PDA

View Full Version : Can't get married? Go to Disney World!


Dagobahn Eagle
04-12-2007, 11:51 AM
Families warned: Disney to allow gay marries within its parks (http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/04/families_warned_disney_to_allo.php)

I think this is a splendid move, unless it's an April Fool's joke, of course:p. What are your thoughts?

El Sitherino
04-12-2007, 12:24 PM
Not surprising. They have a flamboyant mouse for a mascot, plus Disney himself wasn't a stranger to man-love.

igyman
04-12-2007, 01:05 PM
As I am opposed to gay marriages as well as gay adoption, my thoughts on this are quite negative. I have already expressed my opinion on what homosexuality is in this thread (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=175274) and my opinion being what it is makes me consider it an illness of sorts and I think it needs to be treated, not encouraged.

Quist
04-12-2007, 01:37 PM
I think it's a step in the right direction. However, I don't really forsee that many gay couples rushing to get married under Disney's auspices, since the price tag for such affairs looks pretty steep. Weddings themselves are quite expensive in and of themselves, so I think that unless Disney lowers the price a bit, the only gay couples who will be able to take advantage of this opportunity will be ones that have money to throw around.

Achilles
04-12-2007, 02:36 PM
Not surprising. They have a flamboyant mouse for a mascot, plus Disney himself wasn't a stranger to man-love.LMAO

What are your thoughts? I think it's a brave, yet risky move on the part of Disney. I'd like to view this a sign of progress.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-12-2007, 04:06 PM
Homosexuality has several benefits for society: Homosexuality gives unwanted children loving homes.
Homosexuality does not contribute to overpopulation.
Homosexuals who have sex with each others won't end up needing abortions:p.Taking this into consideration, plus the fact that neither homosexuality nor same-sex marriage or child adoption has no measurable negative effect on society or those involved, I'm inclined to support the homosexuals all the way.

As for gay adoption, even if you apply Jae's arguments about gender roles and the need for the combined knowledge of representatives of two genders (see other thread), two males with no clue on menstruation and other female issues are still far, far better for a girl than living in an orphanage where she has to share her busy 'parents' with a whole pack of other children.

So acknowledging this, I support Disney all the way. If I support gay marriage, logically I also have to support Disney's move.

Samnmax221
04-12-2007, 04:23 PM
Well hopefully this is a sign that post-Eisner Disney is going to get itself back on track, now all they have to do is make some movies that don't suck.

Jae Onasi
04-12-2007, 04:39 PM
There are some negative effects to both those involved and society, and they get glossed over. Homosexuals are more likely to be involved in greater risk-taking behaviors in both drugs and sexual activities, at least in the US. I don't know if there's any relation to alcohol use and homosexual/heterosexual behaviors. Male-male physical relations have greater risk of causing colon/rectal problems in the...recipient(s), including very serious (but rare) problems like colon rupture and peritonitis. I can't link to the site because it's too graphic for this forum.

Let me clarify my parental stance--I'm not saying gay or single parents _can't_ be good parents. I said it is not the _ideal_, and that's very different. Single and gay parents have to be careful to give kids exposure to both genders--it's not built into their family structure like it is for a male/female relationship. I would say that gay/single parents are far better than abusive hetero parents.

Don't Norwegians have foster care? Here in the US the goal is to get the child and parent together, and if that's not possible, then get the child into foster care, and as a very last resort orphanages.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-12-2007, 04:51 PM
There are some negative effects to both those involved and society, and they get glossed over. Homosexuals are more likely to be involved in greater risk-taking behaviors in both drugs and sexual activities, at least in the US. I don't know if there's any relation to alcohol use and homosexual/heterosexual behaviors. Male-male physical relations have greater risk of causing colon/rectal problems in the...recipient(s), including very serious (but rare) problems like colon rupture and peritonitis. I can't link to the site because it's too graphic for this forum.Yes, homosexual sex is a risky activity, and I'm not sure if I condone it. But I don't believe that even that has much of an impact on society and economy.

Oh, and of course we've got foster care.

igyman
04-12-2007, 05:06 PM
Homosexuality gives unwanted children loving homes.
You make it sound like they are the only ones that are willing to adopt a child. There are just as much heterosexuals on who the quote above can be applied and, IMO, they'll always be a better choice for parents than homosexuals.
Homosexuality does not contribute to overpopulation.
This might come back to bite me in the form of a mod warning, but still - you're right, they don't contribute to overpopulation, they do just the opposite. I have also read and heard from multiple sources that they fall under the groups with a higher HIV infection probability, along with bisexuals (unfortunately I haven't been able to find a reliable web article about the matter).
Homosexuals who have sex with each others won't end up needing abortions
I know you meant this as a joke, but I really don't find it funny.

Now, I realize that what I said can be interpreted as some form of discrimination, but I assure you and everyone else that it's not. Homosexuals are people (and should never be treated as anything but people) and have almost all the same rights as the rest of us. As for gay adoption and marriage, I don't think they should be allowed because I don't think of homosexuality as a lifestyle, I think of it as unhealthy behavior and I base my opinion on many scientific facts.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-12-2007, 05:50 PM
You make it sound like they are the only ones that are willing to adopt a child. There are just as much heterosexuals on who the quote above can be applied.It's a simple matter of math. You've currently got only straight people adopting, and lots of kids wanting adoption. When homosexuals are allowed to adopt in addition to the heterosexuals, there'll be less children in orphanages - in other words, more happy children with loving parents.

IMO, they'll always be a better choice for parents than homosexuals.Even if that's true, having two loving homosexual step-parents is still better than living in an orphanage sharing the few overworked adults with many other children.

This might come back to bite me in the form of a mod warning, but still - you're right, they don't contribute to overpopulation, they do just the opposite.Which, in my eyes, is a good thing. There are too many unwanted children in need of homes in the world. The more of those we adopt, the more of them will grow up to live good lives and have kids on their own. Children rotting in orphanages, on the other hand, are more likely to lead less stable lives.

Jae Onasi
04-12-2007, 09:09 PM
My sister-in-law and her hubby are foster parents. They've had as many as 9 boys under their roof at one time and could probably fall under the category of small orphanage at that point. I guarantee you they love those children, take excellent care of them, and in fact have adopted 2 of them. There are currently childless straight parents on waiting lists for adoption, so there are no lack of adoptive parents. What there is a lack of is parents willing to adopt children of different races or those who have health/emotional problems (usually from being born to drug-addicted mothers). Since homosexuals represent around 5% of the population, I don't think we're going to get that much of a boost in adoptive parents.

As far as Disney and marriages--as long as people are discreet, gay or straight, I'm OK with it. What I don't want to see is people sucking out their tonsils (or even more explicit) in the middle of Cinderella's castle or other public areas.

SilentScope001
04-12-2007, 09:18 PM
One pro-homosexual website quotes a Disney representative as saying the company's decision to update its program guidelines to include "commitment ceremonies" is consistent with Disney's overall policy of "creating a welcoming, respectful, and inclusive environment" for its guests. "We are not in the business of making judgments about the lifestyles of our guests," said the Disney spokesman. "We are in the hospitality business and our parks and resorts are open to everyone."

There is a reason why homosexual people want to get married, and that is, to go and get tax breaks and ability to inherit each other's property without any legal tangles. If these marriages aren't treated with respect or recognized within the United States of America, then it really means nothing.

Homosexual people should get the right to marry, in that case. If they are a loving couple, then they should get tax breaks from the government. Marriage has, to me, been a secular affair, and I would prefer it to be renamed to "civil unions" to cement it. my church. :)]

I also read a viewpoint by gays arguing against gay marriage: It would basically turn gays into nothing more than hetrosexuals and that the gay subculture would be destroyed. Really interesting, and well, different. I never thought of the problems inherent in gay marriage.

lukeiamyourdad
04-12-2007, 11:00 PM
I have also read and heard from multiple sources that they fall under the groups with a higher HIV infection probability, along with bisexuals (unfortunately I haven't been able to find a reliable web article about the matter).

You,re actually right. But it's no different then if I went to Africa and had sex with people there. These probabilities are nothing but the current trend. If we can better prevent HIV infection, the numbers would go down and it would be marginally more or less then with heterosexual.

As for gay adoption and marriage, I don't think they should be allowed because I don't think of homosexuality as a lifestyle, I think of it as unhealthy behavior and I base my opinion on many scientific facts.

And those facts are?


There are some negative effects to both those involved and society, and they get glossed over. Homosexuals are more likely to be involved in greater risk-taking behaviors in both drugs and sexual activities, at least in the US.

For the guys, yes it is more risky, but what about the women? Lesbians do exist.

Drug taking, I believe is more related to various cases of depression. Being rejected by everyone, it can be quite hard to be gay I'm sure. I have no evidence to back this up so it's only speculation.



As for Disney doing gay marriages...well...cool I guess...

igyman
04-13-2007, 05:48 AM
And those facts are?
Even though no precise cause for homosexuality has been determined, the most probable one is that homosexuality is a hormonal disorder that can occur during puberty.
Estradiol, and testosterone, which is catalyzed by the enzyme 5α-reductase into dihydrotestosterone, act upon androgen receptors in the brain to masculinize it. If there are few androgen receptors (people with Androgen insensitivity syndrome) or too much androgen (females with Congenital adrenal hyperplasia) there can be physical and psychological effects. It has been suggested that both male and female homosexuality are results of variation in this process. In these studies lesbianism is typically linked with a higher amount of masculinization than is found in heterosexual females, though when dealing with male homosexuality there are results supporting both higher and lower degrees of masculinization than heterosexual males.

I have read that there were some controversies about this theory, mainly the ''people are born gay'' interpretation. This interpretation is wrong, since there are no scientific evidence to support it, but science has proven that hormonal disorders described in the theory can occur during puberty.

lukeiamyourdad
04-13-2007, 12:25 PM
So even if that was true it should be cured because...? I believe homosexuals who engage in homosexual activities are well aware of the dangers. So gays and lesbians have a hormonal disorder that causes no physical problem, only emotional and psychological ones due not to the hormonal disorder itself but by how others around them perceive them.

igyman
04-13-2007, 01:44 PM
So, you're saying that nothing's wrong with them, it's the rest of the world that's sick? If that is the case, I am inclined to disagree. When you ask ''Why should homosexuality be treated?'' it's just as if you asked ''Why should we treat people from depression?'' - if the disorder causes unhealthy emotional behavior, then it should be treated. Right?

Now, as for the dangers of HIV infection, you yourself have confirmed my knowings that homosexuals and bisexuals have a higher probability to be infected with HIV. I imagine that there is a good number of them that's aware of the dangers, but if the above is true, what do you think how many of them actually take precaution and use protection?

Achilles
04-13-2007, 02:03 PM
So, you're saying that nothing's wrong with them, it's the rest of the world that's sick? Why does one of these groups have to be "sick" in your scenario? This is a false dichotomy.

If that is the case, I am inclined to disagree. When you ask ''Why should homosexuality be treated?'' it's just as if you asked ''Why should we treat people from depression?'' - if the disorder causes unhealthy emotional behavior, then it should be treated. Right? As you state yourself, depression is a unhealthy disorder. As such, people should have treatment available. Even if we were to concede your point that homosexuality is a disorder, the argument that it is unhealthy is largely arguable (inherently, it is no more unhealthy than heterosexuality).

Now, as for the dangers of HIV infection, you yourself have confirmed my knowings that homosexuals and bisexuals have a higher probability to be infected with HIV. Yes, there are a higher number of reported cases of HIV/AIDS in the homosexual community. Do you have evidence that shows this is because they are more likely to have HIV/AIDS or would you be willing to consider that they might be more likely to check regularly for HIV/AIDS and therefore have their cases reported?

The point is that HIV/AIDS is not homosexual specific. Heterosexuals can get it too (and are arguably less likely to check regularly for infection). In other words, this argument is a red herring. HIV/AIDS has absolutely NOTHING to do with the morality/immorality of homosexuality.

I imagine that there is a good number of them that's aware of the dangers, but if the above is true, what do you think how many of them actually take precaution and use protection? How many heterosexual people are walking around infected right now that haven't been checked because they think HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease"? Let's head over the abstinence thread and talk about safe sex practices amongst heterosexuals. Or we can just concede that this line of reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and drop it.

Jae Onasi
04-14-2007, 12:33 AM
If marriage was soley a religious affair, then Jae wouldn't techincally be married, since she did not marry within my church. :)

I'm such a slut. ;P

igyman
04-14-2007, 12:19 PM
Why does one of these groups have to be "sick" in your scenario? This is a false dichotomy.

Why do people understand ''sick'' in a negative sense? If you get a cold it means you are sick. It's not your fault you got the cold, but you sure as hell won't leave it untreated.

the argument that it is unhealthy is largely arguable
I understand that homosexuality is a taboo topic and because of that it has mostly been branded as a choice, a lifestyle. I am saying that it isn't a choice, just like schizophrenia is not a choice (I admit my comparison is a little crude), it's an illness caused by that hormonal disorder and illnesses should be treated.
Can you honestly say that you see nothing wrong with two men or two women french-kissing, or having intercourse? Can you honestly say that you think it's healthy to be attracted to people of the same sex?

The point is that HIV/AIDS is not homosexual specific.
I never said that it was. What I said was that they and bisexuals fall under the group with a higher infection probability.

HIV/AIDS has absolutely NOTHING to do with the morality/immorality of homosexuality.

I never said that it did.

How many heterosexual people are walking around infected right now that haven't been checked because they think HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease"? Let's head over the abstinence thread and talk about safe sex practices amongst heterosexuals. Or we can just concede that this line of reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and drop it.

As we have determined, it is a fact that there is a higher probability of HIV infection when it comes to homosexuals. It isn't a fact because HIV/AIDS is a gay disease (because, as we all know, it isn't), it's a fact because it's a lot less healthy for a man to have sex with a man, than with a woman. Why is that? (I'm tagging this in a spoiler because it's a PG-13 forum)
Because they can have oral or anal sex and anal sex has been proven to be one of the best ways to get infected by HIV. This isn't to say that straight people don't have anal sex, they just have it a lot less than the homosexuals.

Do you have evidence that shows this is because they are more likely to have HIV/AIDS
Check the spoiler tagged text.

Achilles
04-14-2007, 01:19 PM
Why do people understand ''sick'' in a negative sense? If you get a cold it means you are sick. It's not your fault you got the cold, but you sure as hell won't leave it untreated. We can use the word in whatever context you'd like. This doesn't answer my question. Why does sexuality (homo- or hetero-) have to be an illness, as your earlier dichotomy proposes?

I understand that homosexuality is a taboo topic and because of that it has mostly been branded as a choice, a lifestyle. I am saying that it isn't a choice, just like schizophrenia is not a choice (I admit my comparison is a little crude), it's an illness caused by that hormonal disorder and illnesses should be treated.I agree that sexual orientation is not a choice, however there is no conclusive evidence to show that homosexuality is a disorder (it hasn't been considered a disorder since the 1970's) or an illness.

Can you honestly say that you see nothing wrong with two men or two women french-kissing, or having intercourse? Can you honestly say that you think it's healthy to be attracted to people of the same sex? I don't see how personal opinions have anything to do with the matter. There are lots of behaviors that I don't particularly care for, but rarely jump to the conclusion that someone has an illness when I see them. This statement further cements for me the idea that you have a personal problem with homosexuals and want to find evidence that supports your bias.

I never said that it was. What I said was that they and bisexuals fall under the group with a higher infection probability. Yes, but unless you can identify causation, your conclusion is false.

I never said that it did. Then please tell me where you are going with this.

As we have determined, it is a fact that there is a higher probability of HIV infection when it comes to homosexuals. There is no such fact.

It isn't a fact because HIV/AIDS is a gay disease (because, as we all know, it isn't), it's a fact because it's a lot less healthy for a man to have sex with a man, than with a woman. Why is that? (I'm tagging this in a spoiler because it's a PG-13 forum)<snip> The behaviors you referenced are not specific to homosexuals. Therefore your argument is false.

Check the spoiler tagged text. I did. That's not evidence for your argument. That's flawed supposition.

Thanks for your response.

igyman
04-14-2007, 03:32 PM
This statement further cements for me the idea that you have a personal problem with homosexuals and want to find evidence that supports your bias.
My main problem is that I can't find the words to express my opinion in a non-offensive and prejudice-lacking way. I'm really trying to approach this topic without prejudices and only with science-based opinions, but I am failing. Most of the things I say sound like they have been said by a racist, or something like that.

There is no such fact.
Ummm, what? Let me quote your earlier post in which you confirm it. (post #18)
Yes, there are a higher number of reported cases of HIV/AIDS in the homosexual community.

Also, lukeiamyourdad's quote in favor of my statement. (post #14)
You,re actually right.

This is why I really don't understand your sudden negation of a proven fact, not my personal opinion, fact - that there is a higher probability of a homosexual being infected with HIV than a heterosexual.

The behaviors you referenced are not specific to homosexuals.
And I have said so myself, as you probably noticed, but even though they are not specific to homosexuals, they are more often practiced by them than they are by heterosexuals and that alone increases the chance of infection. Pure logic.

Achilles
04-14-2007, 04:47 PM
Most of the things I say sound like they have been said by a racist, or something like that. The term is "homophobe" :D


Ummm, what? Let me quote your earlier post in which you confirm it. (post #18)
<snip>
Yes, it is a fact that highest percentage of reported cases come from homosexuals. No, it is not a fact that being a homosexual puts you at greater risk. See the difference?

This is why I really don't understand your sudden negation of a proven fact, not my personal opinion, fact - that there is a higher probability of a homosexual being infected with HIV than a heterosexual. I understand that this is how you're interpreting what you're reading, but the fact is your conclusion is not what the figures actually support.

Go back and read my first response to you. I'm not flip-flopping. I pointed out the methodological problem (which you've ignored) very clearly.

And I have said so myself, as you probably noticed, but even though they are not specific to homosexuals, they are more often practiced by them than they are by heterosexuals and that alone increases the chance of infection. Pure logic.Your "pure logic" completely ignores safe sex practices, therefore your conclusion is still pure supposition.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-14-2007, 05:02 PM
HIV/AIDS has absolutely NOTHING to do with the morality/immorality of homosexuality.Exactly. To strike an analogy, smoking makes you more likely to get cancer. Drinking excessive amounts of coke or coffee increases the chances of developing anxiety or sleep problems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Anxiety_and_sleep_disorders).

Am I mentally ill if I drink coke and live in Norway? Should the inhabitants of sub-arctic Northern Norway be evacuated and given psychiatric treatment? I don't think so.


I understand that homosexuality is a taboo topic and because of that it has mostly been branded as a choice, a lifestyle.First of all, no one who supports homosexuality want it to be a taboo topic. We want it to be a non-issue, like inter-racial dating. There's a difference, 'cause as soon as anything, be it psychiatry, grief, smoking, or homosexuality becomes a taboo subject, it gets flooded by stereotypes, misconceptions, irrational scrutiny, and so on.

Second of all, homosexual behaviour is a choice, but you hear the claim that your sexual orientation is a choice mostly from the anti-homosexual rights crowd.

Can you honestly say that you see nothing wrong with two men or two women french-kissing, or having intercourse?I'm sure you know that's utterly irrelevant. I think hot dogs are disgusting, yet I don't brand the people who eat it mentally ill. Likewise, in a lot of countries they are appalled at the very idea of eating cheese.

Back in certain African tribes, it was perfectly normal for a woman to walk around with her breasts bare. Kissing, however, was considered downright disgusting, probably as much, or more, than anal sex as considered by you. What's 'icky' is a matter of culture, taught to children as they grow up. It's not an instinct.

Can you honestly say that you think it's healthy to be attracted to people of the same sex?Yes.

lukeiamyourdad
04-14-2007, 07:23 PM
Also, lukeiamyourdad's quote in favor of my statement. (post #14)

It is true that there's more homosexuals who have HIV/AIDS but to properly quote me, you would have to add the other part:

But it's no different then if I went to Africa and had sex with people there.

Because Africa is the continent that is the most affected by AIDS. Asia also suffers a lot from it. Is anyone ready to claim that whole continents are populated by homosexuals?

There is no evidence pointing to homosexual sex being the culprit of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the Third World. There's a correlation between it and safe sex though.

igyman
04-15-2007, 06:03 PM
I have decided to make all of you very happy and lose interest in this topic. Why? Because while all of you have asked proof to my claims, you have never offered any proof to the contrary (just look at this long argument of ours over the HIV infection probability), you admit the possibility that homosexuality might be caused by a disorder, but you denounce the very concept of that kind of behavior being unhealthy. Now I have even been (indirectly) called a homophobe.
I'm going to end this with my opinion on that term. The term, in my opinion, is used on persons who have a negative position towards homosexuality, the reason for this negative position being irrelevant to the user of the term. Also, in my opinion, most people who call someone a homophobe do it so they can convince themselves that they are more tolerant (I am not accusing anyone here of being like that). I happen to think homosexuality is an illness caused by a hormonal disorder. I have not been raised to hate homosexuals, nor do I have any reason whatsoever to hate them. What I do hate is this position toward homosexuality - if you have a strongly negative attitude toward it, you must hate them, or not consider them people, or whatever, thus you are a homophobe.

Jae Onasi
04-15-2007, 06:29 PM
First of all, no one who supports homosexuality want it to be a taboo topic. We want it to be a non-issue, like inter-racial dating. There's a difference, 'cause as soon as anything, be it psychiatry, grief, smoking, or homosexuality becomes a taboo subject, it gets flooded by stereotypes, misconceptions, irrational scrutiny, and so on.
Child pornographers don't want their abuse of children to be a taboo subject, either.

Second of all, homosexual behaviour is a choice, but you hear the claim that your sexual orientation is a choice mostly from the anti-homosexual rights crowd.
I think there's a genetic tendency in a small percentage of the population (in spite of the fact no 'gay gene' has been found unless somethings come out pretty recently), but, that gene doesn't get turned on until something in the environment happens or someone decides to act on that tendency. I've noted a correlation--every gay person I've known (and I know a pretty fair number) has been abused as a child (nearly always sexually) and/or has had an abusive and later absentee father. The only friend I don't know either way is a friend who refuses to talk about anything in his childhood. I don't know if that's because my gay friends are far more open about their sexual histories tahn my straight friends or not. I have heard there are studies linking abusive male role models in a child's life and homosexuality, but it's been awhile since I heard that, and I'm unsure of the research in terms of quantity/quality.

I'm sure you know that's utterly irrelevant. I think hot dogs are disgusting, yet I don't brand the people who eat it mentally ill.Eating hot dogs, is, er, not the same as sexual behavior (keep your naughty thoughts to yourself. This could go so far down the gutter it's not funny. :D ). Eating for nourishment and your preference for specific foods has nothing to do with 'doin' the Wild Thang'. Eating Oscar Mayer wieners is also not going to give you STDs or cause pregnancy or sexual-related health issues.

Back in certain African tribes, it was perfectly normal for a woman to walk around with her breasts bare. Kissing, however, was considered downright disgusting, probably as much, or more, than anal sex as considered by you. What's 'icky' is a matter of culture, taught to children as they grow up. It's not an instinct.

Yes.

Neither of those things has a bearing on the health issues that male/male relations have. And sex has powerful drives--put a boy and a girl on a desert island, and they'll figure it out without too much trouble.

Achilles
04-15-2007, 06:55 PM
Child pornographers don't want their abuse of children to be a taboo subject, either. There is a objective argument for the immorality of child pornography. No such argument exists for homosexuality. If there is, please provide it.

I think there's a genetic tendency in a small percentage of the population (in spite of the fact no 'gay gene' has been found unless somethings come out pretty recently), but, that gene doesn't get turned on until something in the environment happens or someone decides to act on that tendency. I've noted a correlation--every gay person I've known (and I know a pretty fair number) has been abused as a child (nearly always sexually) and/or has had an abusive and later absentee father. The only friend I don't know either way is a friend who refuses to talk about anything in his childhood. I don't know if that's because my gay friends are far more open about their sexual histories tahn my straight friends or not. I have heard there are studies linking abusive male role models in a child's life and homosexuality, but it's been awhile since I heard that, and I'm unsure of the research in terms of quantity/quality. I would definitely be interested in reading any studies that you can find that support your position. FWIW, none of my gay friends were abused as children (I only have a few), but 99% of the promiscuous straight people that I know were.

Eating hot dogs, is, er, not the same as sexual behavior (keep your naughty thoughts to yourself. This could go so far down the gutter it's not funny. :D ). Eating for nourishment and your preference for specific foods has nothing to do with 'doin' the Wild Thang'. Eating Oscar Mayer wieners is also not going to give you STDs or cause pregnancy or sexual-related health issues. The topic was passing judgments on behaviors that we find disgusting. Your comment is a red herring.

Neither of those things has a bearing on the health issues that male/male relations have. And sex has powerful drives--put a boy and a girl on a desert island, and they'll figure it out without too much trouble....and this one was about social norms. Also a red herring.;)

Jae Onasi
04-16-2007, 12:16 AM
The topic was passing judgments on behaviors that we find disgusting. Your comment is a red herring.
...and this one was about social norms. Also a red herring.;)

I was pointing out a false analogy. :) Comparing a food dislike to a behavior dislike is comparing two entirely different things. How something affects our sense of taste has nothing to do with how we behave. You can't equate or even compare sensory input and activities.

I'll look at the studies--haven't heard much in awhile. My problem is I listen to radio news (living in between 2 major markets is great, and I'm able to pull in a couple different AM news stations (WGN, WBBM, among others). I remember it, but obviously I don't get a chance to write down sources while I'm driving. I'm not one of those women who drives while typing on the laptop, talking on a cell phone with the radio on, talking to my kids, drinking coffee, and driving with my knee so I can flip off the aggressive driver who cut me off. :D

Do you have any idea how long my research list is now? :xp: This should be relatively quick to do on Medline, though, for psych/soc. Wouldn't surprise me to see that promiscuous straights have also suffered abuse at a young age, but for whatever reason I haven't had as many conversations with promiscuous straights. I'm not sure if I'm blessed or cursed to have friends comfortable enough with me to share such intimate details of their lives.... :D

Speaking of studies, going off on a slight tangent since you mentioned it in another thread and I'm feeling too crappy tonight to go search--we're not limited to a 5 year window, particularly medical stuff. Landmark studies can be older than 5 years and be very relevant. The best studies on treatment of diabetic eye disease and the cause of cataracts (primarily UV radiation) came out about 10 years ago, but are still very relevant today, and drive a lot of our treatment modalities. The studies on which letters should be on the eye chart came out in the 40's and 50's, and we still use those same charts today because there really isn't a lot of stuff that's better that can be used easily and in 'real-life' practice.
Cutting this short to deal with a mod situation....

Dagobahn Eagle
04-16-2007, 11:17 AM
The hot dog analogy pointed out that you can't ban something because it disgusts you. I never said having gay sex and eating hot dogs were the same thing. As Achilles said, 'the topic was passing judgments on behaviors that we find disgusting. Your comment is a red herring.

There are good arguments against anal sexual intercourse. That it's disgusting in your eyes... is not one of them.

ET Warrior
04-25-2007, 06:06 PM
-every gay person I've known (and I know a pretty fair number) has been abused as a child Either you just got a really statistically surprising cross-section of gay people you've known, or your idea of "a pretty fair number" is a lot smaller than I would expect. I know at least two dozen people off the top of my head who are gay and were never abused, and actually had very supportive parents. I don't actually know a one who was abused, sexually or not.

Comparing a food dislike to a behavior dislike is comparing two entirely different things. How something affects our sense of taste has nothing to do with how we behave.Really? Then how about we compare my personal taste in footwear. Some people really like wearing fuzzy sweaters. They like how they feel. They make me itch all over, and I don't own a single one because I absolutely hate wearing them. Should I pass judgement on those who do wear fuzzy sweaters?

Perhaps people who like fuzzy sweaters are actually sick, and should be treated as such. We can probably cure the fuzzy sweater problem with just a little effort and research.

Or maybe that sounds ludicrous, because I'm talking about sweaters and not sex. We are VERY concerned with other peoples sexual behaviors, and anyone who acts in a way that is contrary to the hegemonic social norms is immediately looked at with suspicion and distrust. Perhaps some of you could enlighten me on why it is that you specifically think it's so important that we keep tabs on other people's sexual preferences and behaviors.

Jae Onasi
04-25-2007, 08:58 PM
The hot dog analogy pointed out that you can't ban something because it disgusts you. I never said having gay sex and eating hot dogs were the same thing. As Achilles said, 'the topic was passing judgments on behaviors that we find disgusting. Your comment is a red herring.

There are good arguments against anal sexual intercourse. That it's disgusting in your eyes... is not one of them.

If you were comparing 2 different sensory experiences that had no moral impact, then it would be a red herring. You're comparing 2 entirely different things. One has a moral implication, the other does not. Same with ET's sweater analogy. That's a sensory experience that has no bearing on mores, while sex does. Sex (and types thereof) does have an impact on morals and vice versa, whether you like it or not. I'm not sure we should just arbitrarily toss that out the window and say 'oh, sex is just a fun and pleasant activity, we don't need to worry about its impact on society anymore.' The sexual revolution (straight and gay) has had a profound impact on marriage, single-parent families, and poverty (single-mother households make up the greatest percentage of those in poverty). It's not just about what happens in the bedroom itself.

ET, you either found a small pocket of people who weren't abused, or they haven't been completely forthcoming with you about their experiences (likely the latter), because about a quarter of them are predicted to have been abused sexually as a child.

Some data on sexual abuse (especially as a child) and homosexuality:

The evidence indicates that a high percentage of homosexuals and pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children:

* The Archives of Sexual Behavior reports: "One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender." 70
* A study of 279 homosexual/bisexual men with AIDS and control patients discussed in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported: "More than half of both case and control patients reported a sexual act with a male by age 16 years, approximately 20 percent by age 10 years." 71
* Noted child sex abuse expert David Finkelhor found that "boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had had such an experience. . . . Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences." 72
* A study in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology found: "In the case of childhood sexual experiences prior to the age of fourteen, 40 percent (of the pedophile sample) reported that they had engaged 'very often' in sexual activity with an adult, with 28 percent stating that this type of activity had occurred 'sometimes'" 73
* A National Institute of Justice report states that "the odds that a childhood sexual abuse victim will be arrested as an adult for any sex crime is 4.7 times higher than for people . . . who experienced no victimization as children." 74
* A Child Abuse and Neglect study found that 59 percent of male child sex offenders had been "victim of contact sexual abuse as a child." 75

The Journal of Child Psychiatry noted that "there is a tendency among boy victims to recapitulate their own victimization, only this time with themselves in the role of perpetrator and someone else the victim." 76

70. Marie, E. Tomeo, et al., "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons," Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539.

71. Harry W. Haverkos, et al., "The Initiation of Male Homosexual Behavior," The Journal of the American Medical Association 262 (July 28, 1989): 501.

72. Watkins & Bentovim, p. 316.

73. Gary A. Sawle, Jon Kear-Colwell, "Adult Attachment Style and Pedophilia: A Developmental Perspective," International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45 (February 2001): 6.

74. Cathy Spatz Widom, "Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse Ė Later Criminal Consequences," Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse Series: NIJ Research in Brief, (March 1995): 1.

75. Elliott, p. 582.

76. Watkins, p. 319. Watkins mentions several studies confirming that between 19 percent and 61 percent of male sex abusers had previously been sexually abused themselves.

I've found similar articles for those who prefer later citations:

J Sex Res. 2004; 41(4):381-9 --26% of gay men reported child sexual abuse
J Child Sex Abus. 2005; 14(2):1-23 28% of gay men reported being abused sexually as a child
Child Abuse Negl. 2005; 29(3):285-90 22% of gay Latinos had been sexually abused before the age of 13 compared to 11% of non-Latino gay men (_before_ age 13!)

And that's the tip of the iceberg--I could quote numerous studies. Those that have been abused have higher percentages of high-risk behavior (multiple partners, unprotected relations, IV drug abuse) and higher risk of HIV/AIDS and other STDs. The cost of treatment and disability payments for those with HIV and other STDs has a significant impact on society

What is disturbing to me is the number of children who've been molested, and the number who've been molested at a very young age. If child sexual abuse is a contributor to homosexuality, then we need to evaluate that correlation and think about whether homosexuality is as an innocuous response as some claim. I can live with 2 consenting adults enjoying relations as long as they do it safely and keep it in their own bedrooms (and that goes for gay or straight--I don't like to see a man and a woman in each other's pants in public anymore than I like seeing 2 men or 2 women). However, we can't ignore the impact these decisions have on personal health and society as a whole, and the impact homosexuality may have in other areas of life.

ET Warrior
04-25-2007, 10:36 PM
One has a moral implication, the other does not. Pray tell, this was the exact crux of my argument. Personal choice in sexual behavior has no direct impact on a persons morals. A persons morals may have an impact on their sexuality, however. That is an important distinction to make. You cite marriage, single-parent families and poverty as having been hugely impacted by the sexual revolution, yet what kind of evidence is there that it was throwing off some of our Victorian attitudes towards sex that caused these changes? Maybe it was the Civil Rights movement, LBJ's Great Society, or JFK's emphasis on math and science in schools. Maybe it was increases in environmentalism or feminism. Maybe it's because the Ed Sullivan Show stopped airing. Perhaps it's fallout from the Vietnam War, or even the Watergate scandal. When all of these events happened around the same time as the sexual revolution, I'm not sure why that is immediately pegged as the culprit, aside from the result of some personal bias against promiscuity or homosexuality.

ET, you either found a small pocket of people who weren't abused, or they haven't been completely forthcoming with you about their experiences And you either found a small pocket of people who were all abused, or they were lying to you about their experiences? Because only 1/4 of the gay people you know are predicted to have been abused as a child.

Jae Onasi
04-26-2007, 12:50 AM
Pray tell, this was the exact crux of my argument. Personal choice in sexual behavior has no direct impact on a persons morals.
What kind of guy would you want your daughter to go out with--a guy who cares about her and respects her, or a guy whose quest to get into as many girls' pants as possible drives his moral code? How much more direct can you get than that? I can tell you my daughter will be taught to look for guys who have chosen restraint in their sexual behavior in developing their moral code.


A persons morals may have an impact on their sexuality, however.
May? They _do_, whether anyone likes it or not.
That is an important distinction to make.Sex and morals linked, morals and sex linked. Not much distinction.

You cite marriage, single-parent families and poverty as having been hugely impacted by the sexual revolution, yet what kind of evidence is there that it was throwing off some of our Victorian attitudes towards sex that caused these changes?
Marriage and child-bearing are no longer linked. Single-mother households have risen significantly since the mid-60's when it became more acceptable for men and women to have sex outside of marriage, and marriage rates have decreased. There are tremendous numbers of studies linking single-parent households and poverty.


Maybe it was the Civil Rights movement, LBJ's Great Society, or JFK's emphasis on math and science in schools. Maybe it was increases in environmentalism or feminism. Maybe it's because the Ed Sullivan Show stopped airing. Perhaps it's fallout from the Vietnam War, or even the Watergate scandal. When all of these events happened around the same time as the sexual revolution, I'm not sure why that is immediately pegged as the culprit, aside from the result of some personal bias against promiscuity or homosexuality. And how in the world are _any_ of these other things related? Ed Sullivan? Is this a humor attempt? Disrespect/disdain? Mocking? Something else?


And you either found a small pocket of people who were all abused, or they were lying to you about their experiences? Because only 1/4 of the gay people you know are predicted to have been abused as a child.

Or child sexual abuse is under-reported. The point is that child sexual abuse is significantly higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. It's a factor that needs to be investigated, if for no other reason than to find ways to protect children.

ET Warrior
04-26-2007, 06:47 AM
What kind of guy would you want your daughter to go out with--a guy who cares about her and respects her, or a guy whose quest to get into as many girls' pants as possible drives his moral code?
This example basically illustrates my point, actually. It is entirely possible for a person who is extremely promiscuous to still care for and respect women immensely, without that dictating some manner of moral decay. It's also possible for a man whose morals leave no room for respect for women to have sexual activities that are more or less the same.

The fact that I choose to engage in sexual intercourse with a high number of women does not affect my morals whatsoever. In fact, I would say in the transition from being fairly conservative towards sex (at one time a save it for marriage kind of guy) I have actually developed stronger, better morals.

Sex and morals linked, morals and sex linked. Not much distinction.They are LINKED, maybe. The distinction is that it is only a one-way causation. Sexual behavior does not cause a change in morals. The change in morals would have to come first. And I still see no real justification to prove that either one is absolutely linked to the other. It seems to me that, for example, a man who has no respect for women would seem likely to be willing to engage in one night stands and have a goal to sleep with as many as possible. It's also possible that a man who has no respect for women would choose not to sleep with any. Same moral stance, different behaviors.

In the end it seems that it would come down to personal preference in sexual behavior, making it on par with personal taste in food or fuzzy attire.

Marriage and child-bearing are no longer linked.Is that truly such a terrible thing? I know a decent number of non-married partners who are pretty swell parents.

And how in the world are _any_ of these other things related? Ed Sullivan? Is this a humor attempt? Disrespect/disdain? Mocking? Something else?Maybe a little bit of humor thrown into making the point that you glossed over in my post where I stated that all of these things happened at approximately the same time as the sexual revolution, so why aren't they potentially to blame for the woes that you have thrust upon those sexual deviants? Sure, there is possibly a logical leap you can make that links sexual liberty with those problems, but I'll bet if I looked into it I could see a reason why a stronger emphasis on math and science in schools was really to blame.

if for no other reason than to find ways to protect children.
While I am a strong advocate of not abusing children, this is a phrase that generally makes me nervous. The rallying cry of protecting our children has often been a tool utilized in the name of persecution against deviants (sexual deviants in particular).

Prime
04-26-2007, 11:49 AM
The point is that child sexual abuse is significantly higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. It's a factor that needs to be investigated, if for no other reason than to find ways to protect children.Then why not take it on a case by case basis? There are lots of heterosexual or single parant homes that would be worse places for them. If a homosexual home is determined to be loving and safe, why is it so imperative that that home be prevented from having a child? Should a family who owns guns (not that I'm an advocate) be prevented from adopting children? It could be argued that such a home could possibly be unsafe. From your argument, it sounds the same as saying, "since there is a possibility that a gun-owning home could be unsafe, let's ban every gun owner from having children whether they are really a threat or not." Or since blacks tend to be more likely to commit a crime in the US (not sure if that is true or not), all blacks should not be allowed to adopt children because they may be criminals.

Why does it have to be an all or none solution? Whether you feel this way or not, it does come across as trying to enforce your views on those who's lifestyle "you" disagree with.

tk102
04-26-2007, 01:08 PM
Marriage and child-bearing are no longer linked.
Is that truly such a terrible thing? I know a decent number of non-married partners who are pretty swell parents.
I think you missed Jae's point, ET. She didn't say anything about non-married couples raising children is somehow worse than married couples. Instead, the point was that single-parent households are generally more difficult environments to raise children due to lack of dedicated parenting time and less income. It seems fairly obvious that changing attitudes towards sexual activity and the importance of marriage have contributed to the increase in single-parent households over the past four decades.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-27-2007, 09:35 AM
If you were comparing 2 different sensory experiences that had no moral impact, then it would be a red herring. You're comparing 2 entirely different things. One has a moral implication, the other does not.Ask a vegetarian if there are no moral questions involved when it comes to meat-eating. Ask a person who has some insight into the horrific process of breeding, keeping, and slaughtering the animals if the hot dog industry has no moral impact.

It's irrelevant anyway, though. I made the analogy to show how the argument that 'gay is wrong 'coz it's icky!' is invalid. It has no bearing on anything. As you yourself said, there are far more important questions to be asked, such as 'does it cause harm'. I can't say 'wow, hot dogs are disgusting, they shouldn't be allowed' without taking flak (and I shouldn't be!), so anti-homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to go 'wow, men kissing freaks me out, they should keep to themselves!' without everyone pointing out that's not nearly a valid argument.

And Prime, you're absolutely right in your analogy. Good one.

Jae Onasi
05-01-2007, 11:56 AM
This example basically illustrates my point, actually. It is entirely possible for a person who is extremely promiscuous to still care for and respect women immensely, without that dictating some manner of moral decay.
How does promiscuity show respect for women? Can you truly respect a woman you only know for one night or just long enough to bed?

It's also possible for a man whose morals leave no room for respect for women to have sexual activities that are more or less the same.
Disrespect for fellow humans is also a moral issue.

The fact that I choose to engage in sexual intercourse with a high number of women does not affect my morals whatsoever. In fact, I would say in the transition from being fairly conservative towards sex (at one time a save it for marriage kind of guy) I have actually developed stronger, better morals.
OK, so assuming you really have had a high number of sexual encounters, it indeed has had an impact on your sexual morality. You might have developed stronger morals in other areas as the result of maturing in general, but your sexual morality has not improved.

Your actions are not affecting just yourself, but everyone you have physical relations with. Every single person you have relations with is exposed to whatever you've picked up from any other person you've had relations with, and you're exposed to every disease they've picked up along the way. Is it moral to expose your sex partner to everything you've been exposed to? Do you have that discussion with every single person you have sex with? My guess would be no, because a lot of women wouldn't want to hear that they're number 263. Is it moral to withhold information from your partner that would have a negative impact on her decision to have sex with you?

In addition, sex for women is about far more than the 10 minutes or whatever you spend in the actual physical activity. Emotional intimacy is very much tied to physical intimacy, and by not respecting a woman's need for that emotional intimacy (because you have no intention of committing to their emotional needs long term if you're just seeking many people to have sex with), you're not showing respect for their needs. You can be promiscuous all you want, but don't try to justify it as moral simply because you have high morals in other parts of your life. It's not.

They are LINKED, maybe. The distinction is that it is only a one-way causation. Sexual behavior does not cause a change in morals. The change in morals would have to come first.
Not necessarily. Changing sexual behavior can cause changes in morals in other areas--honesty in dealing with current/future partners for instance. How many people feel like they have to hide one girlfriend/boyfriend from another? Hide the fact that they have herpes or HIV? Hide the fact that they had STDs in the past? Hide the fact that they'd gotten someone pregnant or got pregnant themselves? Hide the fact from their spouse/long-term partner that they had an affair with someone else? Lying is just one change in morals that can come as a result of immoral sexual behavior. Immorality in this one area can lead to immoral behavior in other parts of life.

And I still see no real justification to prove that either one is absolutely linked to the other. It seems to me that, for example, a man who has no respect for women would seem likely to be willing to engage in one night stands and have a goal to sleep with as many as possible. It's also possible that a man who has no respect for women would choose not to sleep with any. Same moral stance, different behaviors.

And the promiscuous one would be showing his disrespect for women in an additional physical manner.


In the end it seems that it would come down to personal preference in sexual behavior, making it on par with personal taste in food or fuzzy attire.
Unless you're having sex with only yourself, your sexual behavior has an impact on others around you. That's very different from what you personally like to eat or wear, which has no direct impact on anyone else.

Is that truly such a terrible thing? I know a decent number of non-married partners who are pretty swell parents.
And they may well be if both parents are committed to their kids. I've seen plenty of divorced parents who did a good job raising kids, though they had challenges to face that married parents did not have to deal with.

However, poverty is much higher in single-parent households, especially single-mother households. Children of single-mother households have a higher incidence of negative behaviors and criminal activity as they mature. Girls who do not have a father active in their lives are more likely to be promiscuous at a much earlier age, putting them at greater risk for unwanted pregnancy and STDs, and they're at higher risk for becoming drug abusers. Boys have a greater risk of committing crimes and ending up in jail.

All of this has a huge cost monetarily and socially. We shouldn't be putting band-aid fixes on this, we should be researching and implementing programs that encourage parents to work together (and ideally get or stay married) to stay committed to their kids, working with men to step up to the plate to be responsible for their children, and protecting/implementing father's rights to be involved in their children's lives.

Maybe a little bit of humor thrown into making the point that you glossed over in my post where I stated that all of these things happened at approximately the same time as the sexual revolution, so why aren't they potentially to blame for the woes that you have thrust upon those sexual deviants? Sure, there is possibly a logical leap you can make that links sexual liberty with those problems, but I'll bet if I looked into it I could see a reason why a stronger emphasis on math and science in schools was really to blame.
I'd be fascinated to see a study showing increasing math and science emphasis in school had any sort of causal relationship whatsoever.


While I am a strong advocate of not abusing children, this is a phrase that generally makes me nervous. The rallying cry of protecting our children has often been a tool utilized in the name of persecution against deviants (sexual deviants in particular).
I didn't say persecute sexual deviants, and never will. If I had a child predator living next door to me I'd tell my kids never to interact with him, and I wouldn't like his presence because I'd view it as a threat to my children. However, I wouldn't go spray paint hate messages on his house or throw molotov cocktails through his front window, or even be mean to him.

The point is that child sexual abuse is significantly higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. It's a factor that needs to be investigated, if for no other reason than to find ways to protect children.Then why not take it on a case by case basis? There are lots of heterosexual or single parant homes that would be worse places for them. If a homosexual home is determined to be loving and safe, why is it so imperative that that home be prevented from having a child? Should a family who owns guns (not that I'm an advocate) be prevented from adopting children?
When I wrote that I wasn't remotely thinking of wholesale prevention of homosexual parenting, particularly since there are plenty of homosexuals who have had children of their own and do just fine. I'd also digressed onto some other thought by then (which I can't even remember now), but it does look more connected than it should have.

Homosexual parents do face the same issues a single-parent family faces--there's no one of the opposite gender in those families to serve as a gender role model to the kids, so they'll have to make special arrangements to include activities with good role models outside the home. Lesbian or single-mother families have to find activities that expose their kids to good male role models outside the home, and gay male couples and single fathers have to find good female role models for their kids to interact with. It's more work to make sure the child has both male and female role models with any family situation other than a _good_ married male/female couple (abusive male/female married couples are every bit as destructive as any other bad relationships). It's obviously not impossible, just more difficult.

We're moving so fast on the push for gay rights (and I'm _not_ for gay or single parent discrimination, let me make that clear) and assorted other alternative lifestyles that we're not stopping to consider all the ramifications--we haven't had _enough time_ to look at all the ramifications. I see a lot of discussion on how gay couples would love to be parents and how great it would be for them as adults to adopt, and there are indeed fantastic single/gay/etc parents. What I haven't seen very much of is a discussion at all on the effects on children and how to address that appropriately in order to benefit the _children_. We haven't asked some hard questions like 'can my lesbian relative who was molested by some male family members and now hates men truly be objective enough about men to be able to teach any children she might have about them appropriately? How does that affect her ability to raise a son? Or teach a daughter that there are good men in the world, or have an adequate relationship with a male outside the home so her children could develop healthy attitudes about both genders?' Or, 'how can we help those (gay or straight) who were abused as children get past that so they can be effective parents themselves and not repeat the cycle?" Since homosexuals have a higher incidence of having been physically/sexually abused as children, these are going to be particularly salient issues for them to work through in order to be good parents. If all can be worked out, fine, move on with all these different parenting groups. If there is a parental type that is harmful to children, then we should be working to moving way from that type and into supporting healthy family relationships.

ET Warrior
05-01-2007, 12:40 PM
How does promiscuity show respect for women? Can you truly respect a woman you only know for one night or just long enough to bed?How does it show disrespect? I think the main problem we have in seeing eye to eye on this issue is you levy a great deal of weight on sex and the meaning behind it, whereas I do not. And before you blame that on a misogynistic stance on sex, I can point you in the direction of several articles that have directly impacted my personal stance on sex that were written by women.

OK, so assuming you really have had a high number of sexual encounters, it indeed has had an impact on your sexual morality.Just as my choice in foodstuffs has had an impact on my...eating morality? Do we have a specific morality for all of the verbs in our vocabulary? Are the people who walk really slowly in the middle of the sidewalk in possession of poor walking morals? Why is sex so special as to get its own brand of morality?

Every single person you have relations with is exposed to whatever you've picked up from any other person you've had relations with, and you're exposed to every disease they've picked up along the way.Just like every person I walk past on the street is exposed to my cold I get every winter. And they aren't even knowingly exposing themselves to my diseases. Should we begin enforcing laws that regulate when and where we can walk if we're sick?

Is it moral to expose your sex partner to everything you've been exposed to? Do you have that discussion with every single person you have sex with? My guess would be noIs it moral to decide whether or not somebody's sex partners should or should not have the choice to decide for themselves what they want to be exposed to? And your guess would actually be a bit off the mark. I inform all of my sex partners that I have been involved with other women, and while I've never tested positive for anything I think it's only fair that they be informed.

Is it moral to withhold information from your partner that would have a negative impact on her decision to have sex with you?No, it isn't, which is why I am upfront about it, and if after I tell them that I have already slept with other people they ask me how many I will tell them.

In addition, sex for women is about far more than the 10 minutes or whatever you spend in the actual physical activity.Sex for some women. I think it's unfair to generalize and enforce hegemonic standards that aren't always correct.

the 10 minutesCome on Jae, give me SOME credit here :p

You can be promiscuous all you want, but try to justify it as moral simply because you have high morals in other parts of your life. It's not.Only because you are assuming that every single woman on the earth is interested in a deep emotional connection with every single man they choose to sleep with. Again, not actually true. Of course there are plenty of women who are like that, and in my past experience those are the ones who I actually ended up in somewhat lasting relationships with, because that was what we both wanted at the time. Again, part of my morality dictates that I make my one-night stand policy clear before things really begin. If that means I don't end up having sex, so be it.

Lying is just one change in morals that can come as a result of immoral sexual behavior.If someone is going to lie about their sexuality, they are going to do so because their morals were going to allow for them to lie in the first place. If not about sex, probably about something else. Having "immoral sex" does not make one suddenly decide that it's ok to start lying. And if you think of it as "immoral sex" in the first place then clearly your morals were already open to the idea of immorality in the first place. The sex acts themselves were not to blame.

And the promiscuous one would be showing his disrespect for women in an additional physical manner.Assuming that you accept that having sex with women is disrespectful.

Unless you're having sex with only yourself, your sexual behavior has an impact on others around you. That's very different from what you personally like to eat or wear, which has no direct impact on anyone else.It directly impacts the people who are cooking for you or buying you things to wear, in a similar manner to how sexual habits affect the people you are having sex with.
If my significant other were to offer to cook me a meal and ask if there was anything specific that I didn't like, and I said that I liked everything, but after they cooked a nice spaghetti dinner I told them I hate pasta and red sauce and refused to eat it I have directly impacted someone in a negative moral way.

And they may well be if both parents are committed to their kids. I've seen plenty of divorced parents who did a good job raising kids, though they had challenges to face that married parents did not have to deal with.Unmarried is not exactly the same as divorced, since divorced couples generally don't live together or get along terribly well.

Jae Onasi
05-01-2007, 05:56 PM
How does it show disrespect? I think the main problem we have in seeing eye to eye on this issue is you levy a great deal of weight on sex and the meaning behind it, whereas I do not. And before you blame that on a misogynistic stance on sex,
I don't call that misogynistic, I call it self-indulgent.

I can point you in the direction of several articles that have directly impacted my personal stance on sex that were written by women.
Humor mode on: Would those be 'Women want it every night with 18 partners' written by Sex-Bunny (published by Hefner Press) and 'Commitment is a Lie: We like one-night stands' by Dolly Pole Dancer (published by Vegas Department of Call-Girls)?
Try this:
The Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction (IEMSS) provides empirical support for the importance of relational context for women's sexual satisfaction.[13] On the basis of survey results, Lawrance and Byers concluded that sexual satisfaction is based on 4 factors: the balance of sexual rewards and costs in the relationship, how actual rewards and costs compare to the expected level, the perceived quality of sexual rewards and costs between partners, and relationship satisfaction.[13] Relationship satisfaction emerged as the most important contributor to sexual satisfaction. source (http://www.medscape.com/viewprogram/3437)

Just as my choice in foodstuffs has had an impact on my...eating morality? Do we have a specific morality for all of the verbs in our vocabulary? Are the people who walk really slowly in the middle of the sidewalk in possession of poor walking morals? Why is sex so special as to get its own brand of morality?
You can't get pregnant by eating or walking down the sidewalk. You can't pass on STDs to multiple partners by eating or driving or assorted other 'verbs'.

Just like every person I walk past on the street is exposed to my cold I get every winter. And they aren't even knowingly exposing themselves to my diseases. Should we begin enforcing laws that regulate when and where we can walk if we're sick?
Well, I would hope that you wouldn't be running around intentionally sneezing on people to make them sick. Yes, there are laws on the books that would regulate where we could go if there was a major virulent epidemic, and that would be done to minimize spread of the disease.

Is it moral to decide whether or not somebody's sex partners should or should not have the choice to decide for themselves what they want to be exposed to? And your guess would actually be a bit off the mark. I inform all of my sex partners that I have been involved with other women, and while I've never tested positive for anything I think it's only fair that they be informed.I'd be happy to be wrong about your giving full disclosure. You'd be the only promiscuous guy I know who's been 100% honest 100% of the time with 100% of his partners.

No, it isn't, which is why I am upfront about it, and if after I tell them that I have already slept with other people they ask me how many I will tell them. "I've been with a few women" is a lot different from "I've been with 263 women".

Sex for some women. I think it's unfair to generalize and enforce hegemonic standards that aren't always correct.
Sex for the vast majority of women (see quote above).

Come on Jae, give me SOME credit here :pHow else are you going to get to that 'high number'? :xp:


Only because you are assuming that every single woman on the earth is interested in a deep emotional connection with every single man they choose to sleep with. Again, not actually true. The vast majority of women want a committed relationship, not a one-night fling. The vast majority of people do not want increased risk of exposure to various STDs that comes with promiscuity. Further, promiscuity and loose sexual mores have a tremendous impact on medical and social costs for treating STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and decreasing marriages and increasing single-parent households.

Of course there are plenty of women who are like that, and in my past experience those are the ones who I actually ended up in somewhat lasting relationships with, because that was what we both wanted at the time.
'Somewhat lasting' sounds like a very lukewarm commitment.

Again, part of my morality dictates that I make my one-night stand policy clear before things really begin. If that means I don't end up having sex, so be it.I'm glad honesty is part of your moral lexicon. Assuming you were of course remotely interested and she was the appropriate age, I still wouldn't let you date my daughter.

If someone is going to lie about their sexuality, they are going to do so because their morals were going to allow for them to lie in the first place. If not about sex, probably about something else. Having "immoral sex" does not make one suddenly decide that it's ok to start lying. And if you think of it as "immoral sex" in the first place then clearly your morals were already open to the idea of immorality in the first place. The sex acts themselves were not to blame. Horse hockey. The world is littered with stories of people who were otherwise very honest, who made one immoral mistake and it snowballed into huge problems.

It directly impacts the people who are cooking for you or buying you things to wear, in a similar manner to how sexual habits affect the people you are having sex with.
If my significant other were to offer to cook me a meal and ask if there was anything specific that I didn't like, and I said that I liked everything, but after they cooked a nice spaghetti dinner I told them I hate pasta and red sauce and refused to eat it I have directly impacted someone in a negative moral way.
Sex involves (generally) two people. Are you doing something with your food or fuzzy slippers with someone else in a way that can affect society that I should know about? Never mind, I have a good imagination. :D

Unmarried is not exactly the same as divorced, since divorced couples generally don't live together or get along terribly well.
Substitute 'unmarried couples' for divorced in that sentence then.

ET Warrior
05-02-2007, 02:20 AM
I don't call that misogynistic, I call it self-indulgent.Perhaps, but is it so immoral for two people whose self-indulgences happen to coincide with each others and hurt nobody to act on their desires? That's really what the entire debate comes back to. People need to stop thinking that THEIR wants, and THEIR desires, and what THEY think is proper in regards to sexual behavior is the end of the debate. This is where the problem arises, when people want to impose their idea of "moral" sexual behavior.

You can't get pregnant by eating or walking down the sidewalk.You also are very unlikely to get run over by a car while having sex (I suppose depending on time and place...) but the odds aren't horrible if you're walking somewhere. We take an awful lot of different risks in different aspects of our lives. Some people are fine taking the risks inherent in jumping out of airplanes with only a piece of fabric between them and near certain death. Some people think that's just foolish. Doesn't mean we should start saying people who do or do not jump out of airplanes are more or less moral than their counterparts.

You can't pass on STDs to multiple partners by eating or driving or assorted other 'verbs'.Well, obviously those sexually transmitted infections will usually only be transmitted through sex. However, it's pretty easy to pass along strep throat, pink eye, the flu, cold sores, bubonic plague, etc. to someone who is sharing your dinner with you. STDs have a negative stigma associate with them because the word sex is in the title, when most STDs you come across are more easily cured than the common cold.

I'd be happy to be wrong about your giving full disclosure. You'd be the only promiscuous guy I know who's been 100% honest 100% of the time with 100% of his partners.Do you think maybe that's because there's such a negative social stigma against people who are very promiscuous? If we weren't so willing to think of the overly promiscuous as "immoral" or such methinks there would be more people willing to admit to their exploits.

"I've been with a few women" is a lot different from "I've been with 263 women".It seems to me that a "I just want you to know that I have had sex with other women before, and therefore have been potentially exposed to the whole array of associated problems, though I've never tested positive" should suffice. If she is genuinely curious she can inquire further. If she does not inquire further then she probably doesn't care to know, and that is her personal choice.

Sex for the vast majority of women (see quote above).Even if we want to generalize to the "vast majority", I have not come anywhere NEAR sleeping with the vast majority of women, so I'd say I'm pretty safe. ;)

How else are you going to get to that 'high number'?Have you not seen the pictures I've posted of myself? It's more work keeping the ladies OFF of me ;)

The vast majority of women want a committed relationship, not a one-night fling. The vast majority of people do not want increased risk of exposure to various STDs that comes with promiscuity.I would think the vast majority of people who CHOOSE to engage in promiscuous behavior would beg to differ. Again, you are projecting your own moral stance on sex onto everyone else. This is a CHOICE that is up to individuals, and if they choose to do so, that is their prerogative.

'Somewhat lasting' sounds like a very lukewarm commitment.Well I certainly never married any of them ;)

I'm glad honesty is part of your moral lexicon. Assuming you were of course remotely interested and she was the appropriate age, I still wouldn't let you date my daughter.And I certainly respect your motherly instincts. However, what will you do if your daughter chooses her own moral stance on sex after she goes off to college (or before). Are you going to try to impose your iron will upon her, or will you accept that she is a free-thinking human being and should be allowed to make her own choices?

Horse hockey. The world is littered with stories of people who were otherwise very honest, who made one immoral mistake and it snowballed into huge problems.I still don't buy it. I honestly do not believe if a person's moral conviction is such that they would not engage in immoral behavior, that some immoral act would happen without either first having a change in moral stance, or perhaps in a realization that their morals never were are rigid as they believed. Irregardless, I do not blame the acts that occur before, during, or after this "change" in morals.

Are you doing something with your food or fuzzy slippers with someone else in a way that can affect society that I should know about? Dinner is boring unless you bring a friend! :xp:

lukeiamyourdad
05-02-2007, 06:07 PM
I'd like to pop in and make a small comment about statistics and the chances for event X to happen.

We know STDs are more common among promiscuous people. Fact. However, we must be careful about one thing. I'll take false numbers to illustrate my point. 35% of promiscuous persons have an STD. Only 15% of those who are not have one. Does it mean that some individual who is promiscuous has more chances of getting and STD? Absolutely not. Why? It is impossible to predict the future. As such, you cannot properly transfer a statistic from a group to an individual.

Another example is black people living in a poor neighborhood. False numbers again. 65% have committed a crime of some sort. Does it mean that individual X, being black and living in that poor neighborhood has a 65% chance to commit a crime? Absolutely not.

The same thing about the supposed correlation between homosexuality and child abuse. Though in total, 1/4 homosexuals have been abused during their childhood, it simply does not mean that it's a static number and isn't inclined to change or that it means that when meeting a homosexual, this person has a 1 out of 4 chance of having been abused as a child. In fact, 1/4 seems like a very weak correlation, since it means that the vast majority of homosexuals have lead "normal" lives.



Another point that I found interesting was how a lot of people seem to blame the sexual revolution for all the problems in the world when it could be a lot of things. For example, feminism. I could start blaming feminism for the family problems of the 21st century. The wife, having a career, doesn't have as much time to spend on her family and as such tensions start to show up. The men, losing their role as the money-makers, have to share tasks with women, which gives them a kick right in the ego. Loss of well defined roles, loss of an order on which to fall upon, loss of stability.

I could also put the blame on longer life-spans. Before, when you lived 50-60 years, you spent maybe 20 to 30 years with one person. Now that the life-span in the developed world is going to reach the 80's and maybe the 90's in not so long, you have to spend 50 to 60 years with the same person. Monogamy for 60 years. Good luck.

zelda 41
05-02-2007, 08:44 PM
i think it's a good idea because i've got a few gay friends

i am opposed to people who call them bad names.

tk102
05-02-2007, 11:04 PM
What are your thoughts?
I'll probably still go to Disney World sometime. I'd like Mickey to sign my pirated Chinese copy of Windows Vista.

Jae Onasi
05-02-2007, 11:05 PM
Perhaps, but is it so immoral for two people whose self-indulgences happen to coincide with each others and hurt nobody to act on their desires? That's really what the entire debate comes back to. People need to stop thinking that THEIR wants, and THEIR desires, and what THEY think is proper in regards to sexual behavior is the end of the debate. This is where the problem arises, when people want to impose their idea of "moral" sexual behavior.
My chief beef was calling promiscuous behavior 'moral' when it isn't, but that got lost in the exchange back and forth, as fascinating as _that_ got. :D I'm not going to drive over to your house, grab you by the ear, and lock you up and give you testosterone blockers. However, as soon as two people who've enjoyed a night together go and share the lurv with others, it starts to become something that can have an impact on society, rather than individual, levels, and that's why it ends up being a moral issue.


You also are very unlikely to get run over by a car while having sex (I suppose depending on time and place...) but the odds aren't horrible if you're walking somewhere. We take an awful lot of different risks in different aspects of our lives. Some people are fine taking the risks inherent in jumping out of airplanes with only a piece of fabric between them and near certain death. Some people think that's just foolish. Doesn't mean we should start saying people who do or do not jump out of airplanes are more or less moral than their counterparts.
None of those involve getting together with someone and sharing fluids, germs, and babies.

Well, obviously those sexually transmitted infections will usually only be transmitted through sex. However, it's pretty easy to pass along strep throat, pink eye, the flu, cold sores, bubonic plague, etc. to someone who is sharing your dinner with you. STDs have a negative stigma associate with them because the word sex is in the title, when most STDs you come across are more easily cured than the common cold.

Herpes--controllable with anti-virals that have some side effects, not curable

HIV--deadly in some contexts, controllable in some other contexts, not curable, treatment involves a cocktail of antivirals that are expensive and have some side effects that can be significant, secondary bacterial infections require courses of antibiotics, some secondary infections can be deadly (e.g. pneumocystis pneumonia, fungal meningitis, encephalitis, etc), secondary cytomegalovirus frequently causes blindness, encephalopathy causes loss of brain/mental function, Kaposi's sarcoma requires chemotherapy to keep the cancer under control.

Human papillomavirus--not curable, directly linked with cervical cancer, which can require anywhere from a simple in-office procedure to remove all the way to complete hysterectomy and radiation/chemotherapy if the cancer is not caught in time and it spreads.

Syphillis--generally curable with a course of antibiotics--some strains are becoming antibiotic resistant, can be deadly in immunocompromised patients. Untreated leads to encephalopathy and sight loss.

Gonorrhea--generally curable with a course of antibiotics--some strains are becoming antibiotic resistant, can be spread to infants during birth resulting in life threatening infection.

Chlamydia--generally curable with a course of antibiotics, some strains becoming antibiotic resistant, can cause serious secondary eye infections.

Common cold--needs a couple days of rest and good hydration.

Bubonic plague? Cute. :) We get on average 10-15 cases/year in the US, and it's usually animal-borne via fleas.

Do you think maybe that's because there's such a negative social stigma against people who are very promiscuous? If we weren't so willing to think of the overly promiscuous as "immoral" or such methinks there would be more people willing to admit to their exploits.How about not doing the exploits in the first place? Then people wouldn't have the problem in the first place and they won't have to run around trying to cover up their mistakes and lying to people.


Even if we want to generalize to the "vast majority", I have not come anywhere NEAR sleeping with the vast majority of women, so I'd say I'm pretty safe. ;)
You're pretty safe in knowing that at least some of the women you may have had relations with really needed more than you were willing to give them emotionally in return for a romp in the bedroom.

Have you not seen the pictures I've posted of myself? It's more work keeping the ladies OFF of me ;)
Yeah. Jimbo's way cuter and is teh sexeh. :xp:


I would think the vast majority of people who CHOOSE to engage in promiscuous behavior would beg to differ. Again, you are projecting your own moral stance on sex onto everyone else. This is a CHOICE that is up to individuals, and if they choose to do so, that is their prerogative.
I'm not projecting anything on that--that's what the non-religious, moral-neutral study said, and there are others I'd have to copy links for you on. The fact that women are promiscuous doesn't erase those emotional needs--they deal with those in other ways, many times developing depression that you may never see since you're only there for 1 night at most.


And I certainly respect your motherly instincts. However, what will you do if your daughter chooses her own moral stance on sex after she goes off to college (or before). Are you going to try to impose your iron will upon her, or will you accept that she is a free-thinking human being and should be allowed to make her own choices?
Actually, Jimbo and I will sit down with both kids and have a series of age-appropriate discussions of what sex is, what we think is an appropriate attitude towards it, why we've developed the moral stance we have on it, discuss how one gets pregnant, how one catches diseases, how to prevent both, how to handle birth control appropriately, how to handle horny guys/gals and say 'no' or 'I'd like to wait', how to handle the 'if you really love me, you'd do it with me' manipulative argument, where to find 'nice men/women' (not at a bar, usually), and the fact that if they do end up having sex before marriage they need to take appropriate steps to protect themselves/their partners and that while we won't like it because of all the health/emotional ramifications, we still will love them and will help them any way they need.

I still don't buy it. I honestly do not believe if a person's moral conviction is such that they would not engage in immoral behavior, that some immoral act would happen without either first having a change in moral stance, or perhaps in a realization that their morals never were are rigid as they believed. Irregardless, I do not blame the acts that occur before, during, or after this "change" in morals.
Didn't you say a couple posts back that your moral stance on sex had changed? Why wouldn't it for others as well, especially at some watershed event in their lives? I've seen plenty of people who've made one single bad choice in their lives and it affected them greatly for a long time after.


Dinner is boring unless you bring a friend! :xp:Candlelight dinner with hubby ftw! :)

Monogamy for 60 years. Good luck.
Why is that so hard to believe? Jimbo and I are very happy even after 17 years, and it's only gotten better with time. Some things you can't learn until you've been with someone intimately for a long time. We're still learning new subtle things about each other and how to do an even better job of making each other happy. I've got filet mignon at home. Why would I want to go look at all the hamburger out there? :)

ET Warrior
05-03-2007, 01:37 AM
My chief beef was calling promiscuous behavior 'moral' when it isn't,Ah, well then we can certainly debate THAT one back and forth, and quite likely get nowhere because our morals are completely out of sync on that subject. I personally see nothing immoral about making the decision to be promiscuous with people who in turn have made that same decision. I never put any more pressure on my partners than a simple "Do you want to?"

None of those involve getting together with someone and sharing fluids, germs, and babies.I can think of a few strange risks that might involve exchanges of bodily fluids, but once again you are stigmatizing sexual risks just because it is sex. If my partner and I decided we wanted to go skydiving together and we both died, was that somehow less moral than had I done it by myself and died? Or do you accept that both of us made a conscious, rational decision to sky dive, and knew the risks associated with? And say we didn't die, but because my partner introduced me to skydiving I LOVED it I then asked all my future partners to do it with me, and eventually one of them died. Does that mean that involving partners with your skydiving interests is immoral?

Herpes, HIV, HPVThose were the ones that wouldn't be on my list of more easily cured than the common cold. HIV and HPV can be pretty risky, but even now they've got a vaccination for HPV, so it can be prevented, and Herpes, while not pleasant isn't really a show-stopper of a disease, and again, there are preventative measures and medications that can prevent the spread. and HIV, while very scary, is again something that can be prevented with a high likeliness by simply practicing safe sex.

All of the others, while you were keen to point out are perhaps beginning to show some resistant strains, are again no different from almost every other disease that is treated with antibiotics. That's just the nature of evolution. (Like how I pulled that thread into this one there? ;) )

Cute. :)I know, I hear that all the time. :xp:

and they won't have to run around trying to cover up their mistakes and lying to people.That's the problem though, is that they aren't 'mistakes', but we stigmatize them to the point where people feel like they are. If society put as strong a negative stigma on fuzzy slipper wearing as they do on promiscuity you can bet those bunny slippers would stay hidden under the bed when company comes over, even though there is nothing WRONG with wearing them.

You're pretty safe in knowing that at least some of the women you may have had relations with really needed more than you were willing to give them emotionally in return for a romp in the bedroom.Perhaps you are correct, perhaps you are not. Do you also feel that the man who decided crossing the interstate late at night dressed all in black has somehow been wronged when he gets hit by a car? Or perhaps he should have been aware of what he was getting into because we all know that cars drive on the interstate. I have never intentionally done anything to mislead women into thinking there was any relationship involved. (Unless there was a relationship, that does happen sometimes, you know :p )

Yeah. Jimbo's way cuter and is teh sexeh.No need to lie just because he might be reading this thread :D

they deal with those in other ways, many times developing depression that you may never see since you're only there for 1 night at most.That's again still not really a moral issue. Some people get really depressed by watching sad movies, but still choose to do so. Some people have nightmares and cannot sleep for days after horror movies, but still choose to watch them as well. People do a lot of things that might not be 100% emotionally healthy, but that's their right to do as free thinking people.

we still will love them and will help them any way they need.Much respect for that. Despite our general disagreements on anything and everything, I certainly do respect you as a person...or...E-persona if you will.

Didn't you say a couple posts back that your moral stance on sex had changed?Indeed I did, although it didn't change because of actions I'd taken. It changed because I actually started to analyze and think about my morals, and made decisions about how I wanted to live my life. And THEN the actions began ;)

I've got filet mignon at home. Why would I want to go look at all the hamburger out there? Because Hamburgers are delicious, and you can put guacamole and bacon on them. Fillet mignon is so overrated. :xp:

lukeiamyourdad
05-03-2007, 06:24 PM
Why is that so hard to believe? Jimbo and I are very happy even after 17 years, and it's only gotten better with time. Some things you can't learn until you've been with someone intimately for a long time. We're still learning new subtle things about each other and how to do an even better job of making each other happy. I've got filet mignon at home. Why would I want to go look at all the hamburger out there? :)


Because hamburgers are younger :xp:

No seriously, I'm not saying it's impossible for two persons to stay together for 60 years in a purely monogamous relationship, I'm only saying it's a lot harder.

Jae Onasi
05-08-2007, 03:25 PM
I personally see nothing immoral about making the decision to be promiscuous with people who in turn have made that same decision.
I know. :xp:

I can think of a few strange risks that might involve exchanges of bodily fluids, but once again you are stigmatizing sexual risks just because it is sex.

Not because it's sex itself, but because of the impact that particular activity has on society as a whole when used both appropriately and inappropriately. Good heavens, I don't think sex itself is bad when used in its intended way (making babies when people are ready for a family, bringing a husband and wife closer together physically and emotionally). It's supposed to be fun and feel good.
I think sharing contaminated needles for IV drug abuse isn't the most moral thing, either, though I think that falls into the more stupid category than anything else. If stabbing each other with toenail clippings had the potential to spread a bunch of diseases and cause someone to get pregnant, then the activity of stabbing multiple people with your toenail clippings would have moral implications.

If my partner and I decided we wanted to go skydiving together and we both died, was that somehow less moral than had I done it by myself and died? Or do you accept that both of us made a conscious, rational decision to sky dive, and knew the risks associated with? And say we didn't die, but because my partner introduced me to skydiving I LOVED it I then asked all my future partners to do it with me, and eventually one of them died. Does that mean that involving partners with your skydiving interests is immoral?
No, because you don't have the potential to give her a disease that way, get her pregnant, and there's not the same issue of emotional commitment when you skydive compared to when you make love with someone.

Those were the ones that wouldn't be on my list of more easily cured than the common cold. HIV and HPV can be pretty risky, but even now they've got a vaccination for HPV, so it can be prevented, and Herpes, while not pleasant isn't really a show-stopper of a disease, and again, there are preventative measures and medications that can prevent the spread. and HIV, while very scary, is again something that can be prevented with a high likeliness by simply practicing safe sex. All of the others, while you were keen to point out are perhaps beginning to show some resistant strains, are again no different from almost every other disease that is treated with antibiotics. That's just the nature of evolution. (Like how I pulled that thread into this one there? ;) )Hehe.
The HIV vaccine doesn't work at this time, but I'm hoping it gets better soon. And off on a tangent, the people refusing to get their 12 year old daughters vaccinated for fear that that might make them sexually active is just driving me up a wall. Yes, they're my evangelical brethren, and yes, they're being incredibly stupid about it. Intercourse is not the only way to get HPV.
My main point is that with a cold, you stay in bed a couple days (if you're lucky enough to be able to), and you get over it. With STDs, they all require care that is more expensive--visit to the doc, cultures and/or blood tests to determine if it is chlamydia/gonorrhea/syphilis etc., and antibiotics. Have you priced some antibiotics lately? Lab tests? The cost of missed days from work to see the doc? The cost to the public health department of contacting previous partners? The cost to people who don't realize they've been infected until it's in a much less treatable stage? Multiply that by lots of people, and it's very expensive for all of us that pay taxes and insurance.



I know, I hear that all the time. :xp: You can have cute. Jimbo's sexy. :D

That's the problem though, is that they aren't 'mistakes', but we stigmatize them to the point where people feel like they are. If society put as strong a negative stigma on fuzzy slipper wearing as they do on promiscuity you can bet those bunny slippers would stay hidden under the bed when company comes over, even though there is nothing WRONG with wearing them.
Fuzzy slippers, like skydiving, don't cause pregnancy and disease or have an emotional impact on your partner. Unless you're just doing something really kinky with fuzzy slippers. And no, I'm not going to elaborate on things that can be done with fuzzy slippers. :xp:

Perhaps you are correct, perhaps you are not. Do you also feel that the man who decided crossing the interstate late at night dressed all in black has somehow been wronged when he gets hit by a car? Or perhaps he should have been aware of what he was getting into because we all know that cars drive on the interstate. Not sure what this has to do with sex and morality, if anything.

I have never intentionally done anything to mislead women into thinking there was any relationship involved. (Unless there was a relationship, that does happen sometimes, you know :p )I don't know if you're the typical male. How many guys do you know have told their girlfriends 'if you loved me, you'd do it?' And then dropped them like a hot potato shortly after their 'conquest'? How many articles in men's magazines deal with the relationship aspect in regards to sex and how to deal with that (for good or ill)? Plenty.

No need to lie just because he might be reading this thread :DNo need to lie, cause it's truth. :D And believe me, being 'religious' does not mean one is required to be celibate. I'm very happy to exercise the prerogatives of marriage.

That's again still not really a moral issue. One person causing another pain is indeed a moral issue.

Much respect for that. Despite our general disagreements on anything and everything, I certainly do respect you as a person...or...E-persona if you will.
Oh, my. I don't disrespect you, either, just cause I don't agree on every issue. :) You're an adult, you have to make your choices just like I have to make mine.
Morals are the ideal to shoot for. Being human, we all make mistakes. I've screwed up and will do so in the future, though I try to minimize it. My kids have and will screw up. I want them to have a monogamous relationship because that's the healthiest for them and has the least risk for problems. I also understand just how strong the sex drive can be. Denying it and trying to cover it up with a religious rule just for the sake of the rule would be incredibly foolish. Pretending like everyone's a virgin on their marriage night is also foolish.

Indeed I did, although it didn't change because of actions I'd taken. It changed because I actually started to analyze and think about my morals, and made decisions about how I wanted to live my life. And THEN the actions began ;) *ET read Playboy, liked the articles, and found a girl to kiss.*


Because Hamburgers are delicious, and you can put guacamole and bacon on them. Fillet mignon is so overrated. :xp:
Because hamburgers are younger
You people do not understand the concept of the delicacy of aged beef 'cause you've never had it. :xp: Trust me, when you've been with someone 15+ years, you'll say to yourself 'Hey, Jae might be onto something with that experience thing'. Likely you'll be too busy to waste time thinking that. ;P

@LIAYD--it's not hard to stay monogamous--it's just a conscious decision not to put myself into a position where violating that becomes an issue. I could, if I wanted, break the promise I made to Jimbo--my history group, while great fun, has plenty of people who are pretty loose in their morals (open marriages, you name it), and I could find a number of guys to have an enjoyable night with. However, I don't do things that could compromise myself--I don't get drunk and lower my inhibitions, and then hang around the campfire in scanty clothes or a belly-dancing outfit, for instance. I will say that they're very good about respecting my decision to be monogamous when they've flirted....

SirHaxALot
05-08-2007, 03:43 PM
I've seen too many of these arguments before XD

I support homosexuality.

"That man is prudent who neither hopes nor fears anything from the uncertain events of the future."

The future of homosexuality--I guess I'll just sit back--observe, and vote when I am needed.

Achilles
05-16-2007, 07:35 PM
I was pointing out a false analogy. :) Comparing a food dislike to a behavior dislike is comparing two entirely different things. How something affects our sense of taste has nothing to do with how we behave. You can't equate or even compare sensory input and activities. All analogies are false analogies. Accepting that we can then move on to "good analogies" and "poor analogies". I continue to submit that the hot dog analogy was a good one.

Speaking of studies, going off on a slight tangent since you mentioned it in another thread and I'm feeling too crappy tonight to go search--we're not limited to a 5 year window, particularly medical stuff. Landmark studies can be older than 5 years and be very relevant. The best studies on treatment of diabetic eye disease and the cause of cataracts (primarily UV radiation) came out about 10 years ago, but are still very relevant today, and drive a lot of our treatment modalities.This might be a difference in industries then. Interestingly, one would think that the medical field would be more rigorous about using current sources than business/management, but I suppose there are factors at play that I'm not aware of.

If you were comparing 2 different sensory experiences that had no moral impact, then it would be a red herring. You're comparing 2 entirely different things. One has a moral implication, the other does not. Same with ET's sweater analogy. That's the thing, Jae - neither one has a moral impact. You think that one of them does, but it doesn't. That the foundation of my argument (as well as the arguments of other, though I'm hesitant to speak for them). It's not a red herring because they are equitable in the context being used. You would need to provide evidence that homosexuality was immoral for your argument to stand, thereby making the comment a red herring.

I'm glad you posted that, as I think it will help to illuminate the true cause of the divide in our arguments :)

That's a sensory experience that has no bearing on mores, while sex does. Sex (and types thereof) does have an impact on morals and vice versa, whether you like it or not. This seems to put the cart before the horse. Common disgust of homosexuals (mores) make homosexual sex immoral (morals). I understand the progression but I don't agree that this has a strong logical foundation.

Let me try this: Should morals be based on logic? Do you think it's possible to have morals that are illogical?

My argument is that just because it's consider by some to be immoral, because of their mores/norms, does not mean that it truely is.

I'm not sure we should just arbitrarily toss that out the window and say 'oh, sex is just a fun and pleasant activity, we don't need to worry about its impact on society anymore.' The sexual revolution (straight and gay) has had a profound impact on marriage, single-parent families, and poverty (single-mother households make up the greatest percentage of those in poverty). It's not just about what happens in the bedroom itself. If you're implying a causal relationship, I'm going to have to ask for a source. FWIW, I certainly think that the sexual revolution was a contributing factor, but I don't think it was the sole cause. Women had been fed up of being 2nd class citizens for more than 100 years. If the sexual revolution helped to spring-board equitable treatment, then I'm all for it. The long term benefits will (hopefully) greatly outweigh the short-term problems that came out of the backlash. All social change happens on a pendulum.

I don't think anyone is advocating that we revert back to "free love". I do think that many people would say that many people (especially here) are entirely too stuffy about the subject.

Some data on sexual abuse (especially as a child) and homosexuality:
I've found similar articles for those who prefer later citations:

<snip for space>

And that's the tip of the iceberg--I could quote numerous studies. Those that have been abused have higher percentages of high-risk behavior (multiple partners, unprotected relations, IV drug abuse) and higher risk of HIV/AIDS and other STDs. The cost of treatment and disability payments for those with HIV and other STDs has a significant impact on society Thanks for the leg work, Jae. Unfortunately, I don't see anything here that doesn't mirror sexual abuse stats for promiscuous women. Could it be that abuse (and specifically sexual abuse) lead to unhealthy behaviors and that homosexuality/heterosexuality aren't even at issue? I would sumbit that this is the case.

These studies are very interesting but there still isn't a strong case for a causal relationship. I would tell you that I'm sorry for being such a stickler about this, but that would be insincere :)

What is disturbing to me is the number of children who've been molested, and the number who've been molested at a very young age. If child sexual abuse is a contributor to homosexuality, then we need to evaluate that correlation and think about whether homosexuality is as an innocuous response as some claim. First, I think we should be taking steps to wipe out child molestation regardless of whether or not it contributes to homosexuality. Second, even if we could build a causal relationship between molestation and some cases of homosexuality, we cannot speak about the nature of all homosexuals. What your references don't talk about is how those numbers compare to straight men and women that are victims of sexual abuse. At the end of the day, all those sources show is that some homosexual people were sexually abused as children. Guess what? So have some heterosexual people ;)

I can live with 2 consenting adults enjoying relations as long as they do it safely and keep it in their own bedrooms (and that goes for gay or straight--I don't like to see a man and a woman in each other's pants in public anymore than I like seeing 2 men or 2 women). However, we can't ignore the impact these decisions have on personal health and society as a whole, and the impact homosexuality may have in other areas of life. What impacts would those be?

What kind of guy would you want your daughter to go out with--a guy who cares about her and respects her, or a guy whose quest to get into as many girls' pants as possible drives his moral code? How much more direct can you get than that? I can tell you my daughter will be taught to look for guys who have chosen restraint in their sexual behavior in developing their moral code. If I may, who here as advocated that taking advantage of as many hot chicks as possible is moral behavior? I would submit that any time someone is cohersed into something, then something immoral has happened (as supported by Kant). I think there's a huge difference between wanton promescuity and healthy sexual behavior.


May? They _do_, whether anyone likes it or not.
Sex and morals linked, morals and sex linked. Not much distinction. I think ET's point is that homosexual people are inherently just as moral as heterosexual people. Whether people from either group decide to behave ethically is up to them (by morally, I do not mean "heterosexually"). My apologies to ET if I'm mischaracterizing his point.

Marriage and child-bearing are no longer linked. Single-mother households have risen significantly since the mid-60's when it became more acceptable for men and women to have sex outside of marriage, and marriage rates have decreased. There are tremendous numbers of studies linking single-parent households and poverty. I'm sorry but so what? Society is better off if women recognize their role as housekeeper/babymaker?

"Whoops, married the wrong guy? Started out great, but come to find out he has a drinking problem and likes to rough you up a little you say? Ah, that's too bad - hey listen, what I'm gonna need ya to do is take one for the team and stay married to him for the rest of your life. I know it sucks, but hey, a promise is a promise and what is your peace of mind compared to upholding societies expectations?"

Feel free to replace "drinking problem/roughing up" with any of the myriad of reasons that marriages fail. Again, you imply that there is a direct causal relationship between the sexual revolution and today's social conditions.

And how in the world are _any_ of these other things related? Ed Sullivan? Is this a humor attempt? Disrespect/disdain? Mocking? Something else? I think he's simply trying to point out there are dozens of other factors that may or may not have contributed to the social pressures that brought about the changes you've mentioned. In other words, it seems as though he trying to show that there isn't a causal relationship.

Or child sexual abuse is under-reported. The point is that child sexual abuse is significantly higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. Could you please help me understand how the second sentence is true in light of the first sentence?

How does promiscuity show respect for women? Can you truly respect a woman you only know for one night or just long enough to bed? If the one night stand is consensual, how is it disrespectful? It may not necessarily jive with what I think is proper, but that doesn't make it immoral or inherently disrespectful. Waking up the next morning and saying, "Wow, biotch, that was good. Now get in that kitchen and make me some eggs", is another thing entirely.

Disrespect for fellow humans is also a moral issue. Indeed it is, but you need to build a case for how a one night stand (or serial monogomy) is disrespectful.

OK, so assuming you really have had a high number of sexual encounters, it indeed has had an impact on your sexual morality. You might have developed stronger morals in other areas as the result of maturing in general, but your sexual morality has not improved. First, by who's standards. Second, on who's authority is your assumption correct?

Your actions are not affecting just yourself, but everyone you have physical relations with. Every single person you have relations with is exposed to whatever you've picked up from any other person you've had relations with, and you're exposed to every disease they've picked up along the way. Is it moral to expose your sex partner to everything you've been exposed to? Do you have that discussion with every single person you have sex with? My guess would be no, because a lot of women wouldn't want to hear that they're number 263. Is it moral to withhold information from your partner that would have a negative impact on her decision to have sex with you? I sense an "importance of comphrehensive sexual education" rant coming on :)

In addition, sex for women is about far more than the 10 minutes or whatever you spend in the actual physical activity. Emotional intimacy is very much tied to physical intimacy, and by not respecting a woman's need for that emotional intimacy (because you have no intention of committing to their emotional needs long term if you're just seeking many people to have sex with), you're not showing respect for their needs. You can be promiscuous all you want, but don't try to justify it as moral simply because you have high morals in other parts of your life. It's not. Most of this is based on assumption. Yes, this is true for some women...just as it is true for some men. What it is not true for is all women. It's unfair to categorize all people, put them in a box, and expect them all to conform to whatever "rule" have been assigned to it. Again, so long as the act is consensual, I don't see where we should seek to judge (that includes freaky stuff that your friends tell you about).

Not necessarily. Changing sexual behavior can cause changes in morals in other areas--honesty in dealing with current/future partners for instance. How many people feel like they have to hide one girlfriend/boyfriend from another? Hide the fact that they have herpes or HIV? Hide the fact that they had STDs in the past? Hide the fact that they'd gotten someone pregnant or got pregnant themselves? Hide the fact from their spouse/long-term partner that they had an affair with someone else? Lying is just one change in morals that can come as a result of immoral sexual behavior. Immorality in this one area can lead to immoral behavior in other parts of life. I think honesty/integrity has a little bit broader scope than "sexual behavior". The behaviors you're showcasing are those of someone who is generally dishonest. It's hard to tie that dishonesty back to sexual behavior rather than the opposite.

Unless you're having sex with only yourself, your sexual behavior has an impact on others around you. That's very different from what you personally like to eat or wear, which has no direct impact on anyone else. Key work: Consensual. Sexual behavior only has an impact on those around you if the sex is cohersed or unprotected.

And they may well be if both parents are committed to their kids. I've seen plenty of divorced parents who did a good job raising kids, though they had challenges to face that married parents did not have to deal with. Indeed. There are advantages and disadvantages to both cases.

However, poverty is much higher in single-parent households, especially single-mother households. Children of single-mother households have a higher incidence of negative behaviors and criminal activity as they mature. Girls who do not have a father active in their lives are more likely to be promiscuous at a much earlier age, putting them at greater risk for unwanted pregnancy and STDs, and they're at higher risk for becoming drug abusers. Boys have a greater risk of committing crimes and ending up in jail. While I would tend to generally agree with most of these statements, I think there are a lot of details left out. If the assumption is that these negative behaviors are directly causal with single-mother households, then I think more support is needed.

All of this has a huge cost monetarily and socially. We shouldn't be putting band-aid fixes on this, we should be researching and implementing programs that encourage parents to work together (and ideally get or stay married) to stay committed to their kids, working with men to step up to the plate to be responsible for their children, and protecting/implementing father's rights to be involved in their children's lives. As a single-father of two that has to constantly compensate for actions (or lack thereof) of a dead-beat mother, I resent the implications of this statement. However I do understand the spirit in which it was made, so my undies are only slight twisted :D

We're moving so fast on the push for gay rights (and I'm _not_ for gay or single parent discrimination, let me make that clear) and assorted other alternative lifestyles that we're not stopping to consider all the ramifications--we haven't had _enough time_ to look at all the ramifications.
<snip> There's a lot to unpack here and I'm going to run into a word count problem at some point, so I'll save my "long" response for another time. I will say that there seems to be a lot of assumption thrown into this, which makes the logic larger fallacious. Second, heterosexual couples don't have to "qualify" to be parents. Many of the studies you recommend may or may not have been done regarding heterosexual couples, but if they were, no restriction on parenting have been send down by our gov't. The whole point is that one group is allowed to have kids without "qualifying" then so should the other. I think it's completely unreasonable to make a homosexual couple jump through any hoops that a heterosexual couple doesn't have to bother with. That's discrimination.

*skips a few posts that repeat a lot of points already addressed*

My chief beef was calling promiscuous behavior 'moral' when it isn't <snip levity> However, as soon as two people who've enjoyed a night together go and share the lurv with others, it starts to become something that can have an impact on society, rather than individual, levels, and that's why it ends up being a moral issue. Promiscuous behavior can be done either morally or immorally. I think at some point the participants in this discussion have assigned the value "one night stand" to the label "promiscuous behavior". Yes, one night stands are one example of promiscousness, however they are not the only example. Most people are serially monogomous for most, if not all, of their lives. By the word's definition, this is promiscous behavior. I could be wrong, but I don't think you would go so far as to say that someone who's been in 5 six-month relationships in 5 years is "immoral". So taking it step further, what about someone that has one consensual one-night stand every six months, but is entirely celebate otherwise? At what point does that person magically become "immoral"? More importantly, does that threshold get crossed when they hit some magic number or is it crossed when they start displaying some other behavior such as dishonesty or disrepectfulness?

<snip list of diseases> I only pause here to point out that your comment does not address ET's point (strawman) and remind you that we do now have a vaccine for HPV.

You're pretty safe in knowing that at least some of the women you may have had relations with really needed more than you were willing to give them emotionally in return for a romp in the bedroom. You assume that those women were not similarly looking for nothing more than a romp in the bedroom. I can tell you first hand that there are a lot of women just looking to get their pipes cleaned and will drop you like a bad habit if you mention "feelings" or "committment". They might not hold a simple majority, but there are more of them out there than you think (P.S. I can't get to your source without a login so I can't check their methodology. If they excluded certain groups of women, then your study might be based on a bad sample).

I'm not projecting anything on that--that's what the non-religious, moral-neutral study said, and there are others I'd have to copy links for you on. The fact that women are promiscuous doesn't erase those emotional needs--they deal with those in other ways, many times developing depression that you may never see since you're only there for 1 night at most.Possibly but the fact remains that such behavior is consensual at the time and therefore not immoral. The fact that there might be long term affects is possible, but it is also possible that there might not be.

Actually, Jimbo and I will sit down with both kids and have a series of age-appropriate discussions of what sex is, what we think is an appropriate attitude towards it, why we've developed the moral stance we have on it, discuss how one gets pregnant, how one catches diseases, how to prevent both, how to handle birth control appropriately, how to handle horny guys/gals and say 'no' or 'I'd like to wait', how to handle the 'if you really love me, you'd do it with me' manipulative argument, where to find 'nice men/women' (not at a bar, usually), and the fact that if they do end up having sex before marriage they need to take appropriate steps to protect themselves/their partners and that while we won't like it because of all the health/emotional ramifications, we still will love them and will help them any way they need. Kudos. Please go convince your conservative brothers and sisters to do the same. :)

Didn't you say a couple posts back that your moral stance on sex had changed? Why wouldn't it for others as well, especially at some watershed event in their lives? I've seen plenty of people who've made one single bad choice in their lives and it affected them greatly for a long time after. Yep and not all of those "bad choices" concern sex either :)

Why is that so hard to believe? Jimbo and I are very happy even after 17 years, and it's only gotten better with time. Some things you can't learn until you've been with someone intimately for a long time. We're still learning new subtle things about each other and how to do an even better job of making each other happy. I've got filet mignon at home. Why would I want to go look at all the hamburger out there? :)Probably because it's so rare. Very few species select mates for life and we (like lots of other mammals) appear to be wired for serial monogomy (think March of the Penguins but with cell phones and automobiles). I think a vast majority of people have been suckered into some Disney-style fairy tale about "happily ever after" and are constantly on the prowl for Prince Charming/Snow White. The reality is that making monogomy a reality involves a lot of hard work and a vast majority of people are unable/unwilling to acknowledge this let alone commit to the workload. So if you found that, then I'm truly happy for you, but it would be great if you could acknowledge that you are the exception and not the rule.

The only remaining unturned post is a rehash, so this is probably a good place to stop. Thanks for reading and my apologies for the delayed response(s).

Take care.

PS: Due to msg length, I won't be checking for typos so deal with it :D

Jae Onasi
05-19-2007, 11:31 AM
There's so many quotes I'm going to leave some of them off and just reply, since numbers of quote tags/smilies are actually limited....
Hot Dog analogy--An analogy comparing 2 entirely different things is not a good analogy.

This might be a difference in industries then. Interestingly, one would think that the medical field would be more rigorous about using current sources than business/management, but I suppose there are factors at play that I'm not aware of.That's because human life cycles are much longer than economic cycles. What you did in business 5 years ago may be completely different than what you do now. However, five years is just the beginning amount of time needed to determine whether a drug, surgery, or other treatment is going to have long-term efficacy in the treatment of a given disease.
The landmark, multi-center studies take sometimes years to obtain results or show long term effects of medications. The Framingham Nurse's Study has been going on for decades, for instance. Researchers will come out with major results after a number of years of research, although there's always ongoing side studies based off the findings of the landmark studies. You have to study some things for decades before you can see real results of a particular treatment modality or a particular medication. Take glaucoma treatment for instance. Because the disease does its damage over years rather than months, it can take a good 5 years before you can really tell if a drug is stopping the progression, because progression can be fairly slow. You may not know for a couple years if the new eye drop you're using is effective or not.
The other thing is that in business, if something's not working, you can just change it and try something new out relatively quickly. You can't do that with people quite the same way because of the ethics issues. If you have a new drug you want to try, you have to do animal experiments first, then experiments with a very small group of people to make sure there's some benefits and not horrible side effects, and then you can move on to larger study groups where you're going to get the better data.
There are other factors in play, too, but those are some of the bigger issues we face in medical research.

Common disgust of homosexuals (mores) make homosexual sex immoral (morals).I never said homosexuality was disgusting and never will, so I want to be very clear on that implication before someone gets the wrong idea.

Should morals be based on logic? Do you think it's possible to have morals that are illogical?I'll bite, though this will probably spin off into another topic.
Logic is a human construct. Therefore, it's possible to have illogical morals. We know intuitively that some things are objectively right and wrong (slicing up a baby for instance), however, so I base that knowledge on an objective moral standard outside humanity (God in this case). If humanity is the sole determinant of morality, we end up with Stalin, Mao, and a host of other problems. However, that's going to send this way off topic so I'll leave that discussion for a different thread.

If you're implying a causal relationship, I'm going to have to ask for a source. FWIW, I certainly think that the sexual revolution was a contributing factor, but I don't think it was the sole cause. Women had been fed up of being 2nd class citizens for more than 100 years. If the sexual revolution helped to spring-board equitable treatment, then I'm all for it. The long term benefits will (hopefully) greatly outweigh the short-term problems that came out of the backlash. All social change happens on a pendulum.
I'll go find a source for you within a couple days. What other causes do you think there are?
I differentiate gender rights issues from the sexual revolution, btw--that wasn't clear. The long term benefits may well outweigh short-term problems, _if_ we survive them. AIDS is rapidly depopulating parts of Africa, and the only reason it hasn't had that effect here is because our medical system has made huge strides in treatment.

I don't think anyone is advocating that we revert back to "free love". I do think that many people would say that many people (especially here) are entirely too stuffy about the subject.I'm sure you do think I'm stuffy. However, I made a promise to Jimbo, and I intend to keep that promise. If that's being 'stuffy', then I'm delighted to be stuffy and have my honor intact.

I don't see anything here that doesn't mirror sexual abuse stats for promiscuous women.That's because I didn't research any studies on promiscuous women. I'm sure there's plenty of info out there since there are med studies on prostitutes.

Could it be that abuse (and specifically sexual abuse) lead to unhealthy behaviors and that homosexuality/heterosexuality aren't even at issue? I would sumbit that this is the case.
I wouldn't mind seeing a link to a study on that. ;)

What your references don't talk about is how those numbers compare to straight men and women that are victims of sexual abuse.Good heavens, are you wanting an entire thesis? It's a discussion! I brought up a point. You can't ding me for not making this into a college course.
There are books on this stuff, none of which I really have the time or inclination to read. I'd get way too angry about the stories of kids being abused to get very far into those books.

At the end of the day, all those sources show is that some homosexual people were sexually abused as children. Guess what? So have some heterosexual peopleBelieve me, I know, and I've been very blessed not to have had first-hand experience, but I have close relationships with some people who have, and it's heart-wrenching to hear what they've been through.

What impacts would those be?Chiefly health related (which I noted in previous posts). STD spread in particular, certain health problems associated with specific types of male/male contact, partner abuse (which obviously is not exclusive to gays or straights), depression in women in particular because of relational issues, and so forth.

If I may, who here as advocated that taking advantage of as many hot chicks as possible is moral behavior?The argument has been that promiscuity is not immoral. You can have amoral actions, but promiscuity's an either/or thing vis-a-vis moral/immoral.

I think ET's point is that homosexual people are inherently just as moral as heterosexual people.I was thinking 'promiscuous' by that point in the argument, not 'homosexual'. You can be moral in most areas of life and participate in some immoral practices (not necessarily sex-related, btw). That doesn't make the immoral practice suddenly moral just because you happen to be a good person overall.

Feel free to replace "drinking problem/roughing up" with any of the myriad of reasons that marriages fail. Again, you imply that there is a direct causal relationship between the sexual revolution and today's social conditions.Come on--I'm not stupid. I'm not advocating that women (or men) stay in relationships where they're getting the snot beaten out of them on a regular basis. I'm saying society needs to be supporting that committment of two people a lot better than it has--be that marriage counseling for people to work through their problems, financial counseling because finance problems are the biggest reason for marriages to fail, drug/alcohol counseling if that's part of the problem, etc.

Could you please help me understand how the second sentence is true in light of the first sentence?Child sexual abuse is underreported across the board, hetero- or homosexual. I believe the study mentioned something about that as well.

If the one night stand is consensual, how is it disrespectful?
How can you have true respect for someone you really don't know but are sharing an intimate act with? Can you really trust someone that well in that short of a time? How can you meet a woman's needs for emotional closeness in that short of a time? You can't.
"Wow, biotch, that was good. Now get in that kitchen and make me some eggs", :lol:

I sense an "importance of comphrehensive sexual education" rant coming onComprehensive sexual education is very important. See previous rants in other threads. :D I disagree completely with my evangelical brethren on abstinence only education. Abstinence should be part of comprehensive education, but not in place of it. For heaven's sake, it should be taught for no other reason than at some point, evangelicals are going to get married and have sex and it might be nice to know how not to have babies.

What it is not true for is all women.
If your talking individuals, no. If you're talking a statistic on women's needs extrapolated from millions of women, then you can say 'most women have these emotional needs'. I'm looking at the issue globally since I'm talking societal norms, not individual. There's a difference.

Again, so long as the act is consensual, I don't see where we should seek to judge (that includes freaky stuff that your friends tell you about).Well, I don't get in my friends' faces about it. If they ask, I'll tell them why I feel the way I do, and we have some fun discussions (you don't want to know what to do with a habitrail tube, trust me). Several of my friends have/had AIDS, so they already have experienced the consequences of their behaviors first hand and don't need me being preachy. Instead I show them love and help them out however I can.

Sexual behavior only has an impact on those around you if the sex is cohersed or unprotected. If we didn't have a huge problem with date rape and if every single person used fail-proof protection every single time, and specific types of sex didn't have increased health risks associated with them, then sex might not be a moral issue.

If the assumption is that these negative behaviors are directly causal with single-mother households, then I think more support is needed.There are a lot of studies and a number of books on fatherless households, and the causal links are clear.

As a single-father of two that has to constantly compensate for actions (or lack thereof) of a dead-beat mother, I resent the implications of this statement. However I do understand the spirit in which it was made, so my undies are only slight twistedGah. There are so many more single-mother households than single-father households it's easy to just think about the former and forget about the latter. Dead-beat mothers are just as destructive as dead-beat fathers, and that should be dealt with just as much. Mother's rights are pretty much the standard, but father's rights are not, and we're just now finally 'discovering' how important fathers are in children's lives.

The rest I have to get to another time--we have a family party to go to. :)

ET Warrior
05-20-2007, 05:26 PM
I don't think sex itself is bad when used in its intended way (making babies when people are ready for a family, bringing a husband and wife closer together physically and emotionally).Who exactly decides what the "intended way" to use sex is? If you're taking a stance based on biology, then the ONLY intended way to have sex is for the purpose of procreation, in which case all non-procreative sex is immoral (I am aware there are some religions which actually believe this). Your subtext about making babies and bringing husbands and wives together is a projection of your brand of morals towards sex onto everyone else.

No, because you don't have the potential to give her a disease that way, get her pregnant, and there's not the same issue of emotional commitment when you skydive compared to when you make love with someone.So you would say that it is better that I am exposing her to risk of death than risk of (mostly)non-life threatening disease, childbirth, or emotional stress? I would think the latter are far less serious than the former.

My main point is that with a cold, you stay in bed a couple days (if you're lucky enough to be able to), and you get over it. *money talk*How about diseases like the Flu, Pink Eye, etc. I could give half a dozen co-workers the Flu just by showing up to the office when I have it, without even realizing it's the flu. And if we're going to start complaining about the costs of medical care, then we also need to start outlawing things like alcohol, tobacco, fast food, extreme sports, etc. etc. All of those activities have associated risks of incurring high medical bills.

Not sure what this has to do with sex and morality, if anything.You are saying that someone who chooses to engage in promiscuous sex and ends up contracting an STD is somehow a victim, and this is why it's immoral. I used the analogy of a man crossing a busy interstate and getting hit by a car. In both cases the parties involved should have been aware of the risks in their chosen activity, and if they get burned it is their own fault.

How many guys do you know have told their girlfriends 'if you loved me, you'd do it?' And then dropped them like a hot potato shortly after their 'conquest'? I'm pretty sure this actually illustrates my point quite nicely. I have not stated that promiscuous sex is an inherently moral activity, nor inherently immoral. It's not a moral issue. What is a moral issue is how one goes about engaging in promiscuous sex. That kind of coercion IS immoral.

One person causing another pain is indeed a moral issue.Intentionally causing another pain is a moral issue, sure. But am I being immoral if I ask a woman to see a scary movie, unaware that she won't be able to sleep for a week after she sees it? Or is it her responsibility to be aware of the things that are likely to cause her distress and avoid them?

*ET read Playboy, liked the articles, and found a girl to kiss.* Playboy has articles? :confused:

Hot Dog analogy--An analogy comparing 2 entirely different things is not a good analogy.It's a good analogy when the two are analogous. Which I have been attempting to show for the last two pages :xp:

I'll go find a source for you within a couple days. What other causes do you think there are?Femminism, Globalism, Technological advances, mass media, I could probably come up with a few others if need be.

I'm sure you do think I'm stuffy. However, I made a promise to Jimbo, and I intend to keep that promise. If that's being 'stuffy', then I'm delighted to be stuffy and have my honor intact.I don't think anyone here is calling for the end of committed relationships, just the realization that commitment isn't for everyone.

How can you have true respect for someone you really don't know but are sharing an intimate act with?By saying "Thank You" the next morning? :p

How can you meet a woman's needs for emotional closeness in that short of a time?Not. All. Women. Need. Emotional. Closeness. Yes, perhaps a majority of women do need that, and those are the kinds of women who shouldn't be engaging in promiscuous sex. But why is it the responsibility of their partners to make sure of that?

If we didn't have a huge problem with date rape and if every single person used fail-proof protection every single time, and specific types of sex didn't have increased health risks associated with them, then sex might not be a moral issue.So the moral issue is not sex, but rather things like date rape or engaging in unsafe sexual practices. The health issues are simply a non-issue because a LOT of activities that you have no moral qualms with have associated health risks.

Jae Onasi
05-22-2007, 12:39 PM
ET, we've probably just about exhausted the discussion, although we likely could find hilarious euphemisms for the next century. I will say that while other activities may have associated health risks, sex is the only natural way to make babies (which has societal implications if daddy/mommy decide to take off), and STDs tend to have nastier effects than the common cold.

I'm glad you say 'thank you' in the morning, and yes, I've heard Playboy has articles. Apparently Playgirl does, too. ;P

Here's something I want to toss out there for discussion:
Why is disagreement with homosexuality automatically labeled homophobia? Right now its seems like you are either 'pro-gay' or you're 'homophobic'. I think there is a much broader range than just these two labels, one of which is a pejorative.

Achilles
05-30-2007, 08:29 PM
Sorry for the delayed response. Please be forewarned that the 2nd playthrough of Oblivion is more engrossing than the first. You may never see Jimbo again :D.

There's so many quotes I'm going to leave some of them off and just reply, since numbers of quote tags/smilies are actually limited....
Hot Dog analogy--An analogy comparing 2 entirely different things is not a good analogy. I acknowledge that you don't see the similarity and have adopted this position on the matter.

That's because human life cycles are much longer than economic cycles.
<snip for length> That may be. It would seem to me that requirements for medical papers should be more strigent considering all the advances in science and medicine, but I'm not in that field so I'll have to defer to you.

I never said homosexuality was disgusting and never will, so I want to be very clear on that implication before someone gets the wrong idea. No, you didn't and I don't think anyone says that you did. You did however jump right smack into the middle of the debate with Igyman in which he seemed to adopt the position that it was. You have continued to defend his position even though he stopped doing so weeks ago, so I'm not sure where we go from here. If you would like to continue this train of thought, please respond to my question.

I'll bite, though this will probably spin off into another topic.
Logic is a human construct. Actually it isn't. We've had to develop our own way of interpretting it via symbols, etc, but it would exist whether we were cognizant of it or not. This is like saying 2+2=4 only when people are old enough to do the math and not a moment before.

Therefore, it's possible to have illogical morals. For instance?

We know intuitively that some things are objectively right and wrong (slicing up a baby for instance), however, so I base that knowledge on an objective moral standard outside humanity (God in this case). Actually, to your earlier point "right" and "wrong" are human constructs. "Moral" and "Immoral" aren't. Is there ever a case where "slicing up a baby" might be moral? Since I think that I already know your answer, you can probably consider that question rhetorical.

PS: While I might agree that there is an objective moral standard "outside humanity" you have absolutely no evidence to suggest that it comes from god. What if the true source of that morality is satan and you have it all wrong? YOUR ability to reason out moral from immoral behavior probably (correctly) tells you that this isn't the case, but it isn't based on any religious evidence.

If humanity is the sole determinant of morality, we end up with Stalin, Mao, and a host of other problems. However, that's going to send this way off topic so I'll leave that discussion for a different thread. Please support this argument here or in the other thread. Saying it doesn't make it so.

I'll go find a source for you within a couple days. What other causes do you think there are? This was posted 11 days ago. Is there an update available regarding the status of this?

I think I actually responded to this in the section that you quoted. You seem to be pointing to one event and saying "yep, that's it" when the reality is that that event was the culmination of decades of other stuff. The sexual revolution didn't happen all by itself because no one had anything better to do for that decade. ;)

I differentiate gender rights issues from the sexual revolution, btw--that wasn't clear. The long term benefits may well outweigh short-term problems, _if_ we survive them. AIDS is rapidly depopulating parts of Africa, and the only reason it hasn't had that effect here is because our medical system has made huge strides in treatment. This argument seems to ignore the fact that AIDS is spreading so rapidly due in part to conservative efforts to "go back to the good old days". Seems to me that this course of action seems akin to sticking one's head in the sand. Not to mention that introducing AIDS here is a red herring :)

I'm sure you do think I'm stuffy. However, I made a promise to Jimbo, and I intend to keep that promise. If that's being 'stuffy', then I'm delighted to be stuffy and have my honor intact. Because you're monogomous? No way. I have a great deal of respect for anyone that can find and maintain a monogomous relationship. My comment was made only to highlight the fact that we are not monogomous animals by nature and that one should probably not judge those that aren't monogomous too harshly. Especially if that someone else isn't your partner and therefore couldn't possibly harm you with what they do behind closed doors.

That's because I didn't research any studies on promiscuous women. I'm sure there's plenty of info out there since there are med studies on prostitutes. So then you concede my point that your earlier findings don't support your argument?

I wouldn't mind seeing a link to a study on that. ;) Niether would I. Then my speculative comment would then be a supportable argument. :)

Good heavens, are you wanting an entire thesis? It's a discussion! I brought up a point. You can't ding me for not making this into a college course.
There are books on this stuff, none of which I really have the time or inclination to read. I'd get way too angry about the stories of kids being abused to get very far into those books. Are you asking me to play with kid gloves? I understand "friendly discussion" but I don't agree that "friendly discussion" = "I get to just make stuff up and you have to believe it". I saw way too many of those late night, "what if the stars were really just grains of sand on god's beach" discussions when I worked graveyards at Denny's a million years ago. If that's what Kavar's is supposed to be, then I completely missed the point and should probably excuse myself.

The point was that your studies only show one side. If you would like to retract your statement because you no longer want to defend it that's fine, but please don't get upset with me because I'm not willing to accept the results of poorly executed studies. It may also be that we don't have an answer. That's fine too, but then we shouldn't buy into the stories of those that claim to have the answer, but can't provide proof.

Believe me, I know, and I've been very blessed not to have had first-hand experience, but I have close relationships with some people who have, and it's heart-wrenching to hear what they've been through. It sounds as though you're conceding my point.

Chiefly health related (which I noted in previous posts). STD spread in particular, certain health problems associated with specific types of male/male contact, partner abuse (which obviously is not exclusive to gays or straights), depression in women in particular because of relational issues, and so forth. I noted that you noted, however I now note that you didn't note my note about your note not noting how those concerns are specific to homosexual couples. Thus far you have not responded to that point (other that to point out your other, still contested point). In other words, there is no evidence for any homosexual specific health risks. Which leaves us back at the point where I'm still trying to understand that argument which states that homosexuality is immoral.

The argument has been that promiscuity is not immoral. You can have amoral actions, but promiscuity's an either/or thing vis-a-vis moral/immoral. Why and how? You've yet to answer either of these.

I was thinking 'promiscuous' by that point in the argument, not 'homosexual'. You can be moral in most areas of life and participate in some immoral practices (not necessarily sex-related, btw). That doesn't make the immoral practice suddenly moral just because you happen to be a good person overall. I agree. However your point still seems to be that you can't be promiscous and moral and I don't understand how that works.

Come on--I'm not stupid. I'm not advocating that women (or men) stay in relationships where they're getting the snot beaten out of them on a regular basis. I'm saying society needs to be supporting that committment of two people a lot better than it has--be that marriage counseling for people to work through their problems, financial counseling because finance problems are the biggest reason for marriages to fail, drug/alcohol counseling if that's part of the problem, etc. Ok, and what about when those things don't work? What about the interim? Dependency issues take years to work through (if they are worked through at all) and generally, staying in that environment doesn't benefit anyone involved. Also, who pays for these programs and provides oversight. If it's the government, then you're definitely looking at a big-government, lots of new taxes initiative and we all know how much the right loves those. If it's faith-based then you're going to run into constitutional problems. Is it safe to say that there are no easy answers for this one? It seems like option with the greatest chance for success is probably the least likely to happen.

Child sexual abuse is underreported across the board, hetero- or homosexual. I believe the study mentioned something about that as well. Ok, so you concede my point that your study doesn't support your argument?

How can you have true respect for someone you really don't know but are sharing an intimate act with? Can you really trust someone that well in that short of a time? How can you meet a woman's needs for emotional closeness in that short of a time? You can't. I show respect to people all the time by opening doors for them (not just women), letting people in during rush hour, etc, without knowing them. You seem to see respect as a scale, where I see it as a switch. You either are or you aren't. Of course there are varying degrees, but even a little bit disrespectful is still disrespectful.

Now, if some hottie and I mutually decide that we're going to throw down and then never talk to each other again, so long as I don't do anything disrepectful (like spit on her next time I see her), then I don't see how any sense of respect was violated. Again, you assume all the stuff about womens' needs while ignoring the point that a lot of women just feel the "need" to get some and get gone. Just because you don't think you know any of them (and maybe you don't but then again maybe you do), doesn't mean they don't exist.

Now what I am not doing is advocating one set of behaviors over another. Personally, I don't care for that lifestyle (anymore), and see great benefit in the types of relationships that you advocate, however that also means that I don't judge others that aren't doing anything that affects me. In other words, I mind my own business.

Comprehensive sexual education is very important. See previous rants in other threads. :D I disagree completely with my evangelical brethren on abstinence only education. Abstinence should be part of comprehensive education, but not in place of it. For heaven's sake, it should be taught for no other reason than at some point, evangelicals are going to get married and have sex and it might be nice to know how not to have babies. ...with the caveat that you've argued that comprehensive sex ed happens at home and not at school...with which I've disagreed (see aforemention dead threads). Of course you may have changed your position and if so I apologize. Since our discussion died off weeks ago, I have know way of knowing.

If your talking individuals, no. If you're talking a statistic on women's needs extrapolated from millions of women, then you can say 'most women have these emotional needs'. I'm looking at the issue globally since I'm talking societal norms, not individual. There's a difference. Indeed there is. My point is to say that you cannot say all women have these needs. Even if the study you cite has a sound methodology (which I skeptical of), then there is still a large number of women that don't fit your stereotype. What about their rights? Should they be cowed to the "moral majority" who would probably be better off finding something to do that doesn't involve telling other people how to live their lives? That's all I'm trying to say, Jae :)

If we didn't have a huge problem with date rape and if every single person used fail-proof protection every single time, and specific types of sex didn't have increased health risks associated with them, then sex might not be a moral issue. Not saying we don't. Only saying you can't equivocate. Again the discussion was health, not morality, so that last part is a red herring.

There are a lot of studies and a number of books on fatherless households, and the causal links are clear. And until there are more studies showing the effect of motherless households, the conclusion are unsubstantiated. Sure there are problems, but you can't prove a causal relationship to fatherlessness. Of course, I retain the caveat that I don't know which studies you might be referencing because you haven't provided any.

I'll try to catch up on some of the other threads tomorrow. Thanks for reading.

Jae Onasi
05-31-2007, 12:18 AM
That may be. It would seem to me that requirements for medical papers should be more strigent considering all the advances in science and medicine, but I'm not in that field so I'll have to defer to you.
The last boom/bust cycle lasted what, 10 years or so? Humans live 75 or so, and have changing health issues over that time span. You can't think up an idea for a drug and just start indiscriminately giving it to people because you're convinced it'll work, even if your theory is an excellent one. If you change a major business principle, you might see a bump in your company's profit/loss column the next quarter. If you give someone a heart med, you may know in the next quarter if it's effective in a major way, but you might not know the full side effects (some of which don't show up for months), and you probably won't know all of the positive effects for years, because people's health changes much slower than the econ cycle. A couple of eye drops take a good 6 weeks just to take full effect, much less create measurable changes. If I give a person an anti-glaucoma medication, I'll know fairly quickly that it drops the pressure. What I won't know is if it's slowed or halted the progression of the disease itself for at least a year if not longer. You also have the luxury of making a mistake with your business changes--at worst it's going to cause a loss or decrease profit. You do something wrong with patients and you can cause death/other problems.
People can't change nearly as fast as the business world can, so medicine isn't always going to change as fast, either.

This was posted 11 days ago. Is there an update available regarding the status of this?
Well, I got sucked into blogging and spending time with family over the Memorial day weekend. Since you were cheerfully busy bashing Oblivion gates, I didn't feel the urge to hurry. :)

Ok, so you concede my point{x3 or 4}
a. do I need to in a discussion forum?
b. I didn't think Kavar's in general was an either/or, win-lose thing. If thinking you've 'won' makes you happier, I'm not going to stop you. :) I just like picking people's brains to see where they're coming from. I don't generally care about the debate win-loss column--I haven't had any training in debate techniques so it's unlikely I'd 'win' in the vast majority of cases anyway.

Achilles
05-31-2007, 02:03 AM
<snip medical industry stuff> I think I might not be making my point very well.

Suppose I'm a med student and I'm in medical school. My specialization is cardiovascular medicine. When I write my papers for class, am I going to use 12 year old research or am I going to try to find something more recent (say within the last 5 years)? If you're telling me that med students are allowed to use 12 year old paper when 12 year old research is all that's available for a particular subject or if it's being used to compare/contrast recent findings then I take your meaning and acknowledge the difference. If you're telling me that students are permitted to ignore recent research/advances (which occur much more frequently than business practices), then I guess I'm going to have to change my opinion on the medical field. I hope that helps to clarify.

Well, I got sucked into blogging and spending time with family over the Memorial day weekend. Since you were cheerfully busy bashing Oblivion gates, I didn't feel the urge to hurry. :) Understood. Does this mean your abandoning your argument?


a. do I need to in a discussion forum? I really fail to see what the type of forum has to do with anything, but no you don't. If you don't respond than your point simply goes on abandoned. I was just asking so I would know whether or not to expect further remarks from you.


b. I didn't think Kavar's in general was an either/or, win-lose thing. If thinking you've 'won' makes you happier, I'm not going to stop you. :) I just like picking people's brains to see where they're coming from. I don't generally care about the debate win-loss column--I haven't had any training in debate techniques so it's unlikely I'd 'win' in the vast majority of cases anyway. I think there might be some confusion about the role an argument make in a discussion. An argument is not some tool used exclusively in a formal debate. It is a point or series of points used to make or defend a view. Saying "I don't need to use arguments in a friendly discussion" is a lot like saying "that car accident doesn't count because I wasn't driving anywhere important".

I understand that Kavar's isn't formal debate, but arguments, points, etc aren't exclusive to formal debates. If the goal isn't to make an argument, then we're all just blogging here.

So, with that cleared up: it's not about winning or losing. If an argument is made, than others have the right to respond. The first person can either choose to respond to reinforce their argument (usually by reiterating points, introducing new ones, or pointing out errors in the respondent's logic), they can abandon their argument (in which case the respondent may appear to have "won" even though they didn't), or they can concede ("yep, I guess I wasn't looking at it like that. You're right").

I like picking brains too. Exchanging ideas is a great way to see other perspectives and influence one's own thinking. However, unless I'm called to task when something I say is incorrect, I'm not likely to realize that thinking is flawed until some other epiphany straightens me out. If you need to categorize that as "win/lose" then feel free, but it has never occurred to me to look at it that way.

FWIW, I've never had any debate training or even taken a Logic 101 course. One does not need either of these things to have friendly discussions on serious topics :)

Thanks for your response.

shamelessposer
05-31-2007, 07:45 AM
Wow. It's amazing how much a person will go out of their way to hold onto their prejudices and bigotry in the face of little things like "logic" and "facts." Saying gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt is a bigoted statement, but repeatedly comparing them to pedophiles is beyond the pale.

Jae Onasi
05-31-2007, 11:07 AM
I think I might not be making my point very well.

Suppose I'm a med student and I'm in medical school. My specialization is cardiovascular medicine. When I write my papers for class, am I going to use 12 year old research or am I going to try to find something more recent (say within the last 5 years)? If you're telling me that med students are allowed to use 12 year old paper when 12 year old research is all that's available for a particular subject or if it's being used to compare/contrast recent findings then I take your meaning and acknowledge the difference. If you're telling me that students are permitted to ignore recent research/advances (which occur much more frequently than business practices), then I guess I'm going to have to change my opinion on the medical field. I hope that helps to clarify.
We would use the newer studies when available. You noted that you can't use _any_ studies over 5 years old in your work. That's not the case in medicine because there may not be newer stuff in 5 years in major research because of the very long time it takes.
Take your cardiovascular research--the findings that lowering cholesterol and taking aspirin can lower the number of heart attacks, especially in high risk patients, came out of a major study involving university centers all over the country. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study was likewise conducted over a number of years at multiple universities and found that people with above-normal ocular pressures cut their risk of developing glaucoma from 9% to 5% if they do treatment to lower pressure. These landmark studies are huge, involve a lot of people, and take years to complete. The findings tell us how many people are likely to react if we use x treatment vs. no treatment. These major studies can radically change treatment modalities--we now are more aggressive about treating above-normal pressure in non-glaucoma patients, for instance, and a lot more people are now on cholesterol-lowering meds and aspirin because of the major heart studies. Smaller studies spin off of these major studies--e.g. does Lumigan or Xalatan do a better job of lowering ocular pressure? Should we us 81mg of aspirin or 325? Which statin drug does a better job of lowering cholesterol? Which high blood pressure medicine works best for which race (e.g. ACE inhibitors do a better job of lowering high blood pressure in certain races over others). It's that kind of thing. Landmark studies drive treatment philosophy, newer studies drive specific treatments in specific genders/ages/races, etc. The finding that lowering eye pressure in people with above normal pressures reduces risk of developing glaucoma is going to be just as valid 10 years from now as today. It means that we eye docs are going to want patients to lower pressures. The heart studies indicating that lowering cholesterol reduces risk of heart attack is going to be just as valid 50 years from now as today. Specifics on how to lower eye pressure or cholesterol likely will change over the years. Think along the lines of landmark studies serving as the foundation for the follow-up studies, and the landmark study findings will still be valid for a long time.


Understood. Does this mean your abandoning your argument?Probably not, I'm just taking awhile. :)

I really fail to see what the type of forum has to do with anything, but no you don't. If you don't respond than your point simply goes on abandoned. I was just asking so I would know whether or not to expect further remarks from you.I have to finish up the reply the the second half of your other post.


I understand that Kavar's isn't formal debate, but arguments, points, etc aren't exclusive to formal debates. If the goal isn't to make an argument, then we're all just blogging here.
So, with that cleared up: it's not about winning or losing. If an argument is made, than others have the right to respond. The first person can either choose to respond to reinforce their argument (usually by reiterating points, introducing new ones, or pointing out errors in the respondent's logic), they can abandon their argument (in which case the respondent may appear to have "won" even though they didn't), or they can concede ("yep, I guess I wasn't looking at it like that. You're right").
Another option--"I haven't decided yet" or "I'm thinking about it." Which probably drives some people crazy because it's not a definitive yes/no, but on major issues may be a valid answer as someone sorts through all the different information.

If you need to categorize that as "win/lose" then feel free, but it has never occurred to me to look at it that way. Then why urge someone to concede?

FWIW, I've never had any debate training or even taken a Logic 101 course. One does not need either of these things to have friendly discussions on serious topics :)Your sig indicates a fair amount of study on the subject, however. :)

Saying gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt is a bigoted statement
Please share with all of us why _you_ feel that way. What advantages do you see to gay adoption for the child? What kind of information do you have available that shows the benefits and addresses risks, if there are any risks?

repeatedly comparing them to pedophiles is beyond the paleNo one's doing that here. The major discussion in regards to homosexuality and pedophilia is that some studies show that homosexuals are more likely to have been _victims_ of pedophiles, not _perpetrators_. I feel experiencing sexual abuse as a child may well be a causal factor in the development of homosexuality. I have not researched the sexual orientation of pedophiles--that subject makes me just really angry so I prefer not to delve into that unless I absolutely have to (mainly in regards to protecting my kids from them). I have a number of gay friends and some gay relatives, and there's only one who I would never leave my kids with, but that's not because he's got a bent for pedophilia so much as he's nuts about sex with anyone and anything. I wouldn't let my kids stay with a straight sex maniac, either.

shamelessposer
05-31-2007, 11:57 AM
Please share with all of us why _you_ feel that way.

"I don't think blacks should be allowed to adopt."

"I don't think Jews should be allowed to adopt."

"I don't think gays should be allowed to adopt."

One of these things is just like the others.

What advantages do you see to gay adoption for the child?

Not being in an orphanage?

Jae Onasi
05-31-2007, 06:13 PM
What advantages do you see to gay adoption for the child?

Not being in an orphanage?

What kind of information do you have available that shows the benefits and addresses risks, if there are any risks?
Aside from the obvious 'not being in an orphanage....'

Let me put it this way. A lot of my evengelical brethren are very concerned about what kind of care a child would receive in the care of gay adoptive parents. They're scared that the child will suffer harm, and when you're talking about care of children, that's a legitimate concern for anyone--no one wants to see children harmed. What kinds of things would you say to them to allay their fears? Assume that if you're making a sarcastic statement, they're going to be offended and turned off by your message, so your job is to educate and help them understand.
Here's their chief concerns--
1. The child may be at greater risk for developing homosexuality (and if we're all honest, we'll admit that at this time in history, being homosexual in this society presents some challenges that being straight does not)
2. The child will be missing learning about one gender role (either male or female, depending on gender of gay parents, obviously)
3. The child may become confused about gender roles if a male acts very feminine or a woman acts very masculine
4. Children growing up without fathers are at higher risk for a host of problems (and here's lots of stuff for you, Achilles, if I can get it all in 1 post. :D )

They don't want you to call them bigots, shamelessposer. All that's going to do is turn them off from your message even more. They want you to understand their concerns, and they want you to show them how children benefit, and how you'd address those perceived problems.

More for Achilles, but this is some of the concerns about living in a single gender/parent home.
Some stats--a bit old, but I just started looking at some of this and wanted to throw it out there around the campfire, so to speak, for discussion.
More Statistics
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God`s Children.)
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)

How many more links would you like, Achilles? ;P

Edit: But wait, there's more...
http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/index.shtml
http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/Research/reports.shtml
Research on fathering: http://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu/nihnetwork/projects/fatherhood/publications.htm
http://www.menweb.org/fatherin.htm
http://www.fathers.com/research/consequences.html (you'll likely consider the site very conservative, but the data is interesting)
http://center.americanvalues.org/?p=6 This is just a fact sheet but gives some good starting points for other research--likely a conservative site also.

Jae Onasi
05-31-2007, 06:18 PM
Double posting because of 10k character limit....

From: http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html
I can't access the site atm to evaluate bias. However, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, Adolescence, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and so forth are pretty respected in the field--they're not throwaway journals.

Sexual activity. In a study of 700 adolescents, researchers found that "compared to families with two natural parents living in the home, adolescents from single-parent families have been found to engage in greater and earlier sexual activity."
Source: Carol W. Metzler, et al. "The Social Context for Risky Sexual Behavior Among Adolescents," Journal of Behavioral Medicine 17 (1994).

A myriad of maladies. Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.

Drinking problems. Teenagers living in single-parent households are more likely to abuse alcohol and at an earlier age compared to children reared in two-parent households
Source: Terry E. Duncan, Susan C. Duncan and Hyman Hops, "The Effects of Family Cohesiveness and Peer Encouragement on the Development of Adolescent Alcohol Use: A Cohort-Sequential Approach to the Analysis of Longitudinal Data," Journal of Studies on Alcohol 55 (1994).

Drug Use: "...the absence of the father in the home affects significantly the behavior of adolescents and results in the greater use of alcohol and marijuana."
Source: Deane Scott Berman, "Risk Factors Leading to Adolescent Substance Abuse," Adolescence 30 (1995)

Sexual abuse. A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.
Source: Beverly Gomes-Schwartz, Jonathan Horowitz, and Albert P. Cardarelli, "Child Sexual Abuse Victims and Their Treatment," U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Child Abuse. Researchers in Michigan determined that "49 percent of all child abuse cases are committed by single mothers."
Source: Joan Ditson and Sharon Shay, "A Study of Child Abuse in Lansing, Michigan," Child Abuse and Neglect, 8 (1984).

Deadly predictions. A family structure index -- a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed -- is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males.
Source: Patricia L. McCall and Kenneth C. Land, "Trends in White Male Adolescent, Young-Adult and Elderly Suicide: Are There Common Underlying Structural Factors?" Social Science Research 23, 1994.

High risk. Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.

Suicidal Tendencies. In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families.
Source: David A. Brent, et al. "Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in Peers of Adolescent Suicide Victims: Predisposing Factors and Phenomenology." Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 34, 1995.

Confused identities. Boys who grow up in father-absent homes are more likely that those in father-present homes to have trouble establishing appropriate sex roles and gender identity.
Source: P.L. Adams, J.R. Milner, and N.A. Schrepf, Fatherless Children, New York, Wiley Press, 1984.

Psychiatric Problems. In 1988, a study of preschool children admitted to New Orleans hospitals as psychiatric patients over a 34-month period found that nearly 80 percent came from fatherless homes.
Source: Jack Block, et al. "Parental Functioning and the Home Environment in Families of Divorce," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27 (1988)

Emotional distress. Children living with a never-married mother are more likely to have been treated for emotional problems.
Source: L. Remez, "Children Who Don't Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems," Family Planning Perspectives (January/February 1992).

Uncooperative kids. Children reared by a divorced or never-married mother are less cooperative and score lower on tests of intelligence than children reared in intact families. Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income.
Source: Greg L. Duncan, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Kato Klebanov, "Economic Deprivation and Early Childhood Development," Child Development 65 (1994).
Unstable families, unstable lives. Compared to peers in two-parent homes, black children in single-parent households are more likely to engage in troublesome behavior, and perform poorly in school.
Source: Tom Luster and Hariette Pipes McAdoo, "Factors Related to the Achievement and Adjustment of Young African-American Children." Child Development 65 (1994): 1080-1094

Beyond class lines. Even controlling for variations across groups in parent education, race and other child and family factors, 18- to 22-year-olds from disrupted families were twice as likely to have poor relationships with their mothers and fathers, to show high levels of emotional distress or problem behavior, [and] to have received psychological help.
Source: Nicholas Zill, Donna Morrison, and Mary Jo Coiro, "Long Term Effects of Parental Divorce on Parent-Child Relationships, Adjustment and Achievement in Young Adulthood." Journal of Family Psychology 7 (1993).

Fatherly influence. Children with fathers at home tend to do better in school, are less prone to depression and are more successful in relationships. Children from one-parent families achieve less and get into trouble more than children from two parent families.
Source: One Parent Families and Their Children: The School's Most Significant Minority, conducted by The Consortium for the Study of School Needs of Children from One Parent Families, co sponsored by the National Association of Elementary School Principals and the Institute for Development of Educational Activities, a division of the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, Arlington, VA., 1980

Divorce disorders. Children whose parents separate are significantly more likely to engage in early sexual activity, abuse drugs, and experience conduct and mood disorders. This effect is especially strong for children whose parents separated when they were five years old or younger.
Source: David M. Fergusson, John Horwood and Michael T. Lynsky, "Parental Separation, Adolescent Psychopathology, and Problem Behaviors," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 33 (1944).

Troubled marriages, troubled kids. Compared to peers living with both biological parents, sons and daughters of divorced or separated parents exhibited significantly more conduct problems. Daughters of divorced or separated mothers evidenced significantly higher rates of internalizing problems, such as anxiety or depression.
Source: Denise B. Kandel, Emily Rosenbaum and Kevin Chen, "Impact of Maternal Drug Use and Life Experiences on Preadolescent Children Born to Teenage Mothers," Journal of Marriage and the Family56 (1994).

Hungry for love. "Father hunger" often afflicts boys age one and two whose fathers are suddenly and permanently absent. Sleep disturbances, such as trouble falling asleep, nightmares, and night terrors frequently begin within one to three months after the father leaves home.
Source: Alfred A. Messer, "Boys Father Hunger: The Missing Father Syndrome," Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, January 1989.

Disturbing news: Children of never-married mothers are more than twice as likely to have been treated for an emotional or behavioral problem.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, Hyattsille, MD, 1988

Poor and in trouble: A 1988 Department of Health and Human Services study found that at every income level except the very highest (over $50,000 a year), children living with never-married mothers were more likely than their counterparts in two-parent families to have been expelled or suspended from school, to display emotional problems, and to engage in antisocial behavior.
Source: James Q. Wilson, "In Loco Parentis: Helping Children When Families Fail Them," The Brookings Review, Fall 1993.

Fatherless aggression: In a longitudinal study of 1,197 fourth-grade students, researchers observed "greater levels of aggression in boys from mother-only households than from boys in mother-father households."
Source: N. Vaden-Kierman, N. Ialongo, J. Pearson, and S. Kellam, "Household Family Structure and Children's Aggressive Behavior: A Longitudinal Study of Urban Elementary School Children," Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 23, no. 5 (1995).

Act now, pay later: "Children from mother-only families have less of an ability to delay gratification and poorer impulse control (that is, control over anger and sexual gratification.) These children also have a weaker sense of conscience or sense of right and wrong."
Source: E.M. Hetherington and B. Martin, "Family Interaction" in H.C. Quay and J.S. Werry (eds.), Psychopathological Disorders of Childhood. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979)

Crazy victims: Eighty percent of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals come from broken homes.
Source: J.B. Elshtain, "Family Matters...", Christian Century, July 1993.

Duh to dead: "The economic consequences of a [father's] absence are often accompanied by psychological consequences, which include higher-than-average levels of youth suicide, low intellectual and education performance, and higher-than-average rates of mental illness, violence and drug use."
Source: William Galston, Elaine Kamarck. Progressive Policy Institute. 1993

Expelled: Nationally, 15.3 percent of children living with a never-married mother and 10.7 percent of children living with a divorced mother have been expelled or suspended from school, compared to only 4.4 percent of children living with both biological parents.
Source: Debra Dawson, "Family Structure...", Journal of Marriage and Family, No. 53. 1991.

Violent rejection: Kids who exhibited violent behavior at school were 11 times as likely not to live with their fathers and six times as likely to have parents who were not married. Boys from families with absent fathers are at higher risk for violent behavior than boys from intact families.
Source: J.L. Sheline (et al.), "Risk Factors...", American Journal of Public Health, No. 84. 1994.

That crowd: Children without fathers or with stepfathers were less likely to have friends who think it's important to behave properly in school. They also exhibit more problems with behavior and in achieving goals.
Source: Nicholas Zill, C. W. Nord, "Running in Place," Child Trends, Inc. 1994.

Likeliest to succeed: Kids who live with both biological parents at age 14 are significantly more likely to graduate from high school than those kids who live with a single parent, a parent and step-parent, or neither parent.
Source: G.D. Sandefur (et al.), "The Effects of Parental Marital Status...", Social Forces, September 1992.

Worse to bad: Children in single-parent families tend to score lower on standardized tests and to receive lower grades in school. Children in single-parent families are nearly twice as likely to drop out of school as children from two-parent families.
Source: J.B. Stedman (et al.), "Dropping Out," Congressional Research Service Report No 88-417. 1988.

College odds: Children from disrupted families are 20 percent more unlikely to attend college than kids from intact, two-parent families.
Source: J. Wallerstein, Family Law Quarterly, 20. (Summer 1986)

On their own: Kids living in single-parent homes or in step-families report lower educational expectations on the part of their parents, less parental monitoring of school work, and less overall social supervision than children from intact families.
Source: N.M. Astore and S. McLanahan, Americican Sociological Review, No. 56 (1991)

Double-risk: Fatherless children -- kids living in homes without a stepfather or without contact with their biological father -- are twice as likely to drop out of school.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Survey on Child Health. (1993)

Repeat, repeat: Nationally, 29.7 percent of children living with a never-married mother and 21.5 percent of children living with a divorced mother have repeated at least one grade in school, compared to 11.6 percent of children living with both biological parents.
Source: Debra Dawson, "Family Structure and Children's Well-Being," Journals of Marriage and Family, No. 53. (1991).

Underpaid high achievers: Children from low-income, two-parent families outperform students from high-income, single-parent homes. Almost twice as many high achievers come from two-parent homes as one-parent homes.
Source: "One-Parent Families and Their Children;" Charles F. Kettering Foundation (1990).

Dadless and dumb: At least one-third of children experiencing a parental separation "demonstrated a significant decline in academic performance" persisting at least three years.
Source: L.M.C. Bisnairs (et al.), American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, no. 60 (1990)

Son of Solo: According to a recent study of young, non-custodial fathers who are behind on child support payments, less than half of these men were living with their own father at age 14.

Slip-sliding: Among black children between the ages of 6 to 9 years old, black children in mother-only households scored significantly lower on tests of intellectual ability, than black children living with two parents.
Source: Luster and McAdoo, Child Development 65. 1994.

Dadless dropouts: After taking into account race, socio-economic status, sex, age and ability, high school students from single-parent households were 1.7 times more likely to drop out than were their corresponding counterparts living with both biological parents.
Source: Ralph McNeal, Sociology of Education 88. 1995.

Takes two: Families in which both the child's biological or adoptive parents are present in the household show significantly higher levels of parental involvement in the child's school activities than do mother-only families or step-families.
Source: Zill and Nord, "Running in Place." Child Trends. 1994

Con garden: Forty-three percent of prison inmates grew up in a single-parent household -- 39 percent with their mothers, 4 percent with their fathers -- and an additional 14 percent lived in households without either biological parent. Another 14 percent had spent at last part of their childhood in a foster home, agency or other juvenile institution.
Source: US Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of State Prison Inmates. 1991

Criminal moms, criminal kids: The children of single teenage mothers are more at risk for later criminal behavior. In the case of a teenage mother, the absence of a father also increases the risk of harshness from the mother.
Source: M. Mourash, L. Rucker, Crime and Delinquency 35. 1989.

Rearing rapists: Seventy-two percent of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. Sixty percent of America's rapists grew up the same way.
Source: D. Cornell (et al.), Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5. 1987. And N. Davidson, "Life Without Father," Policy Review. 1990.

Crime and poverty: The proportion of single-parent households in a community predicts its rate of violent crime and burglary, but the community's poverty level does not.
Source: D.A. Smith and G.R. Jarjoura, "Social Structure and Criminal Victimization," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25. 1988.

Marriage matters: Only 13 percent of juvenile delinquents come from families in which the biological mother and father are married to each other. By contract, 33 percent have parents who are either divorced or separated and 44 percent have parents who were never married.
Source: Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Social Services, April 1994.

No good time: Compared to boys from intact, two-parent families, teenage boys from disrupted families are not only more likely to be incarcerated for delinquent offenses, but also to manifest worse conduct while incarcerated.
Source: M Eileen Matlock et al., "Family Correlates of Social Skills..." Adolescence 29. 1994.

Count 'em: Seventy percent of juveniles in state reform institutions grew up in single- or no-parent situations.
Source: Alan Beck et al., Survey of Youth in Custody, 1987, US Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1988.

The Main Thing: The relationship between family structure and crime is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature.
Source: E. Kamarck, William Galston, Putting Children First, Progressive Policy Inst. 1990

Examples: Teenage fathers are more likely than their childless peers to commit and be convicted of illegal activity, and their offenses are of a more serious nature.
Source: M.A. Pirog-Good, "Teen Father and the Child Support System," in Paternity Establishment, Institute for research on Poverty, Univ. of Wisconsin. 1992.

The 'hood The likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is raised without a father and triples if he lives in a neighborhood with a high concentration of single-parent families.
Source: A. Anne Hill, June O'Neill, "Underclass Behaviors in the United States," CUNY, Baruch College. 1993

Bringing the war back home The odds that a boy born in America in 1974 will be murdered are higher than the odds that a serviceman in World War II would be killed in combat.
Source: US Sen. Phil Gramm, 1995

Get ahead at home and at work: Fathers who cared for their children intellectual development and their adolescent's social development were more like to advance in their careers, compared to men who weren't involved in such activities.
Source: J. Snarey, How Fathers Care for the Next Generation.Harvard Univ. Press.

Diaper dads: In 1991, about 20 percent of preschool children were cared for by their fathers -- both married and single. In 1988, the number was 15 percent.
Source: M. O'Connell, "Where's Papa? Father's Role in Child Care," Population Reference Bureau. 1993.

Without leave: Sixty-three percent of 1500 CEOs and human resource directors said it was not reasonable for a father to take a leave after the birth of a child.
Source: J.H. Pleck, "Family Supportive Employer Policies," Center for research in Women. 1991.

Get a job: The number of men who complain that work conflicts with their family responsibilities rose from 12 percent in 1977 to 72 percent in 1989. Meanwhile, 74 percent of men prefer a "daddy track" job to a "fast track" job.
Source: James Levine, The Fatherhood Project.

Long-distance dads: Twenty-six percent of absent fathers live in a different state than their children.
Source: US Bureau of the Census, Statistical Brief . 1991.

Cool Dad of the Week: Among fathers who maintain contact with their children after a divorce, the pattern of the relationship between father-and-child changes. They begin to behave more like relatives than like parents. Instead of helping with homework, nonresident dads are more likely to take the kids shopping, to the movies, or out to dinner. Instead of providing steady advice and guidance, divorced fathers become "treat dads."
Source: F. Furstenberg, A. Cherlin, Divided Families . Harvard Univ. Press. 1991.

Older's not wiser: While 57 percent of unwed dads with kids no older than two visit their children more than once a week, by the time the kid's seven and a half, only 23 percent are in frequent contact with their children.
Source: R. Lerman and Theodora Ooms, Young Unwed Fathers . 1993.

Ten years after: Ten years after the breakup of a marriage, more than two-thirds of kids report not having seen their father for a year.
Source: National Commission on Children, Speaking of Kids. 1991.

No such address: More than half the kids who don't live with their father have never been in their father's house.
Source: F. Furstenberg, A. Cherlin, Divided Families. Harvard Univ. Press. 1991.

Dadless years: About 40 percent of the kids living in fatherless homes haven't seen their dads in a year or more. Of the rest, only one in five sleeps even one night a month at the father's home. And only one in six sees their father once or more per week.
Source: F. Furstenberg, A. Cherlin, Divided Families. Harvard Univ. Press. 1991.

Measuring up? According to a 1992 Gallup poll, more than 50 percent of all adults agreed that fathers today spend less time with their kids than their fathers did with them.
Source: Gallup national random sample conducted for the National Center for Fathering, April 1992.

Father unknown. Of kids living in single-mom households, 35 percent never see their fathers, and another 24 percent see their fathers less than once a month.
Source: J.A. Selzer, "Children's Contact with Absent Parents," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50 (1988).

Missed contact: In a study of 304 young adults, those whose parents divorced after they left home had significantly less contact with their fathers than adult children who parents remained married. Weekly contact with their children dropped from 78 percent for still-married fathers to 44 percent for divorced fathers.
Source: William Aquilino, "Later Life Parental Divorce and Widowhood," Journal of Marriage and the Family 56. 1994.

Commercial breaks: The amount of time a father spends with his child -- one-on-one -- averages less than 10 minutes a day.
Source: J. P. Robinson, et al., "The Rhythm of Everyday Life." Westview Press. 1988

High risk: Overall, more than 75 percent of American children are at risk because of paternal deprivation. Even in two-parent homes, fewer than 25 percent of young boys and girls experience an average of at least one hour a day of relatively individualized contact with their fathers.
Source: Henry Biller, "The Father Factor..." a paper based on presentations during meetings with William Galston, Deputy Director, Domestic Policy, Clinton White House, December 1993 and April 1994.

Knock, knock: Of children age 5 to 14, 1.6 million return home to houses where there is no adult present.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Who's Minding the Kids?" Statistical Brief. April 1994.

Who said talk's cheap? Almost 20 percent of sixth- through twelfth-graders have not had a good conversation lasting for at least 10 minutes with at least one of their parents in more than a month.
Source: Peter Benson, "The Troubled Journey." Search Institute. 1993.

Justified guilt. A 1990 L.A. Times poll found that 57 percent of all fathers and 55 percent of all mothers feel guilty about not spending enough time with their children.
Source: Lynn Smith and Bob Sipchen, "Two Career Family Dilemma," Los Angeles Times, Aug. 12, 1990.

Who are you, mister? In 1965, parents on average spent approximately 30 hours a week with their kids. By 1985, the amount of time had fallen to 17 hours.
Source: William Mattox, "The Parent Trap." Policy Review. Winter, 1991.

Waiting Works: Only eight percent of those who finished high school, got married before having a child, and waited until age 20 to have that child were living in poverty in 1992.
Source: William Galston, "Beyond the Murphy Brown Debate." Institute for Family Values. Dec. 10, 1993.

True_Avery
05-31-2007, 08:21 PM
Ok, I have watched long enough and this thread is really giving me a bad taste in my mouth. It really is hard to tell what is worse, the stereotyping or the fact that so much of these studies that you are using against homosexuals are based on hetrosexual scenereos.

Let me put it this way. A lot of my evengelical brethren are very concerned about what kind of care a child would receive in the care of gay adoptive parents. They're scared that the child will suffer harm, and when you're talking about care of children, that's a legitimate concern for anyone--no one wants to see children harmed. What kinds of things would you say to them to allay their fears? Assume that if you're making a sarcastic statement, they're going to be offended and turned off by your message, so your job is to educate and help them understand.
Here's their chief concerns--
As far as I can tell from personal experience, evengelicals hate Gays in the first place (not saying you do) and their distrust of them taking care of children revolves mainly around that.

1. The child may be at greater risk for developing homosexuality (and if we're all honest, we'll admit that at this time in history, being homosexual in this society presents some challenges that being straight does not)
I cannot express my feelings on this veiw fully into words because it is simply both incredibly amusing to me and incredibly ignorant to me. Homosexuality is not something you just develop out of abolutely nowhere. You know way before puberty and abuse rarely has anything to do with it. I don't know if this is your personal opinion or not, but abuse, bad parenting, ect have nothing to do with your base sexuality. You have gay friends and they all claim to have been abused. You claim that is a likely probably that nearly all gays were abused, but wont speak out about it. I claim that I have known over a dozen gays in my life and only 1 or 2 of them claim to have been abused, all of them claim to have known even before puberty, and the majority of them actually grew up in homes that fully accepted them.

Regarding homosexuality, bi sexuality, etc as a mental illness or condition that develops with time is an outdated ideal and that was thrown out the window by the medical accociations of the world almost 30 years ago.

How do you know you are straight? Because you know you are. That is what it feels like. I think you would consider it an insult if I tell you that you being straight, even though you know you were born it for a fact, is a result of your parents being bad to you.

2. The child will be missing learning about one gender role (either male or female, depending on gender of gay parents, obviously)
Assuming that a child that grows up with Gay parents will be sheltered to utterly and completely that they don't know Gender roles is a claim that I hear often yet almost never see proof to back up. The kids will still go to school, still interact with other families, still be around other people enough to understand that their parents might be a little out of the norm. But why is that bad? From my experience will all of the people I've met that grow up in Gay families they end up being far more open minded and accepting of others far more often than the kids with a mommy and a daddy who believe it is all a sin or not a "correct" lifestyle.

Also, what do you consider to be "Gender Roles"? To me that sounds a little like stereotyping the sexes into certain jobs and areas for a family when it is completely possibly for either sex to do what the other does in a family besides give birth. I might be taking that at face value to much, but saying that each Gender has a role to play in life seems a little wrong.

3. The child may become confused about gender roles if a male acts very feminine or a woman acts very masculine
Alright. Then I'll just not have children because I prefer to act more "masculine" than "feminine" shall I? I don't see how either sex acting "more like the other" is a problem in any way beside the fact that men have emotion beaten out of them as they grow up by fathers who want tough boys and other boys who mock boys who dare to show more emotion and femininity than they do. Men acting a little less super macho all the time could do the entire world some good as being more incontact with your emotional and feminine side can help you with women, deal with situations, and mainly just live happier imo. Women acting more masculine could do wonders as well. The "feminine" women nowadays in not much more than a poster girl for men and I would love to see more tomboys running around than girls with high voices and low cut tops.

4. Children growing up without fathers are at higher risk for a host of problems (and here's lots of stuff for you, Achilles, if I can get it all in 1 post. :D )
And how exactly does this apply to Gays at all? Having two men for parents, two father! Don't see a problem there. Having two women? Through my experience I see that one or both usually take a more masculine role and just because it is two women does not mean at all that the child will come out horrible.

More for Achilles, but this is some of the concerns about living in a single gender/parent home.
Some stats--a bit old, but I just started looking at some of this and wanted to throw it out there around the campfire, so to speak, for discussion.
More Statistics
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God`s Children.)
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)

How many more links would you like, Achilles? ;P
Again... how does this apply to a homosexual home?

The info and sites you have are very interesting but it seems to revolve to highly around a hetrosexual home that I fail completely to see how this applies to kids being adopted into homosexual homes. I'd like to point out that growing up with no parents at all is a terrible way to live as you grew up without that special someone to look up to and give you boundaries in life. You can live in a home with two men and have two fathers, live with two women and live just as great, or you can live without either completely like many orphans do nowadays due to the fact so few hetrosexual couples are adopting nowadays because of expenses. These kids need parents, these couples want kids. I don't see any amount of evidence in the world that should keep them from meeting and having a happy family.

I know I am probably coming off as hostile right now, but this is a topic that bothers me far too much and far too deeply to be considered as a light hearted debate. I know you'll probably clear up what you said for me and I know I'll probably understand a little more. Be back in a bit :P

EDIT: Sorry about this post if it really did seem overly hostile. I had a bad day, just woke up from a nap, etc. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, if thats the message my quickly typed post got across.

shamelessposer
05-31-2007, 08:35 PM
They don't want you to call them bigots, shamelessposer. All that's going to do is turn them off from your message even more. They want you to understand their concerns, and they want you to show them how children benefit, and how you'd address those perceived problems.

Quite frankly, I don't care about changing anyone's opinion. If there's a person who has been able to reason him- or herself into believing that there's a group of people somewhere in the world who don't deserve the same civil rights as everyone else, that person is a bigot. This person is not interested in changing their opinion, and I'm unlikely to do it over an internet message board. The best I can do is tell that person that their world-is-flat, photography-steals-my-soul, the-four-humours-are-the-cause-of-all-medical-problems belief system is antiquated and downright wrong. Will this make the person shut up about their wrongheaded beliefs? Maybe. Will it reinforce the siege mentality that causes people to believe this garbage to the point that they'll pack up the whole family and move into the "in case of liberals" shelter? Even better.

I am not interested in debating this subject. Debate is for issues that have shades of gray and moral ambiguity.

EDIT: But if I was interested in debating I would have pointed out the same fallacies True_Avery did, but in a much less tactful way.

SilentScope001
05-31-2007, 09:17 PM
Quite frankly, I don't care about changing anyone's opinion. If there's a person who has been able to reason him- or herself into believing that there's a group of people somewhere in the world who don't deserve the same civil rights as everyone else, that person is a bigot.

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

This person is not interested in changing their opinion, and I'm unlikely to do it over an internet message board. The best I can do is tell that person that their world-is-flat, photography-steals-my-soul, the-four-humours-are-the-cause-of-all-medical-problems belief system is antiquated and downright wrong.

By being intolerant to Jae, you yourself have done the same crime that you accuse your foes of doing, being intolerant to other opinons, lifestyles or identities. I may disagree with Jae, but I want to know what Jae is saying, and I want to tolerate her viewpoint, instead of dismissing it as totally wrong. Many people have different educational backgrounds, and many people know much more than I do...

I am quite upset at this turn of the discussion. Everyone here has some level of intolerance within them (the only difference is in the degrees). Let just supress our hatred of one another, and let us learn to understand that each of us view the world differently.

shamelessposer
05-31-2007, 09:42 PM
By being intolerant to Jae, you yourself have done the same crime that you accuse your foes of doing, being intolerant to other opinons, lifestyles or identities.

Tolerance is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. "You have the right to swing your arms all you want until you hit me or mine in the face," and all that other stuff. Being intolerant of the intolerant is not a form of bigotry, and you should be wary of anyone who tells you so.

SilentScope001
05-31-2007, 10:02 PM
Tolerance is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. "You have the right to swing your arms all you want until you hit me or mine in the face," and all that other stuff. Being intolerant of the intolerant is not a form of bigotry, and you should be wary of anyone who tells you so.

I'm sorry but I disagree. Everyone has a right to their own view, regardless of wheter you agree with it or not. Tolerance exist because without it, people will scream and hurt one another. Tolerance has to be an ends in itself, because it is the only thing that keeps ideologies from killing and harming one another and it is the thing that can help prevent wars and chaos and mayhem. Tolerance is the only thing that keeps the Freedom of Speech alive, and I am a firm defender of it. If people are going to be intolerant, then they are trying to stop other people from speaking their own views, censorsing views they hate like the radicals they claim to oppose, and by doing so, they are disrespecting the spirit of the 1st Amendment.

If I can declare myself that it's okay to be intolerant of one side, then I am basically saying that some forms of intolerance is fine. If you say it is okay for you to be intolerant, then why is it not okay for other people to be intolerant? Hypocrisim is bad, very bad.

Jae Onasi
06-01-2007, 12:43 AM
shameless, you missed the whole point of my post. In this particular case, I've already clarified my _personal_ feelings a number of times, which in this case is different from the position I'm arguing from. I could argue either side if I wanted, actually, but others have taken the liberal stance so I thought I'd take the conservative, since I understand their objections pretty well. I'm pointing out how evangelicals and other socially conservative people feel. I'm sorry if that rocks your world, but if you really want to make headway in tolerance for gays, you _have_ to address their concerns, and they are legitimate concerns that should not be brushed under the carpet because they make you uncomfortable. You can't just jump on someone who's got concerns and say "You're an intolerant bigot!!" That doesn't help one bit.


I am not interested in debating this subject. Debate is for issues that have shades of gray and moral ambiguity.
If you are not interested in debating this subject, then this thread is not for you. This is a discussion forum. If this is upsetting you so much that you cannot contribute here in a positive, meaningful way, then I would recommend ignoring this thread entirely. If you would like to contribute in a positive way, we welcome your comments.


EDIT: But if I was interested in debating I would have pointed out the same fallacies True_Avery did, but in a much less tactful way.
I would strongly advise against posting in a less tactful way.

Just a general moderator note for everyone: This is one of those subjects that can cause some rancor. Rude, condescending, flaming posts will be deleted/edited per this forum's rule, and if it's really nasty, that person will earn themselves a warning. The goal is to keep it friendly. If you wouldn't talk to your friend that way, don't talk to people here that way, either. :)

ET Warrior
06-01-2007, 12:46 AM
1. The child may be at greater risk for developing homosexuality (and if we're all honest, we'll admit that at this time in history, being homosexual in this society presents some challenges that being straight does not)So we should be keeping gay children out of straight homes on the chance that they might develop straightness?

2. The child will be missing learning about one gender role (either male or female, depending on gender of gay parents, obviously)Which is different from single parents or orphanages...how?

3. The child may become confused about gender roles if a male acts very feminine or a woman acts very masculineI honestly think that should be a poster reason FOR homosexual adoption. Gender roles are STILL horribly outdated and sexist, and there is no reason for them.

4. Children growing up without fathers are at higher risk for a host of problems *long list of problems*Now, I'm off to bed and work in the morning so I'm not going to look into this in too much detail, but I'm assuming that the VAST majority of those studies are about fatherless heterosexual homes. So is the problem having no father, or is the problem having only one parent? Or potentially having a dead-beat parent who abandoned them when they were young? A lot of those issues you listed seem like they would stem from abandonment or betrayal issues, none of which would arise in a stable homosexual home.

Jae Onasi
06-01-2007, 02:10 AM
ET, the questions were for shameless or anyone else to answer as concerns about placing a child with homosexual vs. heterosexual couples. You're not providing answers--you're answering the question with another question.

Gender roles--I'm not talking sexist outdated ones. I'm talking healthy ones. Do you think I'd be a doctor if I believed in the 1950's Good Housewife role?

We're not androgynous (health issues notwithstanding), feminist attempts to shove us in that mold otherwise. I can't accomplish some of the things Jimbo can and he can't do some of the things I can. Our different hormones do things to our anatomy and physiology that we cannot deny. We do function, act, and in some cases even think in different ways. Fighting the differences rather than working with them and allowing them to be complementary is not working. Instead of denying they exist or having unhealthy sexist attitudes, we need to develop positive roles that account for those differences and similarities and work to maximize our own strengths.

The links in question were more in answer to Achilles' posts awhile back that asked how being fatherless affects kids. This is the answer. I don't believe homo or heterosexuality was specified exclusively.

The fact that there aren't a lot of studies on this issue, ET, should make us take pause. I would never give a patient a medication just because I thought it was 'right'. I'd research it first before acting and make sure that studies showed that that drop was an effective treatment for that person's condition and had minimal risks.

This is one of those situations where I think we need to stop and research how it's going for kids already in homosexual parent families before we go jumping into the situation blindly. This is the first generation since maybe ancient Greece where we're dealing with the issue of homosexual parents on a large scale, and we know nothing about how it's going to affect kids in general over a long period of time. Relationships function differently between gays and straights--it stands to reason that there will be differences in parenting to some degree with its attendant advantages and disadvantages. We've not explored that in significant enough numbers to make me entirely comfortable going with a wholesale blanket recommendation. We have no real clue on what problems they'll face, what things will work easier for them, and how to minimize the former and maximize the latter. I think there are going to be specific challenges unique to gay parenting that needs to be looked at and addressed for the benefit of the child. I'm not ready to give wholehearted approval until I've seen a few studies that fairly address that and show that there is benefit equivalent to straight adoption and risks no higher--and if that happens then I'll be comfortable with the idea. I know that there are plenty of loving gay parents out there. I just want to see how it's going to work for more people, and if there are specific issues, how those are worked out.

shamelessposer
06-01-2007, 12:48 PM
You're not providing answers--you're answering the question with another question.

But the questions you're asking lack merit. The only evidence you've been able to provide that the questions do have merit is a clump of studies from "family values" organizations that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

If you've decided that it's unhealthy for a particular kind of person to raise a child, you're the one with the burden of proof.

Jae Onasi
06-01-2007, 01:40 PM
But the questions you're asking lack merit.Why? You're writing off an entire group of conservatives as nothing more than just bigots, without providing an adequate explanation for applyling that label other than the fact that you don't like that they are uncomfortable around gays.

The only evidence you've been able to provide that the questions do have merit is a clump of studies from "family values" organizations that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.The studies cited may have been listed on some conservative organization sites (and one is a father's rights site, not a 'family values' site), but the studies themselves were done by respected and recognized researchers and published in respected/recognized journals. They are no less valid just because they happened to also be quoted on a more conservative site, just like I don't write off studies quoted on ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative sites. I look at the studies themselves.

If you've decided that it's unhealthy for a particular kind of person to raise a child, you're the one with the burden of proof.
Actually, since you're asserting that homosexual parenting is equally valid as heterosexual parenting, and heterosexual parenting is the norm, the burden of proof is on you to show that homosexual parenting arrangements are as healthy for the child as heterosexual parenting.

I provided proof anyway with the studies--it's more difficult for children to learn appropriate male-female interactions in a single parent or single gender couple household. A number of studies show that children do best in a stable, loving, household with both _biological_ parents (note inclusion of all those descriptors). This is the ideal situation and there is little or no disagreement on that among researchers. Are single or gay parent arrangements better than other less-than-ideal heterosexual parenting situations? Sure. Are they the ideal? No. Show me well-run, well-conducted, unbiased studies where children are served equally well in alternative parenting settings and I'll be willing to embrace that. Until then, I'm reserving judgment.

I really don't care what the orientation of the parents are. They can be gay, straight, or prickly-pear-cactus-sexual for all I care, as long as it doesn't violate the law or harm someone or something. I want to know what's going to happen to kids, because they don't get to make choices on this, and they are not mature enough to make informed decisions on such matters.

Dagobahn Eagle
06-01-2007, 03:06 PM
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
[And so on]Red herring. The studies, as well as the studies in the long article of yours, appear to me to indicate homes where there is only one parent [a single mother], as opposed to two parents [two mothers]. As such, it's not necessarily the lack of a father that's the problem, but the lack of a second parent.

1. The child may be at greater risk for developing homosexuality (and if we're all honest, we'll admit that at this time in history, being homosexual in this society presents some challenges that being straight does not)Even if that was proven true, the kid is still better off with two loving parents than in an orphanage or foster home.

Gender roles--I'm not talking sexist outdated ones. I'm talking healthy ones.I'm skeptical to both 'outdated sexist' gender roles, and 'healthy' ones.

Do you think I'd be a doctor if I believed in the 1950's Good Housewife role?Sigh. Jae, don't make me start about the completely incompetent medical personnel I've had the misfortune to encounter in my life.

Actually, since you're asserting that homosexual parenting is equally valid as heterosexual parenting, and heterosexual parenting is the norm, the burden of proof is on you to show that homosexual parenting arrangements are as healthy for the child as heterosexual parenting.Not necessarily equally valid, but certainly not that bad that it should not be legal.

Totenkopf
06-01-2007, 03:16 PM
Not necessarily equally valid, but certainly not that bad that it should not be legal.


On what do you base your opinion beyond personal prejudices? Just curious.

Dagobahn Eagle
06-01-2007, 04:12 PM
I base it on the fact that gay parents and children do not receive much flak, certainly not compared to expectations, and that many or most of the children end up just fine.

The correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia has been pointed out, and it does worry me. However, it's not the rate of pedophilia that should be recorded, but the rate of abuse. I don't know about children of gays, but offspring of lesbian mothers have been found to be less likely to be abused than children of a mother and father, and children of lesbian mothers have been found to be more 'socially competent' than children of heterosexual parents. Finally, a study published in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry states that 'stereotypical' gender roles are intact in girls raised by lesbian mothers. As for 'catching the gay', no studies so far have suggested this to be true.

References
1. Study finds gay moms equally-good parents (http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=56c4d812-2c73-4c1a-986c-395c7b4ae1a1&k=24128) , Canada.com, May 7, 2007.
2. Interviews with Ten-Year-Old Children (http://www.nllfs.org/publications/pdf/tenyearolds.pdf) [of lesbian parents - D. E.], American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, October 2005.
3. Kirkpatrick, Smith, and Roy, Lesbian Mothers and their Children: A Comparative Survey, 51 Am. J. Orthopsychiatry, 545, 551, 1981.

A huge thank you to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#_note-8) ;).

Jae Onasi
06-01-2007, 06:30 PM
Sigh. Jae, don't make me start about the completely incompetent medical personnel I've had the misfortune to encounter in my life.


And what, precisely, are you saying about my competence as a doctor, seeing as you're in Norway and I'm in the US? You've never seen me taking care of any patient or have any clue whatsoever about my qualifications, so don't try to associate me with incompetent medical personnel.

And what does that have to do with gender roles anyway? I'm pointing out that if I did believe that all women should be stay-at-home types, I wouldn't have bothered earning a doctor degree and working out of the home.

Let me also be clear--I don't want to denigrate those women who wish to stay home and raise their kids, either. It's darn hard to raise and care for a family, and some families' financial situations are such that it's more cost effective for one of the parents to stay home than work outside the home. I admire anyone who does a good job of raising a family, whether they work in or out of the home.

Gender roles--like it or not, Jimbo, as a man, will never know what it's like to be a mother. He will not know how it feels to be pregnant and feel a baby move inside, birth that baby, experience all those associated weird hormone effects, or have that mother-child bond develop. My mothering role is in part driven by the fact that my 2 x chromosomes and estrogen made my body and brain develop differently from Jimbo's. My entire outlook on life is different from Jimbo's testosterone/xy-chromosome-driven outlook. Our physiology does not allow us to ever be truly gender-neutral, and I don't think we should try to be. We should try to be good at the strengths our physiology gives us and synergize to minimize the weaknesses. Those roles, of course, may differ as much as someone's physiology differs, but the role of father or mother are unique to males and females respectively and it's unwise to ignore that.

Dagobahn Eagle
06-01-2007, 06:37 PM
And what, precisely, are you saying about my competence as a doctor?Absolutely nothing. I didn't mean you.

ForceFightWMe12
06-01-2007, 07:55 PM
Alright, I'm sorry, but there is just WAY too many horny guys here for one thread. I think a bit more estrogen is needed for the mix :xp: Keep in mind that, as you read this, I'm only a teenager and I have never been sexually active before. But I suppose that's why I'm here - to show you that there are people out there other than adults who face this sort of thing.

As a teenager, Iíve witnessed myself the many pressures that are being put on the youth of our country first-hand, especially the pressures of a sexual nature. You see, we get pressures from all points on the argument Ė everything from teachers and priests and nuns spewing Project Truth hogwash at us every day to having four-month boyfriends nudging and pushing us for sex. As Jae has said, they give us the whole ďif you really loved me, you would. Because you know that I love you.Ē Unfortunately, I have to say that Iím one of the few of the girls that I know in my class that have been able to withstand this lure and to recognize the sheer idiocy of such a notion. Does that make all the girls who have prude? Does that make all the girls who haven't stupid? Does it make them blind? Does it give them loose morals? Does it make them a hussy, a tramp, a whore, a ho, a used-up good-for-nothing girl that only deserves to be used again? I think not.

The main motivation that Iíve seen for girls my age is love; the emotion that is purely human, that every man and woman longs for in their lives. There are, of course, girls in my high school that want to be 'intimate' with their boyfriend, that enjoy choosing to be with many men; and, of course, that is their choice. But for the greater percentage of the girls that Iíve seen, theyíve mostly lost their virginity to a guy because he said that he would love her more, or that she would mean more to him; in other words that sex equals love. Which, in almost every case of every teenager, it most certainly is not. Iíve also seen the relationships of those who have slept with their boyfriends deteriorate quickly after, ending in a heartbreak because either heís moved on or sheís had enough. However, saying no doesnít always solve the problem. Many a time both I and my friends have told a boyfriend no, and so he decides to seek out other prey behind our backs. For those of you men who are too jacked on testosterone to know, yes, this is called cheating, and no, we women are not alright with it.

But Iím beginning to digress. My main point with all of this is that what one person does does in fact effect their society. These boys who are using-and-losing girls usually donít come about their decision to Ďlive their lifeí that way simply by chance. Rather, theyíre influenced, pressured into it. Where from? From friends, brothers, cousins, uncles, fathersÖ the list goes on. These boys donít act on their testosterone or sex drive alone. Iíve known several boys from a young age that would never dream of ever using a girl simply for sex. Most of them, after getting to high school, have been met with pressures that Ďchange their moralsí and, Iím sad to say, Iíve seen many of them do-and-drop. These pressures come almost unanimously from the prominent male figures in their lives that have simply shown them that such ways of life are perfectly okay. That women do enjoy casual sex, that they donít mind being drained of everything that made them them in order to please a man that theyíll only be with for a short time.

One of the absolute best philosophies that I have as-of-yet come across for this debate is really quite simple. Think about yourself a few years into the future. Do you ever see yourself finding that right woman or man, getting married, and settling down with this one person to live out your lives together in happiness? Well, just keep in mind, that that person you will one day choose to spend your life with is out there right now. Think to yourself: when you think of your future spouse, do you want to have known that that person has had casual sex with someone that they didnít truly love the way they love you? Or perhaps that they had sex with tens, thirties, hundreds of people that they didnít love? If they did have spontaneous, casual one-night-stands, then what makes your honeymoon any different? Do you have the delusion that your first night together is any different, holds any more love or meaning to it than the first night that he or she climbed into bed with some complete stranger?

I know that ET has pointed out that this isnít necessarily an argument about morals, but rather that casual sex is a personal choice for a personal way of life. However, when making this choice, one canít only think of the consequences that would effect only you, because the range of your actions is much greater than that.

True_Avery
06-01-2007, 08:36 PM
Gender roles--like it or not, Jimbo, as a man, will never know what it's like to be a mother. He will not know how it feels to be pregnant and feel a baby move inside, birth that baby, experience all those associated weird hormone effects, or have that mother-child bond develop. My mothering role is in part driven by the fact that my 2 x chromosomes and estrogen made my body and brain develop differently from Jimbo's. My entire outlook on life is different from Jimbo's testosterone/xy-chromosome-driven outlook. Our physiology does not allow us to ever be truly gender-neutral, and I don't think we should try to be. We should try to be good at the strengths our physiology gives us and synergize to minimize the weaknesses. Those roles, of course, may differ as much as someone's physiology differs, but the role of father or mother are unique to males and females respectively and it's unwise to ignore that.
So hormones decide who are good parents? I've seen quite a few men think in a more feminine way than many girls I know and many girls who understand the male mind quite nicely. Is it your arguement against Gay Men that because they have never given birth that they can never truly love the child they adopt? Or even a lesbian? 41% of Lesbians want to have a child and raise it as their own, and some even want to adopt. They would know what it is like to have a child, so don't they deserve the same right to adopt and love a child? Wouldn't a lesbian couple who both birthed children be possibly even more capable of caring for them hypothetically?

Hormones, in my personal opinion, don't control as much as people claim. I see many people say "Oh, you just will never be able to think like me!" or "Girls don't understand men!", along with other rants that I can't see having much water to back up. I base this opinion on transgendered people, a subject that is actually rarely brought up in gay debates. If hormones TRULY control so much, then why do transgendered people find their minds stuck in the wrong body when they are clearly under the same hormones and chromozones of their birthed sex? Now I know I just contradicted myself, but I am basing this less on birth gender but revolving more around hormone gender. If it was truly hormones then someone could pump themselves full of estrogen and suddenly be a woman... but it just doesn't work like that and never will. I really don't understand what I just typed, but I'm trying my best to get what I'm thinking into words. I just, in a way, said your theory was both right and wrong at the same time so I guess this can be ignored.

Also, I disagree with the idea that there are no gender neutrals, even though the amount is quite low. I'll stand up and say I am gender neutral if you'd like to believe it or not, but still I am a very small person in a sea of black and white so I guess my point isn't relevant. Physcial body, in my opinion, doesn't control your life as much as people would like to believe, but rather your mental state of mind being much more important. But then saying that as fact would be contradictory to my arguement, so it will remain speculation.

And finally on that quote, you seem to be going over the topic of debate. Adoption. Yes yes, I fully fully understand your veiw of a mother devoping a bond between her child, "a bond that only a mother can have", and all of the rest of it. But the biological mother is not there for these children. And, oddly and ironically enough, the majority of people I have known to have been abused or treated badly had it done to them by quite cruel and uncaring mothers than fathers. The father can simply be mean a lot of the time, but I have known mothers to give their children drugs, alcohol, weapons, and all kinds of things.

Gender roles -can- be important, but you do not have to play the roll of a gender to love and raise a child who grows up and becomes skilled in life. A woman and a man can both give punishments, both can bring money into the house, both can devop strong strong bonds with their children, and both can love with the same passion and respect. Where do I get these claims? My own parents for a start. My sister is actually much more attached to my father, and I more to my mother. Even though we were raised the same, bonds devop differently from person to person and gender to gender. A child can and do respect their same-sex parents. And same-sex parents have no difference at all in them from opposite-sex parents besides a same gender relationship. Love, to some, can all be considered the same. Some even consider chopping up love and labeling it into different categories to be a travesty.


I provided proof anyway with the studies--it's more difficult for children to learn appropriate male-female interactions in a single parent or single gender couple household. A number of studies show that children do best in a stable, loving, household with both _biological_ parents (note inclusion of all those descriptors). This is the ideal situation and there is little or no disagreement on that among researchers. Are single or gay parent arrangements better than other less-than-ideal heterosexual parenting situations? Sure. Are they the ideal? No. Show me well-run, well-conducted, unbiased studies where children are served equally well in alternative parenting settings and I'll be willing to embrace that. Until then, I'm reserving judgment.

I really don't care what the orientation of the parents are. They can be gay, straight, or prickly-pear-cactus-sexual for all I care, as long as it doesn't violate the law or harm someone or something. I want to know what's going to happen to kids, because they don't get to make choices on this, and they are not mature enough to make informed decisions on such matters.
The thought that an ideal situation is both original parents in a stable household has little to do with the debate on adopted kids. Since those kids don't have their original parents and will possibly go without parents their entire life, the subject of how they would have been with their original parents is irrelevent. What is relevent however is how they will do by being adopted. Although, your theory can apply to Lesbians who give birth to their own children.

Adoption is a sticky subject, even for hetrosexuals. Adopting a child costs thousands of dollars and requires sometimes years of background checks before they even consider you. There are hundreds of kids out there wanting to be adopted, wanting a family, yet we hold them back from that dream because of the cost, hastle, and the fact we continue to hold back millions of couples that would be glad to care for those children with all the care and love in their heart. It is completely and utterly irrelevent to this conversation to consider an ideal situation for these children and their original parents because adoption is their only option and to be honest no home will be completely ideal to them because they know the person is not their real parents, but the love is just as strong.

I still must highly disagree with you that having gay or lesbian parents will harm you more than a hetrosexual couple. I have seen your evidence to support your belief and they all seem to be based upon hetrosexual couples, even though they are quite good. I have yet to post anything to support myself, so here are some of the many:

Too High A Price (http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file130_27496.pdf)

Articles:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=7f508a13-abed-43cc-a346-f18fbd30250e&k=15909&p=1
http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/FinalAdoptionReport.pdf
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=38cc20ce-7f14-44ea-b4d9-d4cd16d7a269&k=9378
Let Him Stay (http://www.lethimstay.com/loftons.html)

Associations and Studies:
American Academy Of Child & Adolescent Phychiatry (http://www.aacap.org/page.ww?section=Facts+for+Families&name=Children+with+Lesbian%2C+Gay%2C+Bisexual+and+ Transgender+Parents)
American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/releases/gaymarriage_reso.pdf)
American Academy of Pediatrics (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349)
Child Welfare League of America (http://www.cwla.org/articles/cv0201gayadopt.htm)
National Adoption Center (http://www.adopt.org/whoweare/policy.html#Adoptive%20Parent%20Assessment)
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html
North American Council on Adoptable Children (http://www.nacac.org/pub_statements.html#gay)
Family Pride (http://www.familypride.org/)

Human Rights Campaign Foundation (http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Professional_Opinion1&CONTENTID=14082&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm)

And last but not least, Children of Lesbian and Gays Everywhere (http://www.colage.org/) and Families Like Mine (http://www.familieslikemine.com/)

Added to this is real life experiences with people adopted by Gay families I have had myself.

I know that ET has pointed out that this isnít necessarily an argument about morals, but rather that casual sex is a personal choice for a personal way of life. However, when making this choice, one canít only think of the consequences that would effect only you, because the range of your actions is much greater than that.
Ooo, very nice post. I salute you!

I chose to ignore that post line personally. As being a woman I can see Jae and your veiwpoint perfectly, but then again I am mostly Asexual and have never been in a relationship before or ever sexually active so I guess my veiwpoint on all of this is distorted to a degree.

This actually gives me a thread idea...

Jae Onasi
06-02-2007, 12:10 AM
I still must highly disagree with you that having gay or lesbian parents will harm you more than a hetrosexual couple.

I didn't make myself terribly clear--I'm not looking at it as an either/or, harm/benefit--I'm looking at it as a continuum from harm on one end to benefit on the other. An action may not be harmful, but it may not be beneficial, either. And some things are more beneficial than others. If aspirin helps a headache but an antacid does not, you take the aspirin. Now, the antacid isn't harmful, but it's not going to work for the headache, either.

There are a number of homosexual parent studies going on atm, and if they can show me that children benefit equally with them as heterosexuals and have equivalently low risk, then that works for me and I can accept that. I'm 90% sure things would be fine, but I don't want to be 10% wrong when you're talking about a kid's life. If putting kids with prickly-pear-cactus-sexuals turned out to be the most ideal situation for kids, then I'd go for that.

Hormone levels during the early years of life can affect how brain pathways are laid down, just like a lot of other factors such as love (or lack thereof) from parents, exposure to sensory stimuli (the more and varied sensory stimuli, to a point, the more brain pathways develop), etc. I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that transgendered folks have some different estrogen/testosterone balance or a certain environmental stimulus at some key point in development than "normal" folks.

True_Avery
06-02-2007, 12:22 AM
Ah, that clears it up then.

But I would personally consider having parents more ideal than sitting in an orphanage day after day. Millions of same-sex couples looking for adoption, yet many cant. Hetrosexuals just don't adopt enough, and there are more kids than there are couples ready to adopt them either way. It's a sad situation really.

Hormone levels during the early years of life can affect how brain pathways are laid down, just like a lot of other factors such as love (or lack thereof) from parents, exposure to sensory stimuli (the more and varied sensory stimuli, to a point, the more brain pathways develop), etc. I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that transgendered folks have some different estrogen/testosterone balance or a certain environmental stimulus at some key point in development than "normal" folks.
Well, since it is a natural body the testrosterone and estrogen counts are normal. But studies have shown that it happens during the growing of the brain and some things not devoping or overdevoping. I mean, male and female brains are identicle in the womb up until the point the female is left alone and the male brain is flooded and walled with testrostrone.
On the idea that it is an imbalance at some point in life for both gays and transgendered people I'd agree with to a point in saying that it happens in the womb, but not as an envirmental or social thing after birth. I could get onto the subject of the X chromozone being 3 times larger than the Y, and the Y being 3 times smaller after only a few thousand years of human evolution and that other times this has happened a species has gone full lesbian female with Asexual reproduction, but that is irrelevent to the topic but possibly worth a thread in the future. Hmmm...

Jae Onasi
06-02-2007, 12:37 AM
Heh, I have a friend who calls the Y chromosome 'a broken X' one. :D

Emperor Devon
06-02-2007, 01:23 AM
If I may point out a particularly valid point of ET's I think you've missed...

2. The child will be missing learning about one gender role (either male or female, depending on gender of gay parents, obviously)

Which is different from single parents or orphanages...how?

Guaranteeing all families will be nuclear ones with one father and one mother is impossible, whether they're all straight or not.

Allowing single straight parents to have kids but not gays strikes me as rather silly. They're missing out on parents of both genders either way, so why bar some of those parents simply because they're gay? The results will be the same as single straight ones..

Dagobahn Eagle
06-02-2007, 04:04 PM
Not to mention that if the amount of information is the subject, I could use the same argument against same-culture or same-colour adoption: If two parents, both from Sweden, adopt a kid, as opposed to one parent from Sweden and one from Taiwan, then the kid misses out on an important cultural and linguistic opportunity. With the latter set-up, she has a chance to learn Taiwanese as well as Swedish in her early years, as well as learn about Taiwanese culture. With the 'mono-ethnic' setup, she'll learn predominately about Sweden, and probably not grow up bilingual.

Tongue-in-cheek conclusion: For the sake of orphans everywhere, 'mono-ethnic', mono-lingual couples should not be allowed to adopt.

See my point? A gay family may not be as good at teaching gender roles, but it's still a good family. Just like a mono-ethnic family is inferior when it comes to teaching the kid to be bilingual.

ET Warrior
06-02-2007, 04:58 PM
That women do enjoy casual sex,/sigh
I'm honestly not lying here, some women really do enjoy casual sex. Honestly, I didn't make that up. Just because you aren't interested has no bearing on the matter

Think to yourself: when you think of your future spouse, do you want to have known that that person has had casual sex with someone that they didnít truly love the way they love you? Or perhaps that they had sex with tens, thirties, hundreds of people that they didnít love? In all honesty, I prefer that my women have sexual experience. I would rather that my spouse (assuming I ever actually decide to get married...) have a similar morals to me, and part of my moral stance is that casual sex is fine as long as you're responsible.
Do you have the delusion that your first night together is any different, holds any more love or meaning to it No. But I don't have those Meg Ryan movie inspired romanticized notions of love and sex anyway.
when making this choice, one canít only think of the consequences that would effect only you, because the range of your actions is much greater than that.I can think of an awful lot of activities whose consequences affect other people that nobody has moral issue with. Giving my friends a ride in my car has the potential to kill them all if we get in a wreck. Asking them to go camping they could get mauled by a mountain bear. My earlier skydiving analogy still holds in that it could directly lead to the death of my significant other.
Gender roles--like it or not, Jimbo, as a man, will never know what it's like to be a mother. He will not know how it feels to be pregnant and feel a baby move inside, birth that baby, experience all those associated weird hormone effects, or have that mother-child bond develop.Neither will sterile women, or women who choose to not have children of their own, do they therefore forfeit the right to be a mother, because they haven't had that experience?
My entire outlook on life is different from Jimbo's testosterone/xy-chromosome-driven outlook.Your outlook on life is different from Jimbo's because ever since he was little he was socially instructed on how boys should act. Boys don't cry, you got hurt? Rub some dirt on it and walk it off. We don't nurture, that's what women do. Etc. Etc.
There are a number of homosexual parent studies going on atm, and if they can show me that children benefit equally with them as heterosexuals and have equivalently low risk, then that works for me and I can accept that.Degobahn already brought this up, but I'd also like to talk about it.
Frankly, What you're saying in that sentence, is that homosexuals must qualify for parenthood, and prove that they are going to be every bit as good as heterosexual ones. Not only is that unfair and discriminatory, if followed to a logical conclusion it means we have to stop all adoption until we have tested all factors that might influence parental fitness. For example, I would postulate that intelligent people would eventually make better parents than unintelligent people, if only for the reason that the smarter ones will be better at helping their child with homework. Also, very rich parents will provide more benefits for their children as well. Should there be an IQ/Income line for families? It seems quite clear that children of poor stupid people do not benefit equally to the children of rich smart people.

Dagobahn Eagle
06-02-2007, 05:18 PM
Frankly, What you're saying in that sentence, is that homosexuals must qualify for parenthood, and prove that they are going to be every bit as good as heterosexual ones. Not only is that unfair and discriminatory, if followed to a logical conclusion it means we have to stop all adoption until we have tested all factors that might influence parental fitness.Actually, ET, that's precisely what they do already? Adoption is a process that litterally takes years. You have to be very fit as a parent to be allowed to adopt children.

True_Avery
06-02-2007, 06:06 PM
Frankly, What you're saying in that sentence, is that homosexuals must qualify for parenthood, and prove that they are going to be every bit as good as heterosexual ones. Not only is that unfair and discriminatory, if followed to a logical conclusion it means we have to stop all adoption until we have tested all factors that might influence parental fitness. For example, I would postulate that intelligent people would eventually make better parents than unintelligent people, if only for the reason that the smarter ones will be better at helping their child with homework. Also, very rich parents will provide more benefits for their children as well. Should there be an IQ/Income line for families? It seems quite clear that children of poor stupid people do not benefit equally to the children of rich smart people.
Actually, ET, that's precisely what they do already? Adoption is a process that litterally takes years. You have to be very fit as a parent to be allowed to adopt children.
QFE

And yet any two idiots anywhere can just make a child and not undergo any background check at all.

Such a messed up system we have going on.

Anyway, on the sex talk (since it is not important really to this conversation) I'm going to make a thread to move it out.

ForceFightWMe12
06-02-2007, 06:29 PM
/sigh
I'm honestly not lying here, some women really do enjoy casual sex. Honestly, I didn't make that up. Just because you aren't interested has no bearing on the matter

Did I not also mention that it's their choice to live that way? I don't recall ever denying that there are women out there that do, in fact, enjoy casual sex. I'm just pointing out that the delusion that you seem to have of most women enjoying casual sex is wrong. Many women have alterior motives for sex than simple enjoyment. See, unlike men, we have these things in our heads called brains that we actually use...


In all honesty, I prefer that my women have sexual experience. I would rather that my spouse (assuming I ever actually decide to get married...) have a similar morals to me, and part of my moral stance is that casual sex is fine as long as you're responsible.

Responsible...hm...explain to me exactly how that works.


No. But I don't have those Meg Ryan movie inspired romanticized notions of love and sex anyway.

Obviously. :¨:


I can think of an awful lot of activities whose consequences affect other people that nobody has moral issue with. Giving my friends a ride in my car has the potential to kill them all if we get in a wreck. Asking them to go camping they could get mauled by a mountain bear. My earlier skydiving analogy still holds in that it could directly lead to the death of my significant other.

Again, I do not recall pointing out that sex was the only thing on this planet with far reaching effects or denying that anything else with far reaching effects was as serious as sex. This discussion is not about morals for me, dear ET, but more of responsibility; a quality that you have yet to address with a winning argument.

ET Warrior
06-02-2007, 06:48 PM
Actually, ET, that's precisely what they do already? Adoption is a process that litterally takes years. You have to be very fit as a parent to be allowed to adopt children.I knew I should have clarified that point...
The point wasn't that they don't have to qualify to adopt, the fact is, that they didn't have to undergo any qualifications based on their sexual orientation. If the process of qualifying for adopting children is so rigorous as to weed out unfit parents, then why aren't homosexual couples run through the same rings as the heterosexual ones and then chosen that way? Why do they have additional tasks and tests.

That was what I was trying to get at.

I'm just pointing out that the delusion that you seem to have of most women enjoying casual sex is wrong. I'd rather appreciate you point out to me where I said that most women enjoy casual sex, because I don't recall saying it. In fact I'm pretty sure I never did, because I don't think that most of them do.

See, unlike men, we have these things in our heads called brains that we actually use...Yes, of course, a sign of intellect is the choice to not engage in a mutually satisfying and enjoyable act. Silly men, we need to get back into our gender roles and stop trying to be smart. Now somebody bring me a beer! :xp:

Responsible...hm...explain to me exactly how that works.By being honest with partners about your prior sexual history, by being honest about any STI's you may or may not have, by being honest about your intentions towards a relationship or lack thereof, by accepting the risks inherent in your decision.

This discussion is not about morals for me, dear ET, but more of responsibility; a quality that you have yet to address with a winning argument.I'm not certain how exactly you would like me to address it. I feel fairly confident that I have made clear in my prior posts that I take responsibility for my actions, and expect others to do the same. Were I to contract some manner of STI from a partner of mine I certainly would not go off the handle and accuse them of being a horrible person who infected me, rather I would let them know on the chance that they were unaware that they had it in the first place. At what point am I required to take responsibility for the choices that other people make? If other people choose to engage in promiscuous sex I see no reason why I must be responsible for their consequences.

Jae Onasi
06-02-2007, 10:27 PM
I prefer that my women have sexual experience.
Humor mode on:
Jae suddenly gets a picture of ET the Caveman standing over a bevy of women, pounding his chest and yelling out to all other men that they are "My Women!!!!" There's a sexist comment if I ever heard one. :xp:

Your outlook on life is different from Jimbo's because ever since he was little he was socially instructed
I used to think that until I had kids of my own. We've tried hard to raise them without gender stereotypes like 'men can't nurture and women can't do men's work,' 'men shouldn't cry', and so forth. Are they androgynous? Not even close. We discovered that my son is still very much a boy and does not like a lot of girl things--they just don't interest him. My daughter does some 'boy things' but still does very "typical" girl things. Their genetics, hormones, etc. do shape their thinking, approach to the world, and relationships to a degree.

ET Warrior
06-03-2007, 02:45 AM
There's a sexist comment if I ever heard one.Oh come on Jae, are you honestly going to try and convince me that women aren't possessions? :xp:

Jae Onasi
06-03-2007, 03:12 AM
Oh come on Jae, are you honestly going to try and convince me that women aren't possessions? :xp:

:rofl:

Dagobahn Eagle
06-03-2007, 09:39 AM
Waitaminute, so if I refer to my significant other as 'my girlfriend', I'm treating her as a possession?

What about if I say 'my mother'?

Anyways, when the moderators are done mocking about, maybe we could get back on topic(:D)?

Jae Onasi
06-03-2007, 11:18 AM
Waitaminute, so if I refer to my significant other as 'my girlfriend', I'm treating her as a possession?

What about if I say 'my mother'?

Anyways, when the moderators are done mocking about, maybe we could get back on topic(:D)?

In the US, at least, it's OK to say 'my girlfriend' or 'my mother', but saying 'my women' has a possession connotation to it, kind of like a pimp saying "these are 'my women'" as he parades around his working girls in front of his clients. Someone a guy goes out with is 'my girlfriend' or 'my friend', but saying 'my woman' says 'I don't respect this person, she's so far below me I'm not going to even deign to give her the most basic term of endearment or friendship'.

While we did need a brief bit of lightening-up in the thread, it probably is time to get back somewhere remotely related to topic. Let me know, Dagobahn Eagle, if you want it brought back all the way to the OP or if the digressions are OK to stay here, too.

Dagobahn Eagle
06-03-2007, 11:35 AM
Everything's fine. Carry on:).

Quist
06-03-2007, 12:43 PM
In all honesty, I prefer that my women have sexual experience. I would rather that my spouse (assuming I ever actually decide to get married...) have a similar morals to me, and part of my moral stance is that casual sex is fine as long as you're responsible.

I have a question for you, then. Should you decide to get married, then would it be okay for your wife to go out and sleep with another man, as long as she was 'responsible' about it and vice versa?

With the direction this thread has taken, I think I'm able to add just a bit more female insight. Personally, sex is something deeply intimate and special, not to be given away just after one magical night at the disco. Most of my friends are like me as well. I can definitely understand the physical gratification aspect of it, since we all do have needs in that way, whether or not we choose to admit it. But for the majority of women I've met in my life, sex also requires emotional gratification as well. I don't know if this is old-fashioned or not in today's society, but it certainly is the indiginous standard in my area of the world. Then again, I'm just a simple suburb girl and not a trendy cosmopolitan woman.

Another point I'd like to mention is the fact that in today's society, women who sleep around are more likely to be ostracized/ridiculed than men who sleep around. My friend once told me "If a guy sleeps with 10 women, he's a playa. If a girl sleeps with 10 men, she's a slut." Now, I know this isn't the case everywhere, but it certainly hold true a good part of the time. Thus, it doesn't really benefit women too much to go around advertising the number of sexual partners they've had. Sure, it might be well and good to share your sexual history prior to doing the deed, but who's to say your partner at the time won't go out afterwards and tell his buddies about you and how 'easy' you are?

I guess what I'm saying is that one-night stands really aren't my thing either. It's all physical and while yeah, that's nice, most women need the emotional aspect as well to make the sex worthwhile. To those women who can put that aside and just do it for the nookie, then more power to them. But they're the exceptions, not the rule. I honestly can't picture myself living my life full of one-night stands.

ForceFightWMe12
06-03-2007, 02:10 PM
Yes, of course, a sign of intellect is the choice to not engage in a mutually satisfying and enjoyable act. Silly men, we need to get back into our gender roles and stop trying to be smart. Now somebody bring me a beer! :xp:

A sign of intellect is to know about and care about the full range of consequences of your actions. And speaking of gender roles, it seems that men who are 'promiscuous' seem to be forming their own gender role for themselves. Do you have any idea how many guys have cheated on girlfriends, done drugs, or slept with girls at a party because 'that's what they're supposed to do'?


By being honest with partners about your prior sexual history, by being honest about any STI's you may or may not have, by being honest about your intentions towards a relationship or lack thereof, by accepting the risks inherent in your decision.

While honesty is all well and good, that doesn't exactly account for all of the consequences that may follow. And I'm not talking about just you and her because, while STDs and pregnancy are two large risks, they're not the only ones.

Humans live by example - it's how we learn, it's how we function. The responsibility I mean is the responsibility for the effects that your life style has on the people around you. As I've stated before, teenage boys often act in the fashion that they see the prominant male figures in their lives acting. That also goes the same for any of the girls that may see you act, or the girls that may see 'your women' act. Your actions go far beyond just the two of you. Just as children of divorced parents have a greater chance of having failed marriages themselves, those exposed to such things as promiscuous living through those they respect are more likely to live that way themselves.

At what point am I required to take responsibility for the choices that other people make? If other people choose to engage in promiscuous sex I see no reason why I must be responsible for their consequences.

When did I ever say that you had to take responsibility for what others do? My point is that everyone has to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. It's one of the most basic lessons that we're taught as children, but more often than not, adults forget or ignore such responsibility because they're only looking for themselves and their own instant gratification.

Psychologists today have been able to divide the reasons for human actions into three main groups: Child Stimuli, Pressure Stimuli, and Adult Stimuli. Did you know that one of the first reasons listed beneath Child Stimuli is 'because it feels good or feels bad'? In other words, children either take certain actions or avoid certain actions because they please or hurt them. Another of the main Child Stimuli is 'instant gratification'. Kids want what they want now and not a moment later.

In the meantime, there are the Pressure Stimuli, aka Peer Pressure. People act depending on what they see or what they're told that they're 'supposed to do'. People say that girls are supposed to sleep with their boyfriends, so they do. People say that boys are supposed to sleep with multiple girls, so they do. Kids also respond to Pressure from their parents, whether their parents acknowladge it or not.

And finally, the Adult Stimuli. Adult responses to situations are based almost solely on the consequences. They are based on what will happen as a result of their actions, in addition to the actions themselves.

Which Stimuli do your reasons fall under, ET?


I have a question for you, then. Should you decide to get married, then would it be okay for your wife to go out and sleep with another man, as long as she was 'responsible' about it and vice versa?

With the direction this thread has taken, I think I'm able to add just a bit more female insight. Personally, sex is something deeply intimate and special, not to be given away just after one magical night at the disco. Most of my friends are like me as well. I can definitely understand the physical gratification aspect of it, since we all do have needs in that way, whether or not we choose to admit it. But for the majority of women I've met in my life, sex also requires emotional gratification as well. I don't know if this is old-fashioned or not in today's society, but it certainly is the indiginous standard in my area of the world. Then again, I'm just a simple suburb girl and not a trendy cosmopolitan woman.

Another point I'd like to mention is the fact that in today's society, women who sleep around are more likely to be ostracized/ridiculed than men who sleep around. My friend once told me "If a guy sleeps with 10 women, he's a playa. If a girl sleeps with 10 men, she's a slut." Now, I know this isn't the case everywhere, but it certainly hold true a good part of the time. Thus, it doesn't really benefit women too much to go around advertising the number of sexual partners they've had. Sure, it might be well and good to share your sexual history prior to doing the deed, but who's to say your partner at the time won't go out afterwards and tell his buddies about you and how 'easy' you are?

I guess what I'm saying is that one-night stands really aren't my thing either. It's all physical and while yeah, that's nice, most women need the emotional aspect as well to make the sex worthwhile. To those women who can put that aside and just do it for the nookie, then more power to them. But they're the exceptions, not the rule. I honestly can't picture myself living my life full of one-night stands

*high fives* :D

ET Warrior
06-05-2007, 12:33 AM
Do you have any idea how many guys have cheated on girlfriends, done drugs, or slept with girls at a party because 'that's what they're supposed to do'?I don't necessarily see the relevance. I have been clear that there are immoral ways to go about being promiscuous. I am merely stating that promiscuity in and of itself does not carry an inherent moral impact.

While honesty is all well and good, that doesn't exactly account for all of the consequences that may follow. And I'm not talking about just you and her because, while STDs and pregnancy are two large risks, they're not the only ones.Again, if you want to level that kind of moral compass toward sexual intercourse you're going to have to point it at everything else. There is a plethora of negative consequences that can come from simply getting behind the wheel of an automobile. Why aren't people who like to just get in their car and drive around considered immoral? They're putting their lives and the lives of everyone else out on the road at risk. Seems like a pretty negative consequence.

As I've stated before, teenage boys often act in the fashion that they see the prominant male figures in their lives acting.Which again comes back to the point that you are placing promiscuous sex on an immediately immoral platform.

When did I ever say that you had to take responsibility for what others do? You seem to be of the impression that regardless of my taking complete responsibility for my actions, and being completely honest with all my partners about everything, I'm still somehow accountable for the fact that they may have chosen to take part in something that may have negative consequences for themselves.

Psychologists today have been able to divide the reasons for human actions into three main groups: *blah*

Which Stimuli do your reasons fall under, ET?Cute. Would you like me to strike up a list of common adult behaviors that would obviously be cataloged as "Child/Pressure Stimuli? I think you might find that the majority of our behavior is based on pressure or if we like it or dislike it. That doesn't make them immoral or even childish. Something as simple as eating takes place because we like the way food tastes and dislike being hungry. I doubt most people stop and analyze the consequences of eating. Rather, it's more of a "Man I'm hungry, and that sandwich looks delicious". In a similar vein, things like playing sports, playing video games, watching movies, drinking alcohol, getting married, having children, celebrating holidays, and the list could continue are ALL pressure or "child" stimuli.

Rogue Nine
06-05-2007, 01:44 AM
I like how you completely ignored Quist, ET. :xp:

Totenkopf
06-05-2007, 01:44 AM
......promiscuity in and of itself does not carry an inherent moral impact.

Neither for that matter does killing. But you'd be in a better position if you just said that sex has no inherent moral impact, rather than promiscuity. Problem with your argument is that morals are directly related to your values. Thus, you can make a relative statement about promiscuity's inherent morality, but not an absolute one, as you are doing.

@R9--he'd probably consider her a bit of a wet blanket.... :p

ET Warrior
06-05-2007, 02:06 AM
I like how you completely ignored Quist, ET. :xp:I ignored Quist because the only question that was actually postulated toward me was completely silly and I rather thought it needed no response, because the question has no bearing on my arguments, disloyalty and cheating in committed relationships is not in the least bit the same thing as sleeping around when you're single. However, it's been called to attention so I will do so.

I have a question for you, then. Should you decide to get married, then would it be okay for your wife to go out and sleep with another man, as long as she was 'responsible' about it and vice versa?No. It would not be okay. It would also not be okay for her to make out with, go on dates with, flirt excessively with, or routinely hold hands with another man. However, I would have no problems with her engaging in those activities prior to entering in to a monogamous relationship with me. Do you have a problem with the idea that your future husband/wife will have at some point in their lives almost certainly kissed other girls/guys, held their hands, and gone to the movies whilst sharing popcorn? If so you are in for a lifetime supply of disappointment.

women who sleep around are more likely to be ostracized/ridiculed than men who sleep around.Which is an awful and unfair double standard, to be certain, and one that I find quite offensive.

Neither for that matter does killing....say what now?

But you'd be in a better position if you just said that sex has no inherent moral impact, rather than promiscuity. Problem with your argument is that morals are directly related to your values.Well if I was arguing that sex has no inherent moral impact then I wouldn't be arguing the same point that I'm currently arguing. The thing I'm arguing is that different types of sex ALSO carry no inherent moral impact, in the majority of these arguments it's been promiscuous sex, although I hope my arguments are also being thought of in defense of other types of sexual behavior.

And actually, perhaps your personal morals are directly related to your values, but absolute universal morals certainly are not. I'd rather not go into that discussion as it was already covered in much more depth in the Senate Chambers.

Totenkopf
06-05-2007, 02:38 AM
Yeah, I know, b/c I started at least one of those threads. But you make the mistake of assuming you have the authority to determine WHAT those "absolute universal morals" actually are. So, your "AUM" are still subjectively arrived at/agreed upon. Thus my comment about your stance on the morality of, frankly, any type of sexual behavior.

ET Warrior
06-05-2007, 09:13 AM
But you make the mistake of assuming you have the authority to determine WHAT those "absolute universal morals" If one doesn't have the ability to believe and attempt to show with logic that their morals are correct, then there is no point in morality.

Quist
06-05-2007, 09:32 AM
I ignored Quist because the only question that was actually postulated toward me was completely silly and I rather thought it needed no response, because the question has no bearing on my arguments, disloyalty and cheating in committed relationships is not in the least bit the same thing as sleeping around when you're single. However, it's been called to attention so I will do so.
I apologize if I made my question seem specious and irrelevant, but I did ask it legitmately.

And I think it's just common courtesy to answer a question directly posed to oneself by another, even if you think it's 'silly'. After all, you responded to Jae's obviously jestful comment about the phrase 'my women'.

No. It would not be okay. It would also not be okay for her to make out with, go on dates with, flirt excessively with, or routinely hold hands with another man. However, I would have no problems with her engaging in those activities prior to entering in to a monogamous relationship with me.
Ah, thank you for clearing that up. Your initial statement confused me on the point that you would like to have your spouse have similar morals to yourself, followed up by the point that you believe casual sex to be all right as long as the people involved are responsible about it. Thus, it seemed to me that you were saying you would like your spouse to be okay with casual sex. Since you have portrayed yourself as openly promiscuous, it does not seem so far a reach as to believe you would enter into such a relationship, which is why I posed that question to you.

Do you have a problem with the idea that your future husband/wife will have at some point in their lives almost certainly kissed other girls/guys, held their hands, and gone to the movies whilst sharing popcorn? If so you are in for a lifetime supply of disappointment.
I am not aware of any instance in this discussion where I professed I had a problem with the idea that my future spouse would be sexually active before entering a relationship with me. If I have said something to that effect, please point it out to me. Otherwise, I do not really appreciate such unfounded generalizations about my relationship preferences.

And actually, perhaps your personal morals are directly related to your values, but absolute universal morals certainly are not. I'd rather not go into that discussion as it was already covered in much more depth in the Senate Chambers.
I would actually be interested in that discussion taking place here. Personally, I feel the Senate Chambers is a hostile place and I would like no part in what transpires there. Kavar's Corner is a much, much friendlier environment in which to have a discussion.

ET Warrior
06-05-2007, 09:55 AM
I am not aware of any instance in this discussion where I professed I had a problem with the idea that my future spouse would be sexually active before entering a relationship with me.I suppose it's my turn to apologize. I simply assumed since the question was being posited it was implying sexual activity before marriage was almost on level with disloyalty in marriage. I can see where my post was unclear, I should have said "Casual sex while you're single is okay." My mistake.

Kavar's Corner is a much, much friendlier environment in which to have a discussion.I'd suggest you take a gander at the old thread in the Senate (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=171819) first.

Totenkopf
06-05-2007, 03:49 PM
If one doesn't have the ability to believe and attempt to show with logic that their morals are correct, then there is no point in morality.

Problem here, though, isn't whether people believe that they can develop a sense of morals steeped in their beliefs and try to logically develop a sytem stemming from those first principles. What you have is basically R(elative)UM (goes nicely w/Coke, I might add ;)), b/c your "absolute, logically arrived at" morality may conflict with someone elses based on the origin of your system. One person can put empathy at the center of their system and build up around it, another could place truth, aesthetics or justice as the core value and logically construct a universal code from them as well.

....although I hope my arguments are also being thought of in defense of other types of sexual behavior.

such as? Necrophilia? Beastiality? Pederasty? Sorry, dude, but you left yourself wide open there.....:xp: :p

Dath Maximus
06-05-2007, 11:12 PM
hmmmmm....i'll be sure to remember disney land's new policy

maybe chip can finally marry dale