So, Consi, just for the sake of argument, why don’t you tell us exactly what we *do* need to do to get people like you “on board.“  Send you flowers?  Point out the facts on homosexuality?  Show you devoted gay couples who are excellent parents?  ‘Cause none of that seems to be working.

I’d really like to know, because personally, I don’t think it’ll ever work.  We still have racists in the population, decades after the laws changed, and I seriously doubt they would have been “brought on board” by pandering to their prejudices ahead of time.

Studies show that the younger generations are a lot more accepting of homosexuality, though.  Maybe we just have to wait for enough of the “not-on-board” people to die out for justice to be enacted.

Amen GM. This is a losing battle for conservatives- just like every other battle based on prejudice they´ve ever fought. The only question is how much longer the embarrassing specatacle can drag on.

When we examine mental health issues we find that there are higher incidents of mental health issues in the homosexual population.

They have “issues” because they have to spend their whole lives listening to fuckers like you saying there’s something wrong with them.

Stop being part of the problem.

KPG: They have “issues� because they have to spend their whole lives listening to fuckers like you saying there’s something wrong with them.

Isn’t it an exasperating shame that the likes of Daryl, Justin and Consi will never see themselves as part of the problem, let alone allow themselves to …

Stop being part of the problem.

They’re on a religious crusade to force everyone to become ‘normal’ like them – backwards to an age of darkness, drinking from the well of madness, bigotry and intolerance, just like Annie, Bill, Jerry and Pat.
We may as well export democracy – it sure ain’t working here. 

I’ve not suggested increased homosexual activity in children from lesbian homes; the studies confirmed it.  One of the articles I’ve cited to and the one I believe you want is :  Judith Stacey & Timothy Biblarz, “(How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter?â€? American Sociological Review, 2001-APR

Okay, I’ve had a peak at the research here – yes,  the children of lesbigay couples are different on some parameters. Specifically, they’re less likely to have stereotyped notions of male and female behavior and more likely to express an interest in careers that cross gender lines. They had experienced teasing as the result of their same sex parents, but exhibited “impressive psychological strengthâ€? according to your authors.

They were also more likely to have considerd having a same-sex relationship, but were no more likely than children of heterosexual couples to have identified themselves as lesbian/gay. 

Gee. They’re open-minded, psychologically strong, and though they’re more likely to have experimented sexually, they’re no more likely to identify as gay than kids from heterosexual homes. Honestly, consig, I don’t see a lot to be worried about here.

One more thing – in some areas the researchers found a number (something life 15 or 16) of very small significant differences.  Now, while that’s interesting in a kind of exploratory way, it isn’t important. Here’s why:

When we say statistically significant, we mean that there’s a low probability that the finding is a chance finding – say, 95% probability that the finding is not due to chance alone. That is, you have a 5% error rate.

However, when you keep going back to the well, with multiple tests, you loose the right to claim that 5% error rate. In fact, your error rate climbs by 5% with each consecutive test.

So that by the time you’ve gone back to the well 15 or 16 times, you now have an error rate of 75 or 80%. Not impressive and not significant by a long shot. (This is called the family-wise error rate.)

So while this is very interesting to other researchers (because it may fit with other theories and hold up under testing with a new sample), you shouldn’t make too much of it.

Consi: When we examine mental health issues we find that there are higher incidents of mental health issues in the homosexual population.

Oh, so that proves that there’s something “wrong” with homosexuality. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that gays are still discriminated against and looked down upon on a disturbingly wide scale. 

I posted a response to you GM, but it has apparently been lost in the Internet Bermuda Triangle.  I will try again later.

I have noticed a similar problem as well.  I think the reason your message got lost consi is because you let it sit for to long with no action.  The same thing happened to me twice and both times my comment sat for at least 10 minutes, then I posted it and nothing appeared.  Try typing your posts up in notepad, then pasting them in.

There does appear to be something about the way ExpressionEngine handles things that if your comment or entry takes a long time to write it’ll end up being eaten instead of posted. I’ve been trying to figure out exactly what’s going for awhile now as it has happened to me on occasion. I think it may be related to some of the anti-comment spam features, but I’m not sure.

Anyway, the work around I’ve been using is pressing CTRL-A and CTRL-C to highlight all the text and copy it to the clipboard before I hit submit, just in case.

I’ve noticed that when my posts get eaten, it usually happens that someone else has posted while I’ve been typing, but that could just be coincidence.

Well, for the longest time we have heard, and do hear, being gay won’t rub off on you or your kids.  It’s a nice play on an old saw.  Kudos for the PR campaign with it.  When it comes to raising children though, even the experts recognize and minimize what they see as “politicalâ€? differences by the fact that it does seem to rub off:

“We recognize the political dangers of pointing out that recent studies indicate that a higher proportion of children with lesbigay parents are themselves apt to engage in homosexual activity,�

Consi, I admit that I haven’t been following this thread with anything like the rigor (i.e. reading up on the links etc…) as one should to be informed. And my earlier post was certainly knee-jerk, because I consider at least part of the comments on gays here to stem from intolerance, and not from reasoned thought.

But back to what I actually want to say: You cite studies that seem to show that being gay DOES rub off.

Earlier one, there was mention that only 1.8% of all the hypothetical gays were getting married. Leaving aside little matters like the fact that not all straights are married, and the straights had a lot more time to get hitched up legally…

There is also the BIG likelihood that of those 10% people naturally gay… those growing up in homosexual households might actually consider it more natural, and less like a shame that had to be hidden away, maybe even from yourself? How is that as a reason why children growing up in such household turn out gay (note: ‘turn out gay’, not ‘turn gay)?‘

Sorry KPG, you posted exactly the same view (which I was too impatient to read my way through to), and with less typos too.

Shouldn’t do SEB as bedtime reading. But when else do I have the time…

“We recognize the political dangers of pointing out that recent studies indicate that a higher proportion of children with lesbigay parents are themselves apt to engage in homosexual activity,�

This is a very telling quote. A rational response to this phenomenon, if it in fact exists, would be “Huh. That’s interesting.“ But instead it provokes such handwringing (on both sides, no doubt) that it’s “politically dangerous” to discuss it. If, horror of horrors, a slightly higher percentage of children raised in lesbigay houses engage in homosexual activity, then of course it must mean that homosexuality is a purely learned behavior, and that soon everyone will be gay and there won’t be any straights left to propagate the species, right? Or might it mean simply that children raised in lesbigay homes are both more thorough in determining their sexual identity, and more comfortable expressing it if they are, in fact, gay? I know the 10% gay statistic gets thrown around a lot, as does the 2-3% stat, and really, who the hell can tell? We’ll probably never have any conception of exactly how many people really identify either way, particularly since human sexuality is fairly fluid, and sexual identity is a social construct rather than a rigid biological category. But I can say with certainty that a lot of people who identify as straight have at some point in their lives engaged in homosexual activity, and not just the ones who are just deeply in the closet. It seems logical to me that the kids of lesbigay parents would just be more upfront about it.

And seriously, what does it matter? Again, it’s only a problem if you think being gay is a problem, or if you think gays deserve to be discriminated against. I understand why the arguments about sexuality tend to center on the nature/nuture question, but in my mind it shouldn’t be the crucial issue. I mean it’s interesting and all from a scientific standpoint, but I hope that someday we’ll spend as much time thinking about why one guy likes other guys as we will wondering why one gal is only into Asian men. I think the important thing is if the government is going to give two people certain privileges and protections for making a legal commitment to each other, then it should give those privileges to ANY two people. If it’s right to tell two people they can’t get married because they’re both guys, then why isn’t it right to tell two people they can’t get married because they’re of different races, or one has a criminal record, or one of them is sterile, or whatever? You could formulate arguments against any of those unions that hold just as much water as the ones against gay unions, on many of the same principles.

It’s just so stupid that we have to have this debate. There’s so much fucked-up shit going on in the world right now, and this is how America spends it’s time- worrying whether Bob and Steve in Cambridge really, really deserve to the have the same basic rights as Tom and Sue in El Paso. It’s pathetic.

From what I have read (from having children) the biggest problem that psychologists forsee with ‘non-traditional’ households (inc single mothers) comes not from the sexual orientation of the parents, but from the lack of positive male role models for boys.

Our (ie mens) bodies are evolved for societies different to today, where aggressive behaviour is needed on the hunt etc. Boys need to learn that their natural instincts to dominate women are not suitable for modern society.  A number of commentators in the field point out that now many boys do not see any positive role models- their primary school teachers are probably all female, and if dad is absent they probably spend a lot of time with mum/mums freinds, none of whom can prepare him for the testosterone. Small boys love spending time with their dads, you get to do ‘man things’- mine is an electrical engineer, so at the age of 8 I got to play with oscilloscopes and learnt to weld (badly).  My eldest (10) loves joining in on my hobby (wargaming) or helping with DIY.

It is not the sexuality of the parent, but whether they can guide the child to ‘fit his shape’.

Consigliere,

Recall that in the 1960’s, public opinion was agaist laws concerning equality for non-white races, but our government pushed Civil Rights legislation, not because minorities had “won over the public”, but because it was the right thing to do.

Similarly, in the 1950’s with miscegenation laws.  In our Republic, the rights of the minority should not be at the whim of the majority.  We should not have to ‘win over’ anyone to have equality.

Joining this thread rather late, I know. 

You know, children raised in Christian households are more likely to become Christians. That’s a much more frightening problem.

Amen, KPG.  Perhaps Christians should be forbidden to marry, especially since they’re more likely to divorce than agnostics or atheists, according to a study by the Barna Group, led by George Barna, a self-proclaimed born-again Christian:

11% of the adult population is currently divorced.
25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime.
Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significently higher than for other faith groups, and for Atheists and Agnostics.

If the point of not allowing gays to marry is their alleged bad influence on children, then why should, say, Pentecostals be allowed to marry?  I say, allow no one to marry but atheists.

Ulfrekr: you said it.
Consi: I think the SEB thread you want is this one by ingolfson.  What you basically said there is that being gay is bad and should be cured or abjured.  Read it again and see if you still stand behind it.

Thanks for that link Zilch and a belated ‘bravo’ to Ulfrekr - great post, as is the one above.

Consi: That is not utter bullshit. It is a mental health issue that demands study so we can help those suffering.

Obviously you you still believe the same stuff you posted here.

Consi - 12/25/04: If being gay was an inherent trait I might be inclined to be moved.  However, unlike the color of the pigmentation in one’s skin, it is a choice.  We know this because of science.  Science has looked and found no “gayâ€? gene.  If being gay is not encoded in the DNA, then it is a maladaptive coping mechanism.

One explanation which is popular among some religious conservatives is that homosexuality is in fact caused by demon possession.
Consi, I think you’re spending too much time at sites like this for your information.
BTW, I don’t recall ever making a conscious decision to be straight, do you?
I always liked T&A; I guess that makes me a Lesbian.

Ulfrekr: It’s just so stupid that we have to have this debate. There’s so much fucked-up shit going on in the world right now, and this is how America spends it’s time- worrying whether Bob and Steve in Cambridge really, really deserve to the have the same basic rights as Tom and Sue in El Paso. It’s pathetic.

A-fucking-mon.

Consi, the real argument is whether or not homosexuality is part of the human condition or as Jon Stewart would say, “A fad.“  But the science actually contradicts what you say.  In every species ever tested by science, homosexual species have been found.  So if God really is against homosexuality, why did he make every species imperfect?

A few details before I get to the response GM

1) Les-The lost post has to do with timing.  I was working on the post on and off for about 2 hours.  I know better than to not copy and save a long post before hitting submit on any site.

2) zilch-Thank you for the link. I think my position is largely the same.  At the same time, I’d say personally, although it may not appear that way, that I’m more open to seeing how the marriage issue plays out in Massachusetts with long-term studies being done.  If it turns out that the increased mental health issues within the homosexual community are related to cultural issues rather than sexual identity, then I may have to say let everybody do their own thing.

3) GM:

I must have missed the flowers.  I like flowers too, esepecially orchids.

I spent a considerable amount of time on the last post and lost it.  Consequently, I was pissed about losing it and the time it took to write.  I will often double check links and do some research to respond to a post, but it is rare for me to spend that much time on one post writing and rewriting sentences. 

Let me say publicly that I have a great deal of respect for you.  You are someone who is intelligent, has a wonderful sense of humor exhibited by your feeding of a jackass, and best of all, you have a big heart.  The combination is priceless.  So, I have come back to retype the post because you are worth the time and effort to respond to in a meaningful way.

My initial post that was lost was painstakingly detailed and organized with headings, subheadings, etc.  It really missed the point though.  You are far too bright to ever need my help setting forth the other side of the discussion.  You are more than capable of thinking that through on your own.  After pondering that fact, I’ve scratched the long detailed post about this issue specifically.

My suggestions about how to get people on board are simple: Don’t demonize, acknowledge legitimate concerns, address those concerns and send flowers. 

a) Don’t hit people with sticks:  When one starts a converstation by saying you are a no good yellow-bellied polecat (or bigot), it is putting the wrong foot forward.  That is true, even if the individual is a no good yellow-bellied polecat (or a bigot, or fugly).  The only thing it does is harden positions and piss off people.  Don’t hit people with sticks by demonizing them.  (I know physician heal thyself)

The same principle applies to end runs around the public.  It only inspires backlash.  Going to court is the equivalent of throwing a punch.  If you want a fight with very few rules, go to court.  If you want to get people on board, stay out of court. 

b) Acknowledge their concerns: There are legitimate concerns about which reasonable minds can differ at this time.  There may come a time when their is not, but acknowledgement of the other sides concerns, no matter the issue, helps, rather than hurts your cause.

Minimizing what is being proposed in societal recognition of homosexual marriages is disingenuous.  It is a monumental change the likes of which mixed race marriage recognition doesn’t even begin to compare. No society that I know of has ever done this until very recently in human history.  I repeat, nobody has ever done this before.  Coupled with that, some on one side are advocating the Burger King approach to marriage. (Have it your way)  That is hardly reassuring for those with real concerns about the total deconstruction of a very effective social construct that has been in place for thousands of years. 

c) Address the concerns: Long-term studies done by those who don’t have a vested interest in the outcomes with strict methodologies that support your position would go a long way towards validating your point.  Kicking the Burger King advocates (like yourself) to curb, or at the very least, getting distance from them would help.

d) Send Flowers:  I know you meant this in the sharpest sarcastic way possible.  I don’t and you shouldn’t.  I don’t need to explain why, which is why I like you.

As an additional update:

Supporters of banning gay marriage won two major court rulings Friday, with a federal appeals court reinstating Nebraska’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage and the Tennessee Supreme Court ruling that voters should have a say on the issue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13859516

Nebraska’s ban is a constitutional amendment that passed with over 70% of the vote.  I expect now that TN voters are faced with the issue of amending their constitution it will pass by the same margins as well. 

Gov. Phil Bredesen on Tuesday said a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in Tennessee may be ``overkill,‘’ but he nevertheless plans to vote for the measure in this fall’s election.

Bredesen, a Democrat who’s running for re-election, said he doesn’t expect the gay marriage proposal to have a major effect at the polls.

``The only question is whether it passes by 85 percent or 95 percent,‘’ he said

Constitutional amendments are very difficult to undo, as is stare decisis.  The costs of the “victory in Boston” are still being tallied.

Some observations on the influence of parents’ sexuality on their childrens’:
A. The majority of gays have straight parents.

B. The majority of children of gays are straight.  http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
“In all studies, the great majority of offspring of both gay fathers and lesbian mothers described themselves as heterosexual.“

So, Consi, how exactly does parental orientation influence the childrens’ ....?

If it turns out that the increased mental health issues within the homosexual community are related to cultural issues rather than sexual identity, then I may have to say let everybody do their own thing.

I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying here, consigliere. Can you clarify it? Mental health issues in the homosexual community (depression; higher rates of suicide and greater use of mental health services) can be explained in several ways:

-Ongoing social stigma and minority status.

-Higher than average lifetime rates of victimization (from childhood through adulthood).

-Higher rates of acceptance of psychological help-seeking (therefore grater willingness to admit to difficulties than in the straight population. (Men who subscribe to traditional gender roles are less likely to seek help when needed).

All of these explanations have received support in the empirical literature.

I’m not sure what your explanation is for the increased presence of mental health issues in the homosexual community – do you believe that it is biological??

zilch: Perhaps Christians should be forbidden to marry, especially since they’re more likely to divorce than agnostics or atheists, according to a study by the Barna Group, led by George Barna, a self-proclaimed born-again Christian

I am feeling rather lazy at the moment, so I will just copy-and-paste what I’ve already posted in another SEB thread.  Executive summary: The Barna Study clearly shows that Chrisitan couples are less likely to get divorced than atheist couples.

For the record, this study asked people their religion, and whether they had ever been divorced.  They were then shocked, shocked! to find that religious and non-religious people are equally likely to be divorced.  This is often held up as evidence that religion doesn’t make you any less likely to divorce, which is complete hogwash.

News flash: Religious people are far more likely to get married in the first place.  This is particularly true of the more conservative denominations like Catholics and Evangelicals.  So, even if the same percent of Christians and atheists have been divorced, the fact that Christians are far more likely to marry in the first place means that fewer of their marriages end in divorce.

In any case, the benchmark study in this area is the City University of New York’s American Religious Identification Study (PDF file here).  For starters, the CUNY survey is almost 15 times as large (Over 50,000 respondents versus 3,800).

Skip forward to page 27 for the relevant numbers: Amongst adult Catholics, 60% are married while 9% are divorced.  Amongst atheists, just 19% are married while the same 9% are divorced.  The rest is left as an exercise to the reader.

One added note: Christians are even less likely to divorce if they’re married to another Christian, as opposed to struggling to make a “mixed marriageâ€? work.  Which just gets back to what the Bible told us thousands of years ago: Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common?

  So, even if the same percent of Christians and atheists have been divorced, the fact that Christians are far more likely to marry in the first place means that fewer of their marriages end in divorce.

Want to make sure I understand the issue you are raising.  If I understand you right, you are saying that zilch is trying pull a switcheroo on us by giving us numbers that are in effect comparing apples and oranges. 

It appears that you are saying that if we use (let’s use 10 so that this simple farm boy can still use his fingers) 10 atheists and 10 Catholics we may find that 10% of each group has been divorced or 1 from each group.  It also appears that you are alleging that if we dig deeper that we will find that 6 of the Catholics have been married, while only 2 of the atheists have been.  So when we compare numbers, if I understand you properly, the correct comparison is: percentage of each group married and then divorced, rather than just percentage of each group divorced.  Using my fingers here, in the example that would would 50% and 16.66666% respectively. 

Hmmmm, that looks like a switcheroo all right. 

Shelley:

If one views homosexuality as a maladaptive coping mechanism that is a choice, then it would not be surprising at all, in fact it would be expected, that we should find an increased rate of mental health problems within the homosexual community.  We do find such increased rates.

I don’t take issue that reasonable minds can disagree with the reasons for the higher rates of mental health problems.

Consi: “using my fingers… 16.66666%“

Consi, too many sigs.  It is difficult to measure a machined block of steel to a precision of one part in ten million, let alone conduct sociological research.  Next time use fewer fingers. /offtopic

By the way, supposing just for the sake of argument that everyone is born straight and some people just choose to go homo, and further supposing that it causes mental illness, what of it?  Do we require applicants for marriage licenses to prove they are mentally fit?  Many of us would be living in sin were that the case.

Homosexual behavior has been discovered in nearly every vertebrate species.  Is there something wrong with all those animals?  Are they unhappy because they rubbed up against the ‘wrong’ genitalia?  I suppose real unhappiness requires a religion.