Quake3World

Law wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Law wrote:More so that society will never reach such a level of acceptance.

Ok so this is an entirely different aspect of the discussion. For now I'd like to focus on the argument that maturity is a necessary condition for acceptance of homosexuality.

Can you please address this?

There's not much I can say other than that of my belief that the vast majority of children will not accept homosexuality until they reach a mature age, and even then a large portion will still not accept it.

Do you realize that this entire "discussion" is pretty much disqualified as such right from the beginning because of these unsubstanciated beliefs of yours?

That's exactly right. I vehemently disagree with the whole maturity idea - it should not be in this discussion as it is completely irrelevant.

Law wrote:
There's not much I can say other than that of my belief that the vast majority of children will not accept homosexuality until they reach a mature age, and even then a large portion will still not accept it.

umm...

Please answer yes or no:

Imagine you raised a child in an environment where homosexuality was openly accepted as normal. The child's parents had gay friends over frequently and these gay people expressed themselves openly.

Imagine hollywood movies had gay heroes.

Imagine camp attitudes were portrayed as normal, in cartoons for example.

Imagine language changed to become gay-friendly.

Now here's my question - do you believe a child would have hostility toward gays in this environment?

Ryoki wrote:That's exactly right. I vehemently disagree with the whole maturity idea - it should not be in this discussion as it is completely irrelevant.

Apart from the fact that it's completely relevant to my point. My assumptions as to why people actually do discriminate upon homosexuals is irrelevant though.

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Law wrote:
There's not much I can say other than that of my belief that the vast majority of children will not accept homosexuality until they reach a mature age, and even then a large portion will still not accept it.

umm...

Please answer yes or no:

Imagine you raised a child in an environment where homosexuality was openly accepted as normal. The child's parents had gay friends over frequently and these gay people expressed themselves openly.

Imagine hollywood movies had gay heroes.

Imagine camp attitudes were portrayed as normal, in cartoons for example.

Imagine language changed to become gay-friendly.

Now here's my question - do you believe a child would have hostility toward gays in this environment?

Probably not, but what's the point in discussing a hypothetical situation that will never become a reality?

Law wrote:I'm not argueing on limiting the rights of certain individuals because of their particular sexual preference, I'm argueing that their preference will lead to irreversible psychological damage inflicted from another section of society as a result of this.

That's not a justifiable reason to prevent gay men from adopting children.

First of all, you're inviting a double standard. Why can gay women do it, but not men? No law like this would ever pass that prevented one gender from doing something over the other; it's sexism at its worst.

Secondly, no law would pass just because some sections of society may not agree with it. Saying homosexuality is OK -- but not allowed because some people don't think it's OK -- is reaffirming said people's negative view of homosexuality. It's a step in the wrong direction if our culture is to evolve and grow.

And finally, the gay parents of an adopted kid have control over where their kid is raised. Homeschooling would get rid of the bullying (which I still believe you are blowing out of proportion). If that's not an option, then private schooling could also work, assuming said school had a strict disciplinary ethic. Or the parents could simply work closely with the public school to make sure teachers and faculty are aware of their unique disposition and the impact it could have on their kid. That way any bullying could be nipped in the bud before it got out of hand. They could also move to a community that is more tolerany of gays (even a gated Pleasantville type community). I'm sure either way that the parents would end up having a nice long talk with their son or daughter about what to expect from other kids at school and how to deal with it.

If our society is to grow and come to accept homosexuality on a larger scale, we have to start somewhere.

Law wrote:Probably not, but what's the point in discussing a hypothetical situation that will never become a reality?

It's called abstract reasoning. It serves to pinpoint intuitions and sharpen discussion.

In this case, you've conceded that maturity is not necessary to accept homosexuality.

Which means that if we can focus on fixing society, children will become an expression of that fixed society.

Which means that if we can start to remove institutionalized discrimination against homosexuality (and it is the institutional features of culture which children pick up on the most, since they're not mature enough to use reason), then children will not be hostile towards homosexuality.

Now that we've cleared that up, we can move onto the other claim of your argument (your argument had two bases - one has been defeated) - which is that society will never fix institutional discrimination against homosexuality.

And additionally, there are strong arguments to be made that even if children of gay parents will be ostracized at school, it is better for society to allow gay adoption.

I have a major paper due in a few hours, so I'll leave this for later.

[xeno]Julios wrote:Now that we've cleared that up, we can move onto the other claim of your argument (your argument had two bases - one has been defeated) - which is that society will never fix institutional discrimination against homosexuality.

Ooh, I think I can help!
So it really wasn't until the church came to power that homosexuality became really evil and all, right? Well, in the last few hundred years, the church's grasp and influence on society has been waning, I would say. Especially in America (separation of church and state) and the UK/England. If we continue with our current trends, I think the gap will only widen, thus allowing the issue of homosexuality to be addressed in a less passionate and more rational light.

Transient wrote:

Law wrote:I'm not argueing on limiting the rights of certain individuals because of their particular sexual preference, I'm argueing that their preference will lead to irreversible psychological damage inflicted from another section of society as a result of this.

That's not a justifiable reason to prevent gay men from adopting children.

First of all, you're inviting a double standard. Why can gay women do it, but not men? No law like this would ever pass that prevented one gender from doing something over the other; it's sexism at its worst.

Secondly, no law would pass just because some sections of society may not agree with it. Saying homosexuality is OK -- but not allowed because some people don't think it's OK -- is reaffirming said people's negative view of homosexuality. It's a step in the wrong direction if our culture is to evolve and grow.

And finally, the gay parents of an adopted kid have control over where their kid is raised. Homeschooling would get rid of the bullying (which I still believe you are blowing out of proportion). If that's not an option, then private schooling could also work, assuming said school had a strict disciplinary ethic. Or the parents could simply work closely with the public school to make sure teachers and faculty are aware of their unique disposition and the impact it could have on their kid. That way any bullying could be nipped in the bud before it got out of hand. They could also move to a community that is more tolerany of gays (even a gated Pleasantville type community). I'm sure either way that the parents would end up having a nice long talk with their son or daughter about what to expect from other kids at school and how to deal with it.

If our society is to grow and come to accept homosexuality on a larger scale, we have to start somewhere.

I believe inflicting irreversible psychological damage upon a child is sufficient reason to prevent gay men from adopting children.

I don't believe gay women would incite the same reaction as gay men, it's as simple as that.

Um, I've got news for you, many laws are passed which many in society don't agree with (if that is what you were saying, "Secondly, no law would pass just because some sections of society may not agree with it." is a little unclear to me as to what you're saying).

If there are methods which can be successfully implemented to eradicate the damage the child would be subjected to at school then I'd be all for it.

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Law wrote:Probably not, but what's the point in discussing a hypothetical situation that will never become a reality?

It's called abstract reasoning. It serves to pinpoint intuitions and sharpen discussion.

In this case, you've conceded that maturity is not necessary to accept homosexuality.

Which means that if we can focus on fixing society, children will become an expression of that fixed society.

Which means that if we can start to remove institutionalized discrimination against homosexuality (and it is the institutional features of culture which children pick up on the most, since they're not mature enough to use reason), then children will not be hostile towards homosexuality.

Now that we've cleared that up, we can move onto the other claim of your argument (your argument had two bases - one has been defeated) - which is that society will never fix institutional discrimination against homosexuality.

And additionally, there are strong arguments to be made that even if children of gay parents will be ostracized at school, it is better for society to allow gay adoption.

I have a major paper due in a few hours, so I'll leave this for later.

What it is, is fantasy which is irrelevant due to it's complete lack of reality. My answer was "probably not", an answer to a useless, hypothetical situation that will never occur. Nothing has been conceded, nor "defeated".

Transient wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote:Now that we've cleared that up, we can move onto the other claim of your argument (your argument had two bases - one has been defeated) - which is that society will never fix institutional discrimination against homosexuality.

Ooh, I think I can help!
So it really wasn't until the church came to power that homosexuality became really evil and all, right? Well, in the last few hundred years, the church's grasp and influence on society has been waning, I would say. Especially in America (separation of church and state) and the UK/England. If we continue with our current trends, I think the gap will only widen, thus allowing the issue of homosexuality to be addressed in a less passionate and more rational light.

Why for instance, must an American Hollywood actor keep his homosexuality a secret out of knowledge that if it became known his career would end?

because people like you say its a psychological defect

Where did I imply that? And isn't todays society accepting of homosexual behaviour?

Law wrote:If there are methods which can be successfully implemented to eradicate the damage the child would be subjected to at school then I'd be all for it.

Well, I just gave a bunch of examples. Some of those examples are used already for other reasons (for instance, the kid has a deformity or something, maybe, and gets teased, so they're homeschooled). If public schools cracked down on intolerant bullying, then the problem would go away, too. All my examples can and are used for different circumstances, so your whole argument is moot. Everything you say you are worried about can be overcome.

Law wrote:Why for instance, must an American Hollywood actor keep his homosexuality a secret out of knowledge that if it became known his career would end?

They don't and it wouldn't. Stars come out all the time.

Elton John, Rosie O'Donnell, Ellen Degeneres...

Transient wrote:

Law wrote:If there are methods which can be successfully implemented to eradicate the damage the child would be subjected to at school then I'd be all for it.

Well, I just gave a bunch of examples. Some of those examples are used already for other reasons (for instance, the kid has a deformity or something, maybe, and gets teased, so they're homeschooled). If public schools cracked down on intolerant bullying, then the problem would go away, too. All my examples can and are used for different circumstances, so your whole argument is moot. Everything you say you are worried about can be overcome.

lol, my whole argument is far from moot, considering the scenario I put forward is based upon the hypothetical circumstance of a child being in a normal school. Stop trying to win, and just discuss.

Transient wrote:

Law wrote:Why for instance, must an American Hollywood actor keep his homosexuality a secret out of knowledge that if it became known his career would end?

They don't and it wouldn't. Stars come out all the time.

Elton John, Rosie O'Donnell, Ellen Degeneres...

They are Hollywood stars?

Law wrote:What it is, is fantasy which is irrelevant due to it's complete lack of reality. My answer was "probably not", an answer to a useless, hypothetical situation that will never occur. Nothing has been conceded, nor "defeated".

Your main argument is that if gay couples could adopt children, the children would be traumatised because of bullying and harassing at school.

We just established the fact that kids get their views and beliefs from adults. So if we as an adult and mature group show how it's supposed to be done and gay couples would teach their kids to stand up for themselves, then there would be little to no psychological damage, do you agree?

This is something I posted earlier which I feel is relevant to your post.

Law wrote:I have addressed your claim that children do not need to be mature in order to accept homosexuality and need nothing more than accepting parents. This is an entirely wrong belief as far as I'm concerned. Children are more than capable of thought other than that which mimics their parents, especially when it comes to homosexuality.

Did you see my example of my girlfriends brother who receives physical and psychological punishment at school on a daily basis from his peers simply because he is camp? How does this happen? He goes to school in New Zealand which is a modernised, homosexually accepting, European colonised society. According to your theory this shouldn't occur simply because the adults accept homosexuality.

If you took some time to look into childrens psyches then you would find that it does not matter what kind of parents the child has. Children with the lowest of parents (fat, poor, drive a crummy car, soforth and soforth) can be the most popular kids at school. If the kid learns to stand up for itself it will thrive even though it has homosexual parents.

Even if you say that this would not work, you can always place your child in a higher class school. Here we have private schools, and more upper class school where there is more regulation and people tend to be less prejudice and disturbed. I sincerely believe that it is possible to raise a child in this manner with gay parents without the so-called intense psychological damage.

Your example of your girlfriends brother is something which can be resolved. If he learns to be truly ok with his own situation, learns to take pride in himself and stand up for his belief, his problems will diminish. If that doesn't work he can always go to another school and try again.

so tell me [xeno]Julios, are you in favour of gay males adopting children?

bikkeldesnikkel wrote:If you took some time to look into childrens psyches then you would find that it does not matter what kind of parents the child has. Children with the lowest of parents (fat, poor, drive a crummy car, soforth and soforth) can be the most popular kids at school. If the kid learns to stand up for itself it will thrive even though it has homosexual parents.

Even if you say that this would not work, you can always place your child in a higher class school. Here we have private schools, and more upper class school where there is more regulation and people tend to be less prejudice and disturbed. I sincerely believe that it is possible to raise a child in this manner with gay parents without the so-called intense psychological damage.

Your example of your girlfriends brother is something which can be resolved. If he learns to be truly ok with his own situation, learns to take pride in himself and stand up for his belief, his problems will diminish. If that doesn't work he can always go to another school and try again.

Well that's where we disagree, I believe children will care about whether another student has two homosexual males as their parent.

I do agree that if there are methods in which a child can be excluded from vilification then the problem is solved.

My girlfriends brother is doing the best he can, to no avail. What's the point going to another school where the same situation would inevitably arise?

Law wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Law wrote:
There's not much I can say other than that of my belief that the vast majority of children will not accept homosexuality until they reach a mature age, and even then a large portion will still not accept it.

umm...

Please answer yes or no:

Imagine you raised a child in an environment where homosexuality was openly accepted as normal. The child's parents had gay friends over frequently and these gay people expressed themselves openly.

Imagine hollywood movies had gay heroes.

Imagine camp attitudes were portrayed as normal, in cartoons for example.

Imagine language changed to become gay-friendly.

Now here's my question - do you believe a child would have hostility toward gays in this environment?

Probably not, but what's the point in discussing a hypothetical situation that will never become a reality?

Why is this a hypothetical situation? My parents and I both have multiple gay friends. Neither of us have any young children around, but it's not hard to believe other people do.

Hollywood does have gay heroes. Brokeback Mtn, off the top of my head.

Being flaming is becoming more the norm. Queer Eye? Metrosexuals? Long hair? Those are all in things. And what about the males in anime cartoons? Many current popular toons are based on anime style, and they are certainly camp enough.

Language is becoming gay-friendly, although I admit not quite to the level that we'd like to see.

I don't think this is so much a case of people living in an idealized world as it is a case of you believing gays are worse off. Maybe it's where you live. I don't know.

Law wrote:Well that's where we disagree, I believe children will care about whether another student has two homosexual males as their parent.

Children don't care about homosexual parents, they don't care if the kids are fat, kids don't really care about anything! Everything they do is on a very very basic level. They don't even understand what homosexuality or even heterosexuality is until a much older age, an age where they can be mature enough to understand and accept homosexuality.

If the children in the school are properly raised kids, and the child with the homosexual parents isn't a "wuss" so to speak, then there will be no problems.

I do agree that if there are methods in which a child can be excluded from vilification then the problem is solved.

If you do agree on this, then you can at least start on such a level and see where it goes from there.

bikkeldesnikkel wrote: Children don't care about homosexual parents, they don't care if the kids are fat, kids don't really care about anything! Everything they do is on a very very basic level. They don't even understand what homosexuality or even heterosexuality is until a much older age, an age where they can be mature enough to understand and accept homosexuality.

can you define your idea of "children" and "kids" as in age please ?