New York's Gay School

[DaBeeeenster]

Can you explain what you mean by the statement:

Is it because you've no-one to talk to about this?

[spikegifted]

In that question, I'm wondering if you're bored and no-one challenge you in an intellectural way.

[DaBeeeenster]

I was not bored, I was just curious to find out more about your position. I think I have a fairly good idea about it now.

You say you are "horrified by the social apparent acceptance of homosexuality". Dies this mean you find homosexuality unacceptable within society?

[spikegifted]

There are two different levels to my feelings on this. First on a personal level, I don’t really care if someone is gay, as long as they don’t bang on and on about it. I get on with people most of the time, gay or otherwise. While I have my opinion on certain things, I accept that we live in a free and open society and hence people have a freedom of choice.

On the other hand, I don’t believe in the concept of gay rights. Gay people should not get special treatment, much like left handed people don’t have special treatment over right handed people. Moreover, I’m appalled by the apparent indifference towards homosexuality. It is not a question of ‘morality’ because gay people can have good morals and straight people can be bad also. As I have repeated said, I’m against gay couple adopting children. Until someone can inform me that homosexual couples would not have long term effects on the psychological and social developments of children, I don’t think we should consider such activities.

At the same time, at a biological level, homosexuality in mammals is an unnatural concept.

[DaBeeeenster]

So am I right in saying that you think there is a possibility that a child being raised by gay parents might experience "long term effects on the psychological and social developments" and consequently this may have an effect on their own sexuality?

How can homosexuality be an unnatural concept when it occurs naturally? People dont take drugs or psychotherapy to alter their sexuality. Homosexuality occurs naturally both in humans and other mammals.

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
How can homosexuality be an unnatural concept when it occurs naturally? People dont take drugs or psychotherapy to alter their sexuality. Homosexuality occurs naturally both in humans and other mammals.

Please enlight me what which type of mammals conduct homosexual activities. If you can provide me with concrete example(s) of such observation, back up by scientific evidence, I'm willing to reconsider my position.

[DaBeeeenster]

http://www.dennis.floripa.com.br/homosexual.htm

[spikegifted]

Thanks for the link. I've been reading through the paper couple of times. I'll respond once I've digested it.

[Anders]

Spikegifted
“… also against homosexuals gaining treatment that is different from heterosexuals.”

If you believe this statement then why shouldn’t gay people be allowed to adopt? Preventing them from adopting treats them differently. In the end, when you look at prejudices like racism and homophobia they just don’t stand up to any sort of logic.

As far as I can see it seems to boil down to whether you feel there is anything wrong with homosexuality? I don’t, so I don’t have a problem with homosexual couples adopting. It appears to me Spikesifted, and please correct me if I’m wrong, but you do think homosexuality is wrong, and surely IMO that makes you homophobic, even if you have some gay friends.

[spikegifted]

Anders:

If you've bother to read my earlier posts, you'd have read the following:

"Until someone can inform me that homosexual couples would not have long term effects on the psychological and social developments of children, I don’t think we should consider such activities."

and

"Please enlight me what which type of mammals conduct homosexual activities. If you can provide me with concrete example(s) of such observation, back up by scientific evidence, I'm willing to reconsider my position."

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
http://www.dennis.floripa.com.br/homosexual.htm

Once again, thank you for the above link. It is a well researched piece of scientific writing and I believe the writer has done a good job.

While I feel it is a well-researched and a thoroughly analytical paper, there are some areas I would like to make my own observation:

- At a biological level, some humans, due to one reason or other during early stages of development, become ‘effeminated’. This is process appear to be scientifically sound and I fully accept that from this stage onwards, it is entirely possible that the ‘effeminated’ male can and will develop homosexual behavior. Such cases are part of the biological wheel of fortune and from a psychological and sociological points of view, these people are in effect ‘women trapped in men’s bodies’.

- The paper pointed out that homosexuality exists across a number of species of mammals including a large number of primate species. However, instead of arguing that homosexuality is evolutionally evitable in the human race, I would like to point out the following, which you’d no doubt agree:
* Homosexuality in mammals does not make those which part take this activity exclusively homosexual; rather, mammals practice homosexual relationship when they’re outside the mating seasons. During the mating seasons, mammals which practice homosexuality relationships will revert to heterosexual activities. This is distinct from one human form of homosexuality (see below) where the men/women will practice homosexuality exclusively. For those humans who don’t have mating partners, there’re other forms of relieve available.
* Of those mammals that practice homosexuality tend to enforce social order within the social group - domination, subversion, hierarchy, etc. Humans should have no such needs to impose social orders on each other.
* Some male animals use homosexuality as a tactic to gain access to females within a dominant male’s territory or even to destroy eggs fertilized by another male.
The biological evolution of human beings and social developments of human societies have advance to a stage where such behavior is not considered requirements.

- Of the four categories of homosexuality being generalized (‘gay-culture’, ‘effeminated’ men acting as female for heterosexual male, older men/younger men and premarital homosexual relationships), I find the first category repulsive, the second bearable and the last two understandable.

After reading the above mention paper, it has certainly opened my mind on the ‘evolutionary’ argument and the motivation towards homosexuality. However, I’m not prepared to accept that all forms of homosexuality are acceptable. I believe there are vital distinction between the different types of homosexuality and hence their level of acceptability in their given historical and cultural context. As you’d no doubt recognize, the one form that I find repulsive (‘gay-culture’) is predominantly Northern Europeans and their descendants and I believe is the one form that we’re discussing here in this thread. While homosexuality is observed in other mammals, I believe that the cultural and social developments in human beings have moved beyond these practices.

[DaBeeeenster]

The simple fact is:

Homosexuality is NOT unnatural. As proven, it occurs in the natural world both as part of the human species as well as a wide variety of other speicies. To say that homosexuality is unnatural is to tell a lie.

Given that homosexuality is natural, what is your problem with homosexual couples adopting (assuming they pass exactly the same stringent checks as heterosexual couples)?

Your statement that a child raised by a homosexual couple may incur "long term effects on the psychological and social developments of children" is making a (rather distasteful) correlation between the sexuality of the couple and the development of the child.

Are you trying to infer (without actually stating your position, for whatever reason) that the child might grow up to have homosexual desires?

My answer is simply: So what? There is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality.

[spikegifted]

Are you and I reading the same paper?

You're suggesting to others to read a piece of research and take it at face value without applying analysis of its findings and conclusions. That is completely against the spirit of science - science is a process of hypothesis, linkage, analysis and critique. Accepting any piece of science with blind faith is foolish. I read the evidence and I'm not disputing it; however, I'm not in complete agreement with the analysis and I don't agree with the conclusion. I've a brain and I've a resource of knowledge (or know people who do) - and I use them. After reading the paper, I actually discuss it with a friend of mine who's a zoologist, who I think knows a thing or two in this area and has seen this paper in another form, before writing my considered reply.

There are certain areas of the paper I'm happy to accept as they're evidence. On the other hand, the analysis is subjective and implication 'liberal' in application. Hence I cannot accept all of its conclusions.

After reading the paper, my statement regarding homosexuals being allowed to adopt children and my opposition against it still stands. As the paper has not address or provided any evidence to support the "gay-culture" category of homosexuality in the animal world. All the other three categories of homosexuality have been found in animals but not that one. I'm perfectly happy to accept these and have indicated in a reply above.

I cannot accept conclusions in any scientific area without supporting evidence and analysis. If you are reading the same paper as I have it is painfully obvious.

[DaBeeeenster]

You stated:

Please enlight me what which type of mammals conduct homosexual activities. If you can provide me with concrete example(s) of such observation, back up by scientific evidence, I'm willing to reconsider my position.

I have done just that. Are you suggesting that the "homosexual activities" that are mentioned in this paper do not actually occur? Are you saying the paper is lieing?

[spikegifted]

Yes, I have read the paper and it provided evidence to support three categories of homosexuality in found in human. I accept those as they are and I don't have a problem with that. However, the 4th type is not identified ("gay culture" which is "predominantly Northern Europeans and their descendants" and I believe it is the subject of our discussion). I cannot accept science without supporting evidence.

[DaBeeeenster]

We were discussing "homosexual activities". We were not discussing different types of homosexuality.

You asked me to provide you with "concrete example..of such observations (of homosexual activity)". I have done just that.

It seems to me that, although you said you would be "willing to reconsider your position" in actuality you have stuck to your bigotted view that homosexuality is "wrong".