Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 18 Next >>
Topic: Gay Couples Adopting (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 117275
Posted: 15 July 2010 at 4:12am | IP Logged | 1  

I know of a fair few instances where someone who had been in heterosexual relationships, went to prison and came out saying they were gay and started acting very effeminate.

••

Then they were in denial before. Another unfortunate aspect of our society.

Back to Top profile | search
 
David Henriot
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 October 2006
Location: France
Posts: 1111
Posted: 15 July 2010 at 5:05am | IP Logged | 2  

There seems to be some thinking here that Gay is something people BECOME -- as if it is learned behavior. According to everything I have read, it is genetic, like blue eyes or brown skin.

I think that you're rigth, it's genetic, but yeah, i also think you kinda BECOME gay. At least socially and for you, your familly, etc.
Then you have to learn and use the codes of the communoty.

There's always been gay in history, but most of the time, they were hidden, some even without knowing they were gay. How many gays have natural childs, or use to be hetero ? That mean they can adapt, according to the time and society they're living in. Yes, it's denial. But it's also survival.

Of course, there's always been private and hidden "sex gay things". But i think this was mainly for the rich one.
The poor, the farmers, etc., didn't had the time, the place, or even the knowing that this was possible.

It's just like in "1984" : less words means less ideas. If you don't know or have examples of peoples living freely teir sexuality, you migth think it's not possible, or even that this sexuality don't exist.



Edited by David Henriot on 15 July 2010 at 5:07am
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Tony Midyett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 January 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 2834
Posted: 15 July 2010 at 5:15am | IP Logged | 3  

I predict that if scientists ever come up with a fool-proof test to see if a fetus is gay, the right-wing zealots will suddenly decide to make _one_ little exception to their "no abortion" policy.  :(
Back to Top profile | search
 
David Henriot
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 October 2006
Location: France
Posts: 1111
Posted: 15 July 2010 at 5:26am | IP Logged | 4  

I am not in favor of gay adopting. Don't get me wrong, being gay isn't bad.

From the gay that i know and are my friends, i think that they're smarter than my hetero friends. They also usually get better job, making more money (but also, spending waaay too much !!) than the heteros. Well, not all of them, of course.
So I think they can provide a better surrounding of intelligence & education.
Yes, I think that some gays can be good parents.
Yes, I think that gay can show a lot of love to the kid.

But it's not about love, it's about what's good for the kid.

Having Male & Female, its providing two diffents points of view, two differents approaches on everything. Kinda like playing good cop and bad cop.
It also is an example of what the kid can, want or should be. Dad is like that, so men act like that. Women act like Mom, ...

Just watch kids who lost early one of their parents. it "miss" someting" (and that something isn't about love)

Male and femal also offer the opportunity to get familliar with the "other sex" than yours.

Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Ted Pugliese
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7684
Posted: 15 July 2010 at 5:32am | IP Logged | 5  

A gay couple (male) adopt/have adopted more than a handful of gay teens (also male) at my last high school.  Thery have at least one gay foster child too.
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 117275
Posted: 15 July 2010 at 5:49am | IP Logged | 6  

There seems to be some thinking here that Gay is something people BECOME -- as if it is learned behavior. According to everything I have read, it is genetic, like blue eyes or brown skin.

++

I think that you're rigth, it's genetic, but yeah, i also think you kinda BECOME gay. At least socially and for you, your familly, etc.Then you have to learn and use the codes of the communoty.

••

I think you may be using "gay" here to represent a LIFESTYLE, rather than a sexual orientation.

There have been, and continue to be, lots of men and women who are homosexual, but who are driven to hiding their orientation by our ridiculous, repressive society. Eventually, some lucky few of these shake off these shackles and embrace their homosexuality -- but the do not "become Gay". They have been Gay all along, just unwilling or unable to accept that fact.

In the days of my lost youth, before my reading taught me otherwise, like many I assumed homosexuality was a learned response -- a "choice". The fact that many in the Gay community themselves insisted on labeling it a "lifestyle choice" did not help. And when I was of that mindset, I did not think homosexuals were entitled to any special consideration or protection. No more than are smokers or drug addicts. If you CHOOSE to be that way, you also CHOOSE to live with the consequences.

Discovering that homosexuality was genetic completely changed my mind. (And led to the creation of Northstar.) That made it the same as being Black, or White, or Asian, or anything else that was an accident of birth, not a deliberate choice. And that meant Gay people had the same rights under the Law as anybody else.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Knut Robert Knutsen
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 September 2006
Posts: 7374
Posted: 15 July 2010 at 6:11am | IP Logged | 7  

There's one argument against gay people adopting that I positively hate.

A lot of "deeply christian" people of the sort who have learned that it's not so "politically savvy" to refer to homosexuals as evil depraved and perverted (though they of ocurse secretly believe that to be true) couch the debate in terms of "what is good for the child".

They say that homosexuals shouldn't adopt, because, due to bigotry against homosexuals, the children will most certainly be teased or bullied and that it's unconcionable to subject a child to such a situation.

What these "kind people" ignore is that it's usually their kids who do the worst of the teasing and bullying, and that they learned that hate, those attitudes and that behaviour from the "kind people" who are their parents.

Yes, I do think there's a certain "natural component" to homophobia, just as I think there's a "natural component" to racism, but we've learned to wear clothes, not eat our own feces and not masturbate in public (well, some of us) even though that's where the pretty girls are. I think it fair to say that we can try teaching our kids not ot be bigots.

Back to Top profile | search
 
David Henriot
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 October 2006
Location: France
Posts: 1111
Posted: 15 July 2010 at 6:12am | IP Logged | 8  

I think you may be using "gay" here to represent a LIFESTYLE, rather than a sexual orientation.

Yes that's it John : born gay, but "becoming" when accepting it (otherwise, it's denial)

And that meant Gay people had the same rights under the Law as anybody else.

Mmmmh. That's lead to dangerous paths.
Before being gay, they are humans, MAN or WOMAN. And all men have (or at least, should) have the same rigth, same for women. Whatever their sexual orientations.

If we start by asking rigths (rigths that are anyway given by the very fact of being human, and, american, french, ...), why stop here ?
Why not giving rigth to comic readers (stating that marvel comics readers have the same rigths than dc comics readers), or the leftist, or rigth wing, blue's listeners, guitar playes, etc. ?

Now, adoption just is an exception.
First, it does not concern single individual rigth, but a couple, mix of two peoples (you can't adopt if you're one, can't if you're three). So it's not about people, but the result of the mix of two people : a couple.
Second, it's not (at least, the way i see it) consist in a jugement (good or bad) about homosexuality.
Third, it has to considere the differences about man and woman. The main one being that woman can birth, men can't. And state that, even if anybody is perfectly free to have (almost*) whatever sexual orientation
, child education is needed the two sexes, man and woman.

* almost : animals, childs, ...

Back to Top profile | search | www
 
David Henriot
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 October 2006
Location: France
Posts: 1111
Posted: 15 July 2010 at 6:17am | IP Logged | 9  

A lot of "deeply christian" people of the sort who have learned that it's not so "politically savvy" to refer to homosexuals as evil depraved and perverted (though they of ocurse secretly believe that to be true) couch the debate in terms of "what is good for the child".

Knut, judging on who should or should not adopt, why this man+woman couple can't while this man+woman couple can, it's all about what's good for the child.
Or at least, it should always be.

I found a little bit easy to say : you mean "what's good for the child" only because you can't say that gays are evil.

Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Regan Tyndall
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 November 2008
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 293
Posted: 15 July 2010 at 6:17am | IP Logged | 10  

I have never been under the impression that homosexuality was a learned response, but at the same time I'm not aware of any largely-accepted conclusive evidence that it is entirely genetic either. I personally would have a hard time believing that something as varied and complex as human sexual preference / response / behavior can be entirely determined by genetics, any more than I would believe that something like social skills or common sense would be 100% genetic and not influenced by one's environment and upbringing.

Of course, when we start delving into the topic at this level, we fall into the semantic problem of exactly what "homosexuality" (the word) means. The determining of this complicates the whole matter. It sort of comes down to whether we believe sexuality in general is defined as a behavior or something genetically encoded.

If anyone can shed further light on the sources for homosexuality being entirely genetic in cause, I would be interested. Specifically, and with regard to homosexuality's having a strictly genetic determinant, I would be interested in knowing:

1) how bi-sexuality fits into the theory -- in other words, does the genetic exclusivity theory suppose that "shades-of-grey" sexual orientations are in fact just socially-derived deviations away from one genetic type (hetero- / homo-sexuality) or the other? In other words, does this biologically-based theory assign all humans as one or the other?

2) My understanding is that science has often been perplexed by how homosexuality (if genetic) is maintained in the gene pool perpetually, as it obviously has no reproductive advantage. How does the genetic-exclusivity theory account for this?

Very interested in these questions. Any information appreciated... Thx.

 

Back to Top profile | search
 
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5093
Posted: 15 July 2010 at 6:37am | IP Logged | 11  

Then they were in denial before. Another unfortunate aspect of our society.
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------

Can't be anything but?

Reminds me of the leaflet I received through my dormatry door in uni - basically said we were all gay, even if we deny it.

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 10613
Posted: 15 July 2010 at 6:48am | IP Logged | 12  

The legal world has barely acknowledged the difference not to mention the social complexities of negotiating between homosexual orientation and "gay" lifestyle.

In one case, a homosexual man who successfully worked in all kinds of 
organizations dealing with pretty much every issue imaginable in the gay community stated plainly to a NY Federal court in 1985 that he was a role model for gay youth, whom he consistently counseled -- but the court stated that it was “puzzled as to how he determined that these children, who are at most going through puberty, are potential homosexuals in need of such a role model.” A New Hampshire court in 1987 stated that "as a matter of public policy, the provision of a healthy environment and a role model for our children should exclude homosexuals."

At least in 2001, a Chicago Federal court held that it could not interfere with a local school board policy that extended benefits to unmarried gay couples and acknowledged that the board has a legitimate interest in wanting "to attract homosexual teachers in order to provide support for homosexual students. The board 'believes that lesbian and gay male school personnel who have a healthy acceptance of their own sexuality can act as role models and provide emotional support for lesbian and gay students. They can support students who are questioning their sexual identities or who are feeling alienated due to their minority sexual orientation. They can also encourage all students to be tolerant and accepting of lesbians and gay males, and discourage violence 
directed at these groups'. This line of argument will shock many people even today; it was not that long ago when homosexual teachers were almost universally considered a public menace likely to seduce or recruit their students into homosexuality, then regarded with unmitigated horror." 

Some of that horror about homosexuals reached the New Hampshire Senate floor as a statute prohibiting gays from adopting was debated and then eventually passed, when a supporter of the legislation described gay men as “feces-consuming barbarians out to recruit the state's children.” After the bill's initial defeat in 1986, its champion, State Representative Mildred Ingram, denied any suggestion that 
she was motivated by bigotry: "I'm not against homosexuals. They are adult people. They made their own choice and the only one they have to answer to is their maker. They can go on their merry way to hell if they want to. I just want them to keep their filthy paws off the children."

In general, American Law tends strongly to look upon gay adults as confirmed homosexuals (whether by choice or genetics), while minors are not gay but either "confused" or undeveloped or even a blank slate. The subject matter of gay youth hasn't generated even much scholarly attention. There is, from what I've seen, one major law review article published in 1996 about homosexual minors and one major law review article published almost 20 years ago about adoptive matching and sexual orientation.


Edited by Michael Penn on 15 July 2010 at 6:50am
Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 18 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login