Serious PC thread

[calitennis127]

Marriage is a civil contract, Cali (might not be using the correct english term), guided by moral standards.

It's actually been much more than that. It is clearly a social institution that has been around for thousands of years. I don't glamorize marriage or particularly like it or think it's the most awesome thing. I view it kind of like street lights, stop signs, and air conditioning. You need it to have an organized well-functioning society of well-balanced human beings and to properly raise kids.

I don't kick the doors of my gay neighbors couples if they decide to live together as well as have sex with each other. So if people can live with it, legislation must follow accordingly.

The issue is not people privately having sexual intercourse. The issue is asking for social recognition and then having the state impose the new definition on everyone. I am with you - I don't care about two people having sexual relations down the street; it doesn't concern me. What does concern me is whether their relationship is socially and legally recognized.

If a 55-year-old father and his 30-year-old daughter are consensually having sex down the street, I am not interested in kicking the door down and telling them to stop. I would just rather that they not get a marriage license and then obnoxiously flaunt their incest all the time as a morally superior social relation. They can keep their private vice to themselves.

The problem you see here, I suppose, is not the marriage itself, but the next logical step, adoption. This is the uncharted social territory that could be discussed rationally. It won't, though.

How can you possibly deny gay couples the right to adopt after giving them the right to marry when the basic purpose of marriage for generations has been to raise kids? I don't see how your logic works at all there.

 

[mrzz]

There are actual jokes when it comes to PC stuff. But if a person takes it seriously and holds me accountable to their standards, then it is not a joke for me anymore. You should see the cases the Ontario Human Rights tribunal is agreeing to see in Canada. No one is laughing, trust me.

I believe you. But I guess this is true for ALL PC bullshit. There is always someone to take it seriously, and people can get burned because of that. Countless people has lost their jobs because of PC bullshit -- this is quite serious for them.

 

[calitennis127]

I said that the sexual assault problem in the United States that the #metoo movement seeks to address mostly comes from males in the Democratic Party. I stand by that.

That said, I do believe all human beings have original sin or monkey-like proclivities (depending on whether you prefer a Christian or Darwinist view). So right-wing males are not above it either. I don't think there is any group of morally perfect human beings, unlike Moxie who thinks that members of the LGBT community are angelic, morally pure prototypes of virtue, goodness, and benevolence.

 

[calitennis127]

I believe you. But I guess this is true for ALL PC bullshit. There is always someone to take it seriously, and people can get burned because of that. Countless people has lost their jobs because of PC bullshit -- this is quite serious for them.

Yes, and that is because the left is totalitarian. It wants to use the state to totally control thought and behavior across the board.

 

[Federberg]

I said that the sexual assault problem in the United States that the #metoo movement seeks to address mostly comes from males in the Democratic Party. I stand by that.

That said, I do believe all human beings have original sin or monkey-like proclivities (depending on whether you prefer a Christian or Darwinist view). So right-wing males are not above it either. I don't think there is any group of morally perfect human beings, unlike Moxie who thinks that members of the LGBT community are angelic, morally pure prototypes of virtue, goodness, and benevolence.

wow... you spout all sorts of random nonsense don't you? And what about your molester in chief, the orange buffoon? He doesn't count?

 

[calitennis127]

wow... you spout all sorts of random nonsense don't you? And what about your molester in chief, the orange buffoon? He doesn't count?

Well, he was a Democrat for a while years ago and he was very chummy with Bill Clinton for quite a few years. That said, Trump was never credibly charged with rape (unlike Clinton). I don't think being a playboy means being an assaulter by definition. The timing of Trump's accusers' was also very questionable.

 

[mrzz]

What does concern me is whether their relationship is socially and legally recognized.

That is the whole point. If I socially accept that a gay couple live together, if it is a fact that they share life and property just as the heterosexual couple next door, it is illogical to deny them the right to marry.

How can you possibly deny gay couples the right to adopt after giving them the right to marry when the basic purpose of marriage for generations has been to raise kids? I don't see how your logic works at all there.

I don't know the answer. That is the whole point of being in uncharted social territory. Anyway, I would not be sure if the basic purpose of marriage is to raise kids. Biologically speaking, yes, long term relationships made the odds of survival of children higher. You could say that marriage is a social version of this biological fact... fine. But different societies over time lived and raised their children without marriage as it is known for us.

A lot of people will argue that the basic purpose of marriage has more to do with property than with children. Anyway, I am not an expert on this, not even close, actually.

If you say that "traditional marriage" was the backbone of a society that brought us where we are, again, you have a point. But social norms change with time, so this could be a backbone of a dead body. Haven't you ever felt like "hey, I guess I am the only straight guy in sight"?
What if in, say, 50 years, we find out that homosexuality is way more frequent than we think, and, becoming more socially accepted, 40% or 60% of the couples (pairs, whatever the word you want to use it) are homosexual? Then, no matter what, they will start to raise kids (be it legally, be it from familiar relations). Don't you think it is better that we start considering the issue before it is a given fact?

Is the same grain of salt of prudence that stops me from being instantly in favor or against it, anyway. If we are talking politics (as we are), you need to ask what would be the large scale consequences of such a policy. The whole point is that we don't know.

 

[Moxie]

Ah but I'm not talking post-op trans people here in the locker room discussion. I'm talking about regular joes like me that can legitimately gain access to the locker room by claiming I'm a woman or that I'm in the process of becoming a woman. It's nice that you named 3 women that are comfortable with the situation, I guess that means they all feel the exact same way.

And nice cop out on the sports question. I think you see very clearly the problem there but don't want to backtrack

Here's what I think you, and some of the others fail to acknowledge: you or anyone else busting into a women's locker room for the purposes of voyeurism or assault is illegal. But there is precious little that bars you from going in, in any case, except social norms. It's just a door, and you can go through it. What you do in their is the question. I guess you guys are saying that it gives more access, but, as I've said, you can walk straight in most cases, anyway. If you rape someone there, I hope you get done for it. If a trans woman goes in their and does her business, minding her own, I don't see why any of us should give a rat's ass.

As to the sports question, I demure because I know little about it. I'm not so interested in studying up only to come here and have you guys shoot at what I say, anyway. Plus, now that Cali has bumbled into to wreck the conversation, it's reached it's nadir, anyway.

 

[Moxie]

Marriage is a civil contract, Cali (might not be using the correct english term), guided by moral standards. I don't kick the doors of my gay neighbors couples if they decide to live together as well as have sex with each other. So if people can live with it, legislation must follow accordingly.

The problem you see here, I suppose, is not the marriage itself, but the next logical step, adoption. This is the uncharted social territory that could be discussed rationally. It won't, though.

I respect much of what you have said in your debate with Cali on gay marriage. I want to make a small point here about gay adoption, recognizing that you have said you're not sure what you think about it. That's fair. This is not to bully the point to you, but, as a person who does believe in a fairly strict reckoning on abortion...as we have discussed here, the stricter we are on abortion, the more children that are left in need of loving parents. Good on @Murat Baslamisli for being one of those couples, with his Mrs., btw. But I would only offer that leaving out stable, loving gay households from the process does omit more opportunities for a child to have a good home. Just food for thought.

 

[mrzz]

I respect much of what you have said in your debate with Cali on gay marriage. I want to make a small point here about gay adoption, recognizing that you have said you're not sure what you think about it. That's fair. This is not to bully the point to you, but, as a person who does believe in a fairly strict reckoning on abortion...as we have discussed here, the stricter we are on abortion, the more children that are left in need of loving parents. Good on @Murat Baslamisli for being one of those couples, with his Mrs., btw. But I would only offer that leaving out stable, loving gay households from the process does omit more opportunities for a child to have a good home. Just food for thought.

This is a very delicate issue and one way of another it touches a lot of different and sensitive chords. I am completely aware that a lot, really a lot of people will directly oppose it out of simple prejudice and an atavistic fear of homosexuality. Actually I even think that some people that say that are completely OK with it might be just be forcing themselves to some extent. I would be an hypocritical if I would say that this idea does not bring me any... how can I say this, well, any odd feelings (in lack of a better word). Proof of that is that the idea of two women raising a child flows much easier to me than two men. Rationally it should not make no difference, that is precisely why I am bringing this up.

But hopefully I can try and reach an honest rational conclusion in spite of that.

I guess one of the things that "get" to people when they think about adoption by gay parents is that in general people still unconsciously associate "gay" with a more explicit sexuality -- the "gay parades" don't help much in this regard -- and when you put sexuality and children in the same sentence the discomfort is immediate. This can be quite unfair to some people, I know. But add to that the fact that some groups push for a very early sexual education of children (honestly, for me this is idiotic to say the least), and you a have a mess that only makes the general public more confused about it.

But, ok, I am only digressing while trying to understand why this is so touchy for everyone. Anyway, even considering all that, my earlier points in previous posts are still my main concern. I am far from someone who considers traditional marriage something "sacred" (I am on my third...), but on the other hand, a bit in line with something Cali posted, humanity has basically evolved around the nucleus of mother+father+children -- apart from some "collective" societies (which would be something interesting to consider, at least). On one hand, obviously we need to accept that social behavior changes, on the other... customs, traditions, norms and social culture are there for a reason. I am no "traditionalist" or conservative, but I always ask myself the question: "why those traditions are there to begin with? ".

Finally going back to specifics, when you think about adoption you need to be "cold" when you look to it as a whole. They probably screen a lot the couples they chose because they want to minimize chance of separation/divorce, besides obviously trying to look for the best possible home in all aspects, specially from emotional/psychological aspects. I actually could (personally) trust that the trained social workers could make that decision quite well either for hetero or homo couples.

But there are two issues here:

1) Are there reliable studies out there about long term stability of homosexual relationships? What are factors that can influence in this, or could lead to violence and any other problem you want to avoid? Because I am pretty sure those numbers are there for hetero couples. It is not reasonable to simply assume that on average the behavior is the same. Nothing will substitute the good judgement of the social workers, but I am pretty sure they use studies and data to back their decisions up.

2) This will sound harsh, but still... I am pretty sure that the "homophobia" card would be thrown out quite often by gay couples that could not get a child as fast as they want. It is well known -- and we just read a testimony about it in this very thread -- that it is hard to make this process work out. This would become a political battle in no time. I don't know who would win it, but I know who would lose: Children and well intentioned couples.

Having all this in mind. I really don't know where I stand on this question. I lean for one side, but I honestly don't think we have a society sane enough to make this work.

 

[Moxie]

This is a very delicate issue and one way of another it touches a lot of different and sensitive chords. I am completely aware that a lot, really a lot of people will directly oppose it out of simple prejudice and an atavistic fear of homosexuality. Actually I even think that some people that say that are completely OK with it might be just be forcing themselves to some extent. I would be an hypocritical if I would say that this idea does not bring me any... how can I say this, well, any odd feelings (in lack of a better word). Proof of that is that the idea of two women raising a child flows much easier to me than two men. Rationally it should not make no difference, that is precisely why I am bringing this up.

But hopefully I can try and reach an honest rational conclusion in spite of that.

I guess one of the things that "get" to people when they think about adoption by gay parents is that in general people still unconsciously associate "gay" with a more explicit sexuality -- the "gay parades" don't help much in this regard -- and when you put sexuality and children in the same sentence the discomfort is immediate. This can be quite unfair to some people, I know. But add to that the fact that some groups push for a very early sexual education of children (honestly, for me this is idiotic to say the least), and you a have a mess that only makes the general public more confused about it.

But, ok, I am only digressing while trying to understand why this is so touchy for everyone. Anyway, even considering all that, my earlier points in previous posts are still my main concern. I am far from someone who considers traditional marriage something "sacred" (I am on my third...), but on the other hand, a bit in line with something Cali posted, humanity has basically evolved around the nucleus of mother+father+children -- apart from some "collective" societies (which would be something interesting to consider, at least). On one hand, obviously we need to accept that social behavior changes, on the other... customs, traditions, norms and social culture are there for a reason. I am no "traditionalist" or conservative, but I always ask myself the question: "why those traditions are there to begin with? ".

Finally going back to specifics, when you think about adoption you need to be "cold" when you look to it as a whole. They probably screen a lot the couples they chose because they want to minimize chance of separation/divorce, besides obviously trying to look for the best possible home in all aspects, specially from emotional/psychological aspects. I actually could (personally) trust that the trained social workers could make that decision quite well either for hetero or homo couples.

But there are two issues here:

1) Are there reliable studies out there about long term stability of homosexual relationships? What are factors that can influence in this, or could lead to violence and any other problem you want to avoid? Because I am pretty sure those numbers are there for hetero couples. It is not reasonable to simply assume that on average the behavior is the same. Nothing will substitute the good judgement of the social workers, but I am pretty sure they use studies and data to back their decisions up.

2) This will sound harsh, but still... I am pretty sure that the "homophobia" card would be thrown out quite often by gay couples that could not get a child as fast as they want. It is well known -- and we just read a testimony about it in this very thread -- that it is hard to make this process work out. This would become a political battle in no time. I don't know who would win it, but I know who would lose: Children and well intentioned couples.

Having all this in mind. I really don't know where I stand on this question. I lean for one side, but I honestly don't think we have a society sane enough to make this work.

Again, I will thank you for your candor, Mrzz. You've put a lot out there, so I will work within your 1 & 2, and hope to get the rest in.

1.) Long-term stability of gay relationships: Well, you've just said you're on your own 3rd marriage, and I think we well-know the longevity of relationships in general. In the US, the chances of a first marriage of surviving is under 50%. After that, the percentages go down. Obviously, there is less data for gay marriages. However, there are a number of gay relationships that have withstood the test of time, as there are also straight marriages that have. While one would hope that couples who adopt children would stay together, there is still something to be said for people who take on the responsibility of a child for the rest of their lives, whether or not they stay with their partner or not. This is also true of people who split with biological children. I don't see much difference, except that perhaps people who have chosen to adopt might even be the more likely to be responsible. Let's face it...anyone can get someone pregnant, or fall pregnant. That may or may not come with a sense of responsibility, but making the choice to adopt does imply at least at one point agreeing to take on a huge responsibility.

2.) Homophobia: you have already said that you're more comfortable with a lesbian couple adopting a child than a gay male couple. You have mentioned more "explict" sexuality amongst men, and "gay parades." (I find that a bit random as a mention...parades?) Here I think we're getting into a thing that has been a bit of a theme over the last several pages in this conversation over a few topics, i.e., that you men don't trust each other. That you see each other as over-sexed, and untrustworthy in the context of women and children. Maybe I should believe you, then. However, this is not my experience of most men. And all of you will say that you're not talking about yourselves. It's just some predatory "other." Why don't you give that a think.

As far as social workers: while I admire so much of what they do, they tend to be overworked and there are plenty who are also uncaring and just getting along on a wage. (I have experiences of both kinds.) I wouldn't make them the last defense on what a child needs.

 

[mrzz]

In Brazil any demonstration like LGBT pride day is called "Parada gay" by its own attendants. I Just sloppy translated It back to English. Here, at least, is extremely explicit -- the largest one takes place on Paulista Avenue which os three blocks from where I live.

You made good points about long term relationships, but you can and should generalize the argument: how many important stats/studies are missing?

It is not that we don't trust each other. We acknowledge how far some can go. It seems a rational alternative to either complete trust or "all men are rapists".

About social workers, I see your point, but which os the alternative? They are indeed the last line of defense. What else could be? Online outrage?

(Quick clumsy reply on cell phone, forgive the poor writing)

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Another example. Please watch the video and hear what the girl says. It breaks my heart to hear this girl say "When we line up at the starting line, everyone knows who the first two will be" This is just so wrong...
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/06...aJo6HB0rRvTKF1jfnlFBDDicd_dD3Moqg2_G5zXwWtAJk

 

[Federberg]

Homophobia: you have already said that you're more comfortable with a lesbian couple adopting a child than a gay male couple. You have mentioned more "explict" sexuality amongst men, and "gay parades." (I find that a bit random as a mention...parades?) Here I think we're getting into a thing that has been a bit of a theme over the last several pages in this conversation over a few topics, i.e., that you men don't trust each other. That you see each other as over-sexed, and untrustworthy in the context of women and children. Maybe I should believe you, then. However, this is not my experience of most men. And all of you will say that you're not talking about yourselves. It's just some predatory "other." Why don't you give that a think.

I do wish you would stop grouping all of us together. It’s the worst kind of generalisation. It’s lazy and frankly unworthy of you. Personally I don’t view homosexuals as over-sexualised or a threat. Others are welcome to their view of course but don’t presume to bring me into that…

All we are doing is not basing our views on best case scenarios. It’s realism. We could just as easily be having a conversation where you argue we don’t trust women in another context. I feel I can presume to speak for the rest of us guys, we don’t have some pollyanish view of the world. Our views are based on life experience and an understanding that social covenants that depend on the best behaviour of all actors are susceptible to abuse. I think any rational person believes this, we just disagree about the appropriate mitigation.

 

[Federberg]

Another example. Please watch the video and hear what the girl says. It breaks my heart to hear this girl say "When we line up at the starting line, everyone knows who the first two will be" This is just so wrong...
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/06...aJo6HB0rRvTKF1jfnlFBDDicd_dD3Moqg2_G5zXwWtAJk

ok I just googled this website (after I saw she was interviewed by Tucker Carlson... never a good sign to me!). I'll have to take it on good faith the story is real. I'm sorry but the whole world has gone fucking crazy. In my day, any lad claiming he was a girl would have had the stuffing beaten out of him at lunch time and he would have got right in his head by the time P.E started. I guess that's not the thing to do now. I mean.. I know it's not the right thing to do... but I hear shite like this and I wonder if a bit of old fashioned treatment wouldn't be useful sometimes. I mean... wtf!!

 

[tented]

This is a very delicate issue and one way of another it touches a lot of different and sensitive chords. I am completely aware that a lot, really a lot of people will directly oppose it out of simple prejudice and an atavistic fear of homosexuality. Actually I even think that some people that say that are completely OK with it might be just be forcing themselves to some extent. I would be an hypocritical if I would say that this idea does not bring me any... how can I say this, well, any odd feelings (in lack of a better word). Proof of that is that the idea of two women raising a child flows much easier to me than two men. Rationally it should not make no difference, that is precisely why I am bringing this up.

That’s refreshingly honest.

As a slightly crude aside, I’ve always thought it curiously hypocritical that so many straight men are not only OK with the concept of two women having sex; they’re sometimes even more turned on by it than male/female sex. But two men? Heresy!

I guess one of the things that "get" to people when they think about adoption by gay parents is that in general people still unconsciously associate "gay" with a more explicit sexuality -- the "gay parades" don't help much in this regard -- and when you put sexuality and children in the same sentence the discomfort is immediate. This can be quite unfair to some people, I know. But add to that the fact that some groups push for a very early sexual education of children (honestly, for me this is idiotic to say the least), and you a have a mess that only makes the general public more confused about it.

Stereotypes are persistent, aren’t they? On one hand, there is some truth behind cliches, but on the other they’re just that — cliches. I can understand how certain elements of certain gay parades have led to a notion of a more explicit sexuality, but always keep in mind you’re ultimately extrapolating this view from the behavior of a handful of men. The best analogy I can think of offhand would be for me to say all women are more explicitly sexual based on watching them in a stripper club.

But, ok, I am only digressing while trying to understand why this is so touchy for everyone. Anyway, even considering all that, my earlier points in previous posts are still my main concern. I am far from someone who considers traditional marriage something "sacred" (I am on my third...), but on the other hand, a bit in line with something Cali posted, humanity has basically evolved around the nucleus of mother+father+children -- apart from some "collective" societies (which would be something interesting to consider, at least). On one hand, obviously we need to accept that social behavior changes, on the other... customs, traditions, norms and social culture are there for a reason. I am no "traditionalist" or conservative, but I always ask myself the question: "why those traditions are there to begin with? ".

The definition of marriage is fluidic, based solely on its history with heterosexuals. Wikipedia has an interesting article on its history. Social contracts, economic factors, politics, children, and, yes, love, among other things. But one thing is clear: it has changed many times, from culture to culture, throughout history. As have many things. What, really, does the word “war” mean? Or “culture”? Or “art”? Or “ethics”? They’ve all changed many times, yet we still keep using the same words.

I have a sister-in-law who knew when she was in her early twenties that she never wanted to have children, so she had her tubes tied. She has been married twice, both times with men who knew going into it that they would never have children — biologically or adopted. To try to define marriage as simply a method of procreation is naive. Should my sister-in-law have not been allowed to get married? Of course not. Should elderly people not be allowed to get married, knowing they’re well beyond the age of having kids? Of course not.

Finally going back to specifics, when you think about adoption you need to be "cold" when you look to it as a whole. They probably screen a lot the couples they chose because they want to minimize chance of separation/divorce, besides obviously trying to look for the best possible home in all aspects, specially from emotional/psychological aspects. I actually could (personally) trust that the trained social workers could make that decision quite well either for hetero or homo couples.

But there are two issues here:

1) Are there reliable studies out there about long term stability of homosexual relationships? What are factors that can influence in this, or could lead to violence and any other problem you want to avoid? Because I am pretty sure those numbers are there for hetero couples. It is not reasonable to simply assume that on average the behavior is the same. Nothing will substitute the good judgement of the social workers, but I am pretty sure they use studies and data to back their decisions up.

2) This will sound harsh, but still... I am pretty sure that the "homophobia" card would be thrown out quite often by gay couples that could not get a child as fast as they want. It is well known -- and we just read a testimony about it in this very thread -- that it is hard to make this process work out. This would become a political battle in no time. I don't know who would win it, but I know who would lose: Children and well intentioned couples.

Having all this in mind. I really don't know where I stand on this question. I lean for one side, but I honestly don't think we have a society sane enough to make this work.

As @Murat Baslamisli has so eloquently told us, adoption can be a wonderful experience. This makes sense, right? If someone wants to pursue that, it’s because they want to. They desperately want to have children, which is what children should have: being wanted. An adoption doesn’t happen by accident, so these kids don’t exist as merely the byproduct of sexual encounters, etc.

Now, should we say that a single heterosexual man should not be allowed to adopt? Or a single heterosexual woman? Of course not. If that were the case, then we shouldn’t allow divorced people to keep their kids, because they’re no longer in a male-female environment. Should a homosexual woman not be allowed to adopt? The maternal pull can be overwhelming, from what I’ve heard. They want — perhaps even need — to have children, even though their sexuality doesn’t align with having sex with men. But a homosexual woman who pursues adoption really, really wants a kid. They’re ready to adjust their lives to accommodate them. They’re ready to love. The same can be said if there are two homosexual women. So why would it be different with a non-married homosexual man? Or a homosexual male couple? Again, all of these people are desperate to raise children, and are more motivated than certain single or married heterosexuals.

Finally, a little about myself:

I’m a gay man who has been in a relationship for 26 years. We have no children, because neither of us has ever wanted them.

We’re the opposite of almost every gay stereotype: we have never liked dancing/clubbing, we’re not into fashion, we loathe Madonna, we’re monogamous, we’re not into musicals in a big way (some are great), we’re not effeminate, and so on. Not that any of those things are wrong or bad. If people — gay or straight — are into musicals, dancing, fashion or whatever that’s great. I’m merely trying to say gay stereotypes are just that — stereotypes. The reality across the entire population of gay men is quite different. Of course it is, right? How could it not be? But it’s easier for TV shows and films to use stereotypes and cliches as a quick way of defining characters. Single woman? Give her a cat. Single man? Sex, sex, sex. Gay man? Play Barbra Streisand in the background. Gay woman? Give her a butch haircut.

OK, I’ve rambled on for much longer than I originally intended, but I hope this helps to give you some things to think about, coming from the perspective of a gay man.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

ok I just googled this website (after I saw she was interviewed by Tucker Carlson... never a good sign to me!). I'll have to take it on good faith the story is real. I'm sorry but the whole world has gone fucking crazy. In my day, any lad claiming he was a girl would have had the stuffing beaten out of him at lunch time and he would have got right in his head by the time P.E started. I guess that's not the thing to do now. I mean.. I know it's not the right thing to do... but I hear shite like this and I wonder if a bit of old fashioned treatment wouldn't be useful sometimes. I mean... wtf!!

Don't worry about the messenger, just listen to the message (the girl and her mother) Of course this will be on a website like this or on Tucker Carlson or whatever. Because it will never make it to CNN or NBC.

 

[mrzz]

Tented, thank you for the response. There is not a whole much that we ultimately disagree about but anyway I will reply to some points.

As a slightly crude aside, I’ve always thought it curiously hypocritical that so many straight men are not only OK with the concept of two women having sex; they’re sometimes even more turned on by it than male/female sex. But two men? Heresy!

This is not (or was not) exactly the point of the conversation, but I have always felt that this is one point that people really don't get. It is only natural that if one person has sexual attraction for one gender, and not for the other, his/her reaction to the sight of people of the gender he/she is not attracted to having sex would be of some discomfort at least. This is not necessarily related to homosexuality. The sight of naked man (it does not matter his sexual orientation) is not pleasant to me. If he is sexually aroused, is worst. If he is touching himself, waaay worst. But if it was a woman, I would like to see. Two women, two times better. Two men, two times worst. This is only natural I guess, and has nothing to do with homophobia (as the example with just one man shows). But it is extremely easy to confuse the two things -- and people in general think that just because something is not attractive to them, that something is wrong, sinful, dirty or whatever you want to call it. This is extremely idiotic. I hate liver steak, it makes my stomach turn upside down. I don't hate people who like it. (simplistic, I know, but still....)

Having said this, the point I made about two women adopting was in principle unrelated to anything sexual. However, I am aware that there could be some unconscious relation to it.

Stereotypes are persistent, aren’t they? On one hand, there is some truth behind cliches, but on the other they’re just that — cliches. I can understand how certain elements of certain gay parades have led to a notion of a more explicit sexuality, but always keep in mind you’re ultimately extrapolating this view from the behavior of a handful of men. The best analogy I can think of offhand would be for me to say all women are more explicitly sexual based on watching them in a stripper club.

Agreed. Please have in mind that the stereotype was exactly my point, and since we are talking politics, stereotypes are extremely important. Obviously, it is idiotic to "blame" one whole group by the (ultimately political) attitudes of a few. The very idea that "gay people should do this" or "gay people should do that" is naive at best, as there were some underlying group identity that would make them react always in harmony. It is like expecting that all right handed people agree about something. My point all along is that those stereotypes do not help I and do not see anyone addressing this issue. Most "political" actions end up actually reinforcing those stereotypes.

Again, all of these people are desperate to raise children, and are more motivated than certain single or married heterosexuals.

You made some very good points in the paragraph from were this phrase comes from. I haven't even considered the idea of a single man or woman adopting -- maybe because in practice, at least as far as I know, this is extremely unlikely, but the concept is there.

I obviously agree that a gay couple is in principle perfectly capable of providing, actually being a family to a child (well, this should settle it, on one hand). Do I find it strange still? As I said, I am no hypocritical, so, yes, I do. My only rational points about it is that it adds a different dimension to the analysis that should be made about any couple adopting kids. And that is uncharted social territory (this would be a long discussion). I confess I need to think more about my different gut reaction to two women or two men adopting. It could only be some Freudian boy-mother connection, or something else. Actually, it is from a Freudian perspective that this all seems "risky" to me, but again that is a whole other discussion.

Not that any of those things are wrong or bad. If people — gay or straight — are into musicals, dancing, fashion or whatever that’s great

Since you mentioned it, I must say I am a musicalphobe.

BTW, when I read your post I really considered the idea of writing a mock homophobic reply -- I love "on the edge" humour. But, ok, maybe next time.

 

[britbox]

That’s refreshingly honest.

As a slightly crude aside, I’ve always thought it curiously hypocritical that so many straight men are not only OK with the concept of two women having sex; they’re sometimes even more turned on by it than male/female sex. But two men? Heresy!



Stereotypes are persistent, aren’t they? On one hand, there is some truth behind cliches, but on the other they’re just that — cliches. I can understand how certain elements of certain gay parades have led to a notion of a more explicit sexuality, but always keep in mind you’re ultimately extrapolating this view from the behavior of a handful of men. The best analogy I can think of offhand would be for me to say all women are more explicitly sexual based on watching them in a stripper club.



The definition of marriage is fluidic, based solely on its history with heterosexuals. Wikipedia has an interesting article on its history. Social contracts, economic factors, politics, children, and, yes, love, among other things. But one thing is clear: it has changed many times, from culture to culture, throughout history. As have many things. What, really, does the word “war” mean? Or “culture”? Or “art”? Or “ethics”? They’ve all changed many times, yet we still keep using the same words.

I have a sister-in-law who knew when she was in her early twenties that she never wanted to have children, so she had her tubes tied. She has been married twice, both times with men who knew going into it that they would never have children — biologically or adopted. To try to define marriage as simply a method of procreation is naive. Should my sister-in-law have not been allowed to get married? Of course not. Should elderly people not be allowed to get married, knowing they’re well beyond the age of having kids? Of course not.



As @Murat Baslamisli has so eloquently told us, adoption can be a wonderful experience. This makes sense, right? If someone wants to pursue that, it’s because they want to. They desperately want to have children, which is what children should have: being wanted. An adoption doesn’t happen by accident, so these kids don’t exist as merely the byproduct of sexual encounters, etc.

Now, should we say that a single heterosexual man should not be allowed to adopt? Or a single heterosexual woman? Of course not. If that were the case, then we shouldn’t allow divorced people to keep their kids, because they’re no longer in a male-female environment. Should a homosexual woman not be allowed to adopt? The maternal pull can be overwhelming, from what I’ve heard. They want — perhaps even need — to have children, even though their sexuality doesn’t align with having sex with men. But a homosexual woman who pursues adoption really, really wants a kid. They’re ready to adjust their lives to accommodate them. They’re ready to love. The same can be said if there are two homosexual women. So why would it be different with a non-married homosexual man? Or a homosexual male couple? Again, all of these people are desperate to raise children, and are more motivated than certain single or married heterosexuals.

Finally, a little about myself:

I’m a gay man who has been in a relationship for 26 years. We have no children, because neither of us has ever wanted them.

We’re the opposite of almost every gay stereotype: we have never liked dancing/clubbing, we’re not into fashion, we loathe Madonna, we’re monogamous, we’re not into musicals in a big way (some are great), we’re not effeminate, and so on. Not that any of those things are wrong or bad. If people — gay or straight — are into musicals, dancing, fashion or whatever that’s great. I’m merely trying to say gay stereotypes are just that — stereotypes. The reality across the entire population of gay men is quite different. Of course it is, right? How could it not be? But it’s easier for TV shows and films to use stereotypes and cliches as a quick way of defining characters. Single woman? Give her a cat. Single man? Sex, sex, sex. Gay man? Play Barbra Streisand in the background. Gay woman? Give her a butch haircut.

OK, I’ve rambled on for much longer than I originally intended, but I hope this helps to give you some things to think about, coming from the perspective of a gay man.

That's a pretty brave post putting it all out there. So kudos for that.

I'll write a bit more when I've got time, but I think any single man wanting to adopt a child would raise my alarm. Federberg mentioned a threat matrix in an unrelated topic... it's kind of like sixth sense. This isn't quite the same thing, but I think there has to be a risk assessment even it's a subconscious one.

We've had scenarios where kids have been reseated on flights if they are sitting next to men not wearing wedding rings (bizarre, but true) - which is totally over the top... but on the same note, if a single bloke (of any sexual persuasion) wants to adopt a child, then something wouldn't sit right with me.

 

[tented]

I'll write a bit more when I've got time, but I think any single man wanting to adopt a child would raise my alarm. Federberg mentioned a threat matrix in an unrelated topic... it's kind of like sixth sense. This isn't quite the same thing, but I think there has to be a risk assessment even it's a subconscious one.

We've had scenarios where kids have been reseated on flights if they are sitting next to men not wearing wedding rings (bizarre, but true) - which is totally over the top... but on the same note, if a single bloke (of any sexual persuasion) wants to adopt a child, then something wouldn't sit right with me.

If it’s sexual predation you’re worried about, I don’t think that would be a problem. Pedophiles hunt other people’s children, not their own. I don’t recall ever hearing of a pedophile having successfully adopted a child.

If I were a social worker, and a single man or woman came to me and said they wanted to adopt, my main concern would be whether or not they’re capable of handling everything a child needs. Chances are they work full-time, so who would take care of their kid when they’re working? Do they have the financial resources to handle all of this?