Explaining what "gay" is to my DC. Advice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My point was that private organizations have the right to dictate what they consider to be moral or immoral. It falls under the rights of religion and free speech. And it is as wrong to say that the Boy Scouts shouldn't be able to dictate their own standards of morality as it is for the government to withhold equal rights to individuals based on those same standards.

So you would be okay if the Boy Scouts refused to let parents in interracial marriages lead troops? And I take it you were okay with Bob Jones University prohibiting interracial dating and prohibiting anyone from advocating interracial dating. Because interracial dating, in the eyes of some people, is immoral. If you are consistent in this regard, I have more respect for you -- even though I disagree.

Truth. My friend called me up and asked me to buy popcorn from her kids' troop and I said no because I don't support their stance. That said, I have to understand that they have the right to take that stance. I also expect that it would be their right to take the same prohibitations towards interracial families. Though I would find that stance reprehensible.

As for Bob Jones University. I truly dispise everything they stand for. But they have to be given the right to make those decisions for themselves. Just as I have the right to tell them that I think they are a bunch of crackpots who twist supposed words of love into hate. But that's the trick with Democracy. As long as you have the right to scream your views at the top of your lungs, you have to accept that other people have that same right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My point was that private organizations have the right to dictate what they consider to be moral or immoral. It falls under the rights of religion and free speech. And it is as wrong to say that the Boy Scouts shouldn't be able to dictate their own standards of morality as it is for the government to withhold equal rights to individuals based on those same standards.

So you would be okay if the Boy Scouts refused to let parents in interracial marriages lead troops? And I take it you were okay with Bob Jones University prohibiting interracial dating and prohibiting anyone from advocating interracial dating. Because interracial dating, in the eyes of some people, is immoral. If you are consistent in this regard, I have more respect for you -- even though I disagree.

Truth. My friend called me up and asked me to buy popcorn from her kids' troop and I said no because I don't support their stance. That said, I have to understand that they have the right to take that stance. I also expect that it would be their right to take the same prohibitations towards interracial families. Though I would find that stance reprehensible.

As for Bob Jones University. I truly dispise everything they stand for. But they have to be given the right to make those decisions for themselves. Just as I have the right to tell them that I think they are a bunch of crackpots who twist supposed words of love into hate. But that's the trick with Democracy. As long as you have the right to scream your views at the top of your lungs, you have to accept that other people have that same right.

I see your point. I also don't believe that the Boy Scouts should be forced to change -- I don't have a problem with them screaming their point of view -- but I don't see why they (or the Salvation Army) should be subsidized by taxpayers (through tax exempt status) while they discriminate.

Bob Jones at least lost its special status due to its stand on interracial dating and marriage. It should be the same for the Boy Scouts with regard to their stand on gays and athiests. They can make these decisions for themselves but I shouldn't have to pay to support them -- especially when it's gay adolescents who suffer the most from homophobia in our society. If preserving the right to discriminate against gay kids means that much to the Boy Scouts, they should have the gonads to pay full freight instead of expecting a free ride from the government.

[Anonymous]

I would agree with that.

[Anonymous]

Cool. I can see that if given the chance to have a more nuanced discussion face-to-face we'd probably agree on many things about this subject. As always, I should take a deep breath and count to 10 before I write.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids have their rights. From the moment a gay couple is adopting a child, he or she is forced to live in an homosexual environment, meaning they are not giving the right to live with a mom and a dad.
Gays don't bother me. What does bother me is when they put someone else in their lifes who doesn't have an option.

And additionally, it is very frustrating that people can't accept that there are benefits to having a male parent and a single parent. I'm not saying that there aren't great and loving gay families out there, but it makes me really frustrated when if I express the belief that the *best* situation for a child is benefitting from the natural balances and differences of both males and females, that i must suddenly be a hateful person.

I am not so much against adoption, since I think that there are so many kids in need of homes and love. But I am torn about the morality of homosexuals having their own children.

In that case, maybe you can start your own thread about the subject that is not in the Gay and Lesbian Parents forum. When I come here, I do not expect to find posts judging me and my family as immoral. This thread started as an honest question by a well-meaning and truly openminded person and degenerated into a soapbox for your bigotry disguised as "liberal" opinions about your good friends the "homosexuals."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In that case, maybe you can start your own thread about the subject that is not in the Gay and Lesbian Parents forum. When I come here, I do not expect to find posts judging me and my family as immoral. This thread started as an honest question by a well-meaning and truly openminded person and degenerated into a soapbox for your bigotry disguised as "liberal" opinions about your good friends the "homosexuals."

First, let me begin by saying that my good friends aren't "the homosexuals". I have good friends who are homosexual. Not the same thing.

Additionally, I fear your definition of open-minded probably differs from my own. I define the term to mean the ability to look at multiple points of view. You seem to define it as the ability to think the way you do.

As for the bigotry... sorry, nope. As much as you may not like this fact, a person who does not share your point of view or who thinks that you may have made an immoral choice is not necessarily a bigot. Would I be a bigot if I disagreed with open marriages? Would i be a bigot if I disagreed with someone who was cheating on his or her spouse? Each person can decide for himself what his or her standards of morality are. I am not a bigot for disagreeing with your choices. Nor would someone be a bigot if they expressed that they didn't think that someone in my position in life - an unmarried woman - should bring a child into the world.

I believe that the decision to create a child should be based on more than "I'm a good person, I want a baby, everyone else I know has a baby, so I deserve one too". You can disagree with me as much as you want, but the fact that I am torn about the matter of gay parenting does not make me a bigot.

[Anonymous]

Fine. Take your open-minded and non-bigoted views and start a thread about the immorality of my family in another forum, okay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In that case, maybe you can start your own thread about the subject that is not in the Gay and Lesbian Parents forum. When I come here, I do not expect to find posts judging me and my family as immoral. This thread started as an honest question by a well-meaning and truly openminded person and degenerated into a soapbox for your bigotry disguised as "liberal" opinions about your good friends the "homosexuals."

First, let me begin by saying that my good friends aren't "the homosexuals". I have good friends who are homosexual. Not the same thing.

Additionally, I fear your definition of open-minded probably differs from my own. I define the term to mean the ability to look at multiple points of view. You seem to define it as the ability to think the way you do.

I understand your desire to see things from multiple perspectives but there is eventually a point where this breaks down. Would you be willing to look at slavery from multiple points of view and expect people not to have a problem with it? Ditto for such varied issues as deciding whether women had souls in the Middle Ages, female genital mutilation in some African countries, imprisoning Jews in the Warsaw ghetto or putting Japanese-Americans in prison camps during World War II. There's a point at which looking at things from "multiple points of view" can be used to support an oppressive status quo. (Gee, of course the Federal government saw it in its interest to arrest people who advocated for birth control in the early 19th century. After all, some people saw it as immoral.) There comes a time to act and I, for one, am glad George Washington decided not to look at things from multiple points of view.

In our earlier discussion, I was thinking that you were not an unreasonable person but I am changing my opinion. As has been noted by a pp, this is a thread for family people who want to support one another. They shouldn't have to wade through declarations about the immorality of their families by posters who insist that they not be judged for their views while retaining the right to judge others under the guise of being "open-minded."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I understand your desire to see things from multiple perspectives but there is eventually a point where this breaks down. Would you be willing to look at slavery from multiple points of view and expect people not to have a problem with it? Ditto for such varied issues as deciding whether women had souls in the Middle Ages, female genital mutilation in some African countries, imprisoning Jews in the Warsaw ghetto or putting Japanese-Americans in prison camps during World War II. There's a point at which looking at things from "multiple points of view" can be used to support an oppressive status quo. (Gee, of course the Federal government saw it in its interest to arrest people who advocated for birth control in the early 19th century. After all, some people saw it as immoral.) There comes a time to act and I, for one, am glad George Washington decided not to look at things from multiple points of view.

In our earlier discussion, I was thinking that you were not an unreasonable person but I am changing my opinion. As has been noted by a pp, this is a thread for family people who want to support one another. They shouldn't have to wade through declarations about the immorality of their families by posters who insist that they not be judged for their views while retaining the right to judge others under the guise of being "open-minded."

In all honesty, I do not see the comparisons that you are making to be in line with when I am saying. No, not EVERYTHING should be looked upon from a multiple point of view. I'm not supporting slavery. I'm not supporting mutilation. I'm not supporting torture and murder. And I'm really not seeing where George Washington comes into it. Most of the truly great leaders, actually, have had the ability to see things from multiple perspectives. It's the dictators that tend to take a "my way or the highway" approach.

I agree that there comes a "time to act" and I believe that I have already stated that I have done so. As much as the posters in this thread have labeled me a bigot, I have said several times that I have both voted and protested in favor of their rights. I have said that I support the rights of gays to marry. I have said that I support the rights of gays to adopt. And I certainly am not advocating for any sort of "sterilization" or "illegality" of homosexuals to create new children. What I AM saying is that I find the decision to do that to be questionable within my own standards of what I believe is best for a child. If you read what I've written, I'm expressed similiar limitations on what I think are beneficial for heterosexuals. And I have not made any declarations of immorality. Instead, I have brought to the table a valid concern. I believe that in this society, people think that they are entitled to it all. And sometimes I think that can be at the expense of the children they bring into the world. And ultimately, yes, I do believe that a child benefits from the "ying and yang" so to speak of male and female. And furthermore, I have never stated that it was something that I saw as immoral, but rather something that I continue to question.

The difference between my posts and the posts of others is that I have provided feedback about why I feel the way that I do. I have balanced my opinions with the acknowledgement that there are two sides. I have acknowledged that even though I may not think that same sex families are the best case scenario for children, that there are certainly excellent gay and lesbian parents out there. I have recognized that there are no absolutes. And I have been open, as our previous discussion in this thread has indicated, to coming together in mutual understanding and hearing other viewpoints. Whereas most of the people responding to me have primarily, only combed through my words, twisted them around, and called me a bigot.

Furthermore this forum is dedicated to "the issues of gay parenting" and quite frankly, this very topic is probably one of the biggest, if not the absolute biggest issue that gay families must face. Not everyone will see eye to eye, and if people can't be open to discussing these issues openly and honestly on a MESSAGE BOARD without letting anger and frustration get in the way of hearing what the other person is saying, I have little faith that we will make too much headway any time soon in terms of gay rights.

[Anonymous]

And I have not made any declarations of immorality. Instead, I have brought to the table a valid concern. I believe that in this society, people think that they are entitled to it all. And sometimes I think that can be at the expense of the children they bring into the world. And ultimately, yes, I do believe that a child benefits from the "ying and yang" so to speak of male and female. And furthermore, I have never stated that it was something that I saw as immoral, but rather something that I continue to question.

You have not made any declarations of immorality? You might want to look back at your previous posts - you have repeatedly stated and implied that you believe that gay people having children is immoral.

But I am torn about the morality of homosexuals having their own children.

And additionally, nobody could say that there are "acts" involved in being black which could be considered immoral.

I believe that in this day and age, we have tricked ourselves into thinking that we can make any choices that we want and have all the things we want. Fifty years ago, most family structures were different, so having children was not so much of a moral dilema [sic].

So basically, if you do not raise your children in a traditional, heterosexual nuclear family, you are a selfish, immoral person.

Furthermore this forum is dedicated to "the issues of gay parenting" and quite frankly, this very topic is probably one of the biggest, if not the absolute biggest issue that gay families must face.

You are absolutely right - dealing with people who think our families are immoral is a big issue that gay families face.

Not everyone will see eye to eye, and if people can't be open to discussing these issues openly and honestly on a MESSAGE BOARD without letting anger and frustration get in the way of hearing what the other person is saying, I have little faith that we will make too much headway any time soon in terms of gay rights.

Shorter PP: "If you won't listen to my half-baked yin/yang arguments, no more rights for you, you hysterical homosexual."

Let me try to explain it again - coming to a forum that is meant to be supportive of gay parents and reading posts like yours is hurtful and sickening. Please take your thoughts about the ideal family structure elsewhere.

P.S. Thanks to PP at 21:47 who has responded to these arguments in a far more articulate and reasoned way than I can muster right now.

[Anonymous]

Oh for the love of all things holy....



[i]

You have not made any declarations of immorality? You might want to look back at your previous posts - you have repeatedly stated and implied that you believe that gay people having children is immoral.

Actually, you may want to review what I've said in the spirit of what was actually expressed instead of your reactionary panic

But I am torn about the morality of homosexuals having their own children.

Actually, the word that should be stressed here is "torn". As in, I SEE BOTH SIDES OF THE PICTURE. Torn between different viewpoints.

And additionally, nobody could say that there are "acts" involved in being black which could be considered immoral.

You are taking this statement out of context. It was not used to discuss same sex families. It was used to illustrate that a religion has the right to dictate its own set of values. If a church, organization, club, or individual wants to consider sexual relations between two people of the same gender to be immoral, IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO BELIEVE THIS. I have stated, that I do not believe this. However, the basic comparison to homosexual acts to being black is simply not a valid argument based on the fact that there is no action of blacks which can be viewed, right or wrong, as immoral

I believe that in this day and age, we have tricked ourselves into thinking that we can make any choices that we want and have all the things we want. Fifty years ago, most family structures were different, so having children was not so much of a moral dilema [sic].

Once again, I did not call you immoral. I said that I consider it to be a dilemma. And I do. And not to recognize it as such is foolish.

So basically, if you do not raise your children in a traditional, heterosexual nuclear family, you are a selfish, immoral person.

First of all, some people are able to recognize that others can make choices that they don't believe in and not consider them an immoral person. Apparently you are not one of these people. That says more about you than it does me.

I think that children fifty years ago were raised better than they are now. I think children fifty years ago were raised with more continuity, security, and better values. I think that children fifty years ago were less selfish, less materialistic, and less jaded. I believe that is largely do to the fact that traditional nuclear families are the best thing for children. I recognize that this can be difficult to mesh with today's society and i [color=red][b]AM TORN about how to combine the individual benefits of greater freedoms and choices with the fact that many of these choices are not the greatest scenario for the generations of children that follow.

coming to a forum that is meant to be supportive of gay parents and reading posts like yours is hurtful and sickening. Please take your thoughts about the ideal family structure elsewhere.

And you know what? A lot of people in this world would say that you and your lifestyle is hurtful and sickening. And you know when this cycle of hurtful and sickening will end? When people of all viewpoints have the ability to DISCUSS those viewpoints and try to understand why someone who thinks differently from them thinks the way that they do.

I have already told you that I hold MYSELF, a SINGLE WOMAN WHO WOULD LOVE TO HAVE CHILDREN, to the EXACT SAME STANDARD of "is this right or wrong" that I am holding many others to.

[Anonymous]

OP here, the PP is very skilled at sophistry ("I can equate you with every bad thing I can think of and still hide behind the claim that I never actually said you WERE that thing - I just drew a few comparisons.) Being open-minded isn't such a great thing if you aren't able to temper and guide it with careful consideration and logic. I find your "arguments" don't hold water as they continually twist and squirm and change under scrutiny. Go have a think and come back when you actually know what your point is. I'm not that interested in listening to protracted arguments a sophist is having, basically, with her/himself.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:OP here, the PP is very skilled at sophistry ("I can equate you with every bad thing I can think of and still hide behind the claim that I never actually said you WERE that thing - I just drew a few comparisons.) Being open-minded isn't such a great thing if you aren't able to temper and guide it with careful consideration and logic. I find your "arguments" don't hold water as they continually twist and squirm and change under scrutiny. Go have a think and come back when you actually know what your point is. I'm not that interested in listening to protracted arguments a sophist is having, basically, with her/himself.

Yes, you took the words right out of my mouth. This is exactly right. What we are witnessing is the PP's inner struggle to deal with her own discomfort.

PP, your argument has shifted from one of gay parents being selfish to this:

I think that children fifty years ago were raised better than they are now. I think children fifty years ago were raised with more continuity, security, and better values. I think that children fifty years ago were less selfish, less materialistic, and less jaded. I believe that is largely do to the fact that traditional nuclear families are the best thing for children.

If your desire is to return to 1950s Mayberry with Andy and Opie, that is certainly your right. But, that is an issue for General Parenting or Off Topic. Gay and Lesbian parents are looking forward, as are the great majority of hetro parents. Hence, the desire for a discussion about explaining "gay" to children. You can join that discussion or not.

[Anonymous]

Thanks jsteele!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, the PP is very skilled at sophistry ("I can equate you with every bad thing I can think of and still hide behind the claim that I never actually said you WERE that thing - I just drew a few comparisons.) Being open-minded isn't such a great thing if you aren't able to temper and guide it with careful consideration and logic. I find your "arguments" don't hold water as they continually twist and squirm and change under scrutiny. Go have a think and come back when you actually know what your point is. I'm not that interested in listening to protracted arguments a sophist is having, basically, with her/himself.

Yes, you took the words right out of my mouth. This is exactly right. What we are witnessing is the PP's inner struggle to deal with her own discomfort.

PP, your argument has shifted from one of gay parents being selfish to this:

I think that children fifty years ago were raised better than they are now. I think children fifty years ago were raised with more continuity, security, and better values. I think that children fifty years ago were less selfish, less materialistic, and less jaded. I believe that is largely do to the fact that traditional nuclear families are the best thing for children.

If your desire is to return to 1950s Mayberry with Andy and Opie, that is certainly your right. But, that is an issue for General Parenting or Off Topic. Gay and Lesbian parents are looking forward, as are the great majority of hetro parents. Hence, the desire for a discussion about explaining "gay" to children. You can join that discussion or not.

Actually, the fault lies with people who are too wrapped up in their own burning flame of martyrdom to read what is being written.

Guess what. Not everyone should have children. Some families situations are better than others. I do not try to force what I believe to be right on anyone via laws that discriminate. I stand by the right of anyone to have a child. However, I am PERSONALLY torn about this topic. As are a great many kind, loving, caring people. And we should be able to discuss these feelings openly. Just because your feelings aren't politically correct, it does not make them invalid.