love for all the right reasons.