Originally Posted by
Bouncer272001
Einstein - Explaining complex things like sexual preference to children in the age group we are discussing in order to create a more accepting view to homosexuality is really bad psychological practice. This is not guiding, it is pushing/forcing a child to understand something they don't have the vaguest conception of at that age. I'd seriously think about your viewpoint on that, and don't think of it objectively, consider this from a subjective point of view, remember what you were like at that age. Personally I remember having a g/f at about 8 years of age, but I did not understand the concept of attraction or preference. For someone to explain it to me at that age to any degree might have altered my thinking in such a way that would cause me problems later on in life, problems which may require psychiatric help to remedy. You see it is one thing to talk of inhereting a mental condition such as depression (and your relation to inherent biological defects being the case with homosexuality is a bad one as this leaves a person the opening to argue that homosexualityt is therefore a "condition" which is treatable through medication, i.e. that homosexuality is an illness) but psychological disorders also evolve as effects of peoples personal life experiences. What is being destroyed in trying to explain complex things to a young child is the childs natural progression of discovering life for themselves, something that is very delicate and should be nurtured and protected not smashed down in an attempt to build better foundations for a social groups future.
Also I don't understand how you don't understand that teaching only plays a part in our view of morals of the world. Things are as they are, nature is as it is, we can not change it, we can break it down, mix it up, experiment with it, but we CANNOT change it. Peoples views are largely obtained from their personal empirical experience, and it is these views that hold, sometimes learning someone elses views of the same things will change a persons view, but it is more likely that they will hold true to their own feelings of something and not somebody elses feelings of the same thing. (Obvious application of this is to homosexuality, some homosexuals wouldn't go through the grief they have gone through if their feelings were easily changed by an explanation of someone elses feelings on homosexuality) So enough talk of this "it's only because we are "taught" that it's wrong that we think it's wrong", the teaching is only a notion that might go with what the person feels anyway and thus that teaching becoming a point to be referred to.
Also on the subject of parentage, I think it was Carlos who posted the write up of a study on the other thread, and it stated evidence that children who were brought up by lesbians displayed a more feminine personality or traits (I don't remember the exact wording). This is only one affect of this unbalanced parenting. Personally I believe that many more would exist, and as you would know, given your experience, an experiment is carried out many times (or at least twice) to make sure of the truth of it, as too is social research and psychological research/experiments, although political policies do get passed on the strength of one set of results, whilst in professional circles the strength of one studies results are still held in question.
Others unacceptance you say is wrong, but some people find the idea of homosexuality/lesbianism as physically revolting, just as I have heard that some homosexuals find they feel the same way about heterosexuality, i.e. find it physically revolting. So if unacceptance comes from a persons feelings toward something then if we see it your way it is equally feasible to say that peoples acceptance is also wrong. In a social context unacceptance is socially disfunctional from a functionalist perspective, whilst from a Marxist perspective it might be considered to be the natural order of things.
Tock - I do believe, if memory serves me correctly, that drug abuse amongst gays is recorded as being considerably higher than with homosexuals, I believe a possible reason for this was stated as being that drugs were more freely available in the gay communities as it was considered part of an "alternative" lifestyle, being that it is considered as being an "alternative" in itself. Don't ask me to tell you where I got that from because I read it years ago and have no idea what the book was.
I dug a couple of old books out from Uni and one states that in some circles the growth of "tolerance" of homosexuality and lesbianism "as an alternative to marriage" is already being named as responsible for the disruption of family life, and that a normal family is recognised as being made up of the two "biological" parents and the child/children. (Might be worth looking up an organisation called the "Moral Majority" who are based in the USA (the name says it all)) The same book also describes homosexuality as a "deviant behaviour".
Lesbianism is/was considered as having more drive than homosexuality as it is/was encouraged by feminism. This is not a stereotype, it is a fact!!!! The fire behind this coming from what is/was deemed to be mans view of women in a male dominated world (at the time, not so much these days), i.e. as sexual objects whose role in life has been determined by nature in the fact that they are the child bearers, meaning that the man is the worker with the choice and freedom to do what he likes with his life and the women have one choice with little room for progression.
Reply With Quote
We should just end this thread
