California Proposition 8

[Sihouette]

I understand that part of the motivation of fixated-deviants is that they long to be seen and accepted as normal. And while my heart goes out to them, my mind does not. My mind knows that allowing their condition to become normalized in a mileu where social-learning is king, is to invite the same malady onto many more individuals.

Sexual impingement and molestation is a dark subject that few want to visit in an open and frank manner. Instead of feeling angry or disgusted when I see a "gay pride" parade with members flaunting their misplaced sexual urges for the public to see, what I feel instead is understanding of why they want people to see it. If I had to boil it down, I'd say it is a cry for acceptance and help. "See what they did to me! SEE what I've become! Accept me now that I cannot change..." They want pride in their condition that they factually do not actualize themselves.. If they felt true pride in their condition, they would not feel compelled to flaunt it and hope for others to admire it as a substitute for actual internal wellbeing..

It tears at my heartstrings, it really does. And yet knowing what I know about learned deviation and human behavior, I cannot allow this social malady to run rampant through our ranks unchecked without protest. Prop 8 is that check. It is that protest. And we have a right as a majority to assert that protest. And CA voters did just that last Fall. We are protesting what was done to them, whether or not we, or they are able to fully articulate it.

 

[top gun]

.
Au contraire. I've seen numerous kids raised by gays and they are some of the most confused individuals as adults I can think of. Certainly being raised in a heterosexual home isn't an automatic guarantee of sanity, but why add fuel to the fire?

Sexual deviance is deviance. Deviance from normal bodily functions made "normal" is crazymaking for children trying to sort out their reality. There's enough crazy carp in this world, why add more?

You know it, instinctively and otherwise that deviant sexuality has no place being labelled or sanctioned as normal. That's what is being asked for with the pleas to overturn Prop 8.

Deviant sexuals need compassion and they need to understand the exact semantics of their own battlecry "we're queer and we're here." [and I quote word for word] You see? They know their deviant status and freely admit to it. Why in the world would we want to replace the word normal sexuality[marriage] with deviant sexuality in the dictionary?

That's just ignorant silly Siho. Is Dick Cheney's daughter a "most confused individual"... of course not.

Truth is you're the irrational one here on this entire subject because you yourself couldn't keep a lover that was really gay... and you now for the rest of your life have committed yourself to some immature bitter root vendetta.

Get over yourself!



Gay parents rights issue divides U.S., not families

Sociologists find that children of gays are no more likely to suffer from psychological problems than kids raised in conventional homes

By Bonnie Miller Rubin
Archive for Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Tina Fakhrid-Deen was 10 when her mother came out and told her she was a lesbian.

“She didn’t look like other moms… . She was a construction worker and didn’t wear makeup.”

Despite being embarrassed and teased about her mother at times, Fakhrid-Deen, 35, grew up well-rounded, well-educated and straight.

“Aside from my husband, my mom is my best friend,” the wife, mother, consultant and teacher at Bronzeville High School said recently from her South Side home.

In wide swaths of America, a child being raised by gay parents is considered profoundly disturbing. The November election—with defeats in California, Florida and Arizona for same-sex marriage and approval of a ban on gay foster-parenting in Arkansas—left little doubt that many voters disapprove of nontraditional families. Along with abortion, it remains one of the most divisive issues of our time.

“A chaotic culture that will rip kids apart emotionally” is how James Dobson of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family characterized such households.

But away from the polarizing rhetoric of a campaign, what do researchers know about people like Fakhrid-Deen? Do the children fare better or worse than those with heterosexual parents? Are they, as social conservatives assert, more apt to experience harmful effects and confusion about their sexuality?

At least 4 million U.S. children have one or both parents who identify themselves as homosexual, said Gary Gates of the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law.

Sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz published an analysis in 2001 in the American Sociological Review of 21 studies of children raised by homosexual parents and found that, overall, they were no more likely to suffer from psychological problems than kids raised in conventional homes.

“There was a very strong consensus that kids turned out about the same,” Stacey said.

Ultimately, their findings were generally endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and other mainstream organizations.

The bottom line is that within the research community there are no empirical studies demonstrating adverse effects, said Stacey, who is now at New York University. “We know that a parent’s sexual orientation is not a significant factor. A good parent is a good parent, … and parents who get along and are consistent in their child-rearing … have better outcomes than those who don’t.”

Orson Morrison, a 35-year-old clinical psychologist, found that to be his experience growing up in Toronto. The Oak Park resident credits his hairstylist father with influencing his world view and career path and releasing him from some “hyper-masculine” ideal.

“Because of my dad, I was able to explore different interests … art, cooking, gardening. And that was a real gift,” he said.

Despite his closeness to his father, he never doubted his sexuality. “I am connected to the gay community, … but I was never erotically attracted to men,” said Morrison, who is married with a 2-year-old son.

Morrison said he hid the fact that his father was gay. He recalled an incident in Catholic school where his older sister’s teacher denounced homosexuality as a sin. “She started to cry … and it came out that my father was gay, which spread through the school like wildfire.”

Like Morrison, Fakhrid-Deen learned to never disclose. Still, she was taunted. “My mom would be wearing her construction hat and shoes and be all dirty because she was coming from work … and kids would say: ‘Is that your Dad? Is she a dyke?’ … It was embarrassing.”

Her mother was unaware of the pain. “Tina bore the mental load of this on her own,” said Stenovia Jordan, 55.

Fakhrid-Deen had her own coming out, of sorts, as a University of Illinois sophomore. That’s when her “very religious” boyfriend mocked an effeminate student.

“Right in front of the library, I just started screaming, ‘My mom is gay … and when you disrespect her, you disrespect me!’ That was the moment I forgave her, … and it was just so liberating.”

Now she’s not afraid to confront anyone. When a student recently declared he was troubled about the welfare of children in same-sex unions, the teacher pounced.

“I said, ‘I have a lesbian mom, and I think I turned out pretty great.’ … The silliest argument is that gay parents create gay kids. If that were the case, then straight parenting would create straight kids.”

Today, Morrison and Fakhrid-Deen work with children affected by gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues. He’s at Lawrence Hall Youth Services, a North Side social service agency; she started the Chicago chapter of COLAGE, an acronym for Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere, which has about 35 members. The San Francisco group formed in 1990 to give children a safe place to sort out all the complexities.

The issue of gay parenting promises to remain emotional and high-profile in coming months, with the California Supreme Court expected to begin hearings in March on a challenge to Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage.

Though society has become more tolerant, the political environment has become harsher, invalidating those families and making homosexuality one of the last bastions of acceptable discrimination, Fakhrid-Deen said.

“The burden is not so much coming from our parents, but from the very people who claim to have our best interests at heart,” she said.

 

[top gun]

.
Au contraire. I've seen numerous kids raised by gays and they are some of the most confused individuals as adults I can think of. Certainly being raised in a heterosexual home isn't an automatic guarantee of sanity, but why add fuel to the fire?

Sexual deviance is deviance. Deviance from normal bodily functions made "normal" is crazymaking for children trying to sort out their reality. There's enough crazy carp in this world, why add more?

You know it, instinctively and otherwise that deviant sexuality has no place being labelled or sanctioned as normal. That's what is being asked for with the pleas to overturn Prop 8.

Deviant sexuals need compassion and they need to understand the exact semantics of their own battlecry "we're queer and we're here." [and I quote word for word] You see? They know their deviant status and freely admit to it. Why in the world would we want to replace the word normal sexuality[marriage] with deviant sexuality in the dictionary?

That's just ignorant silly Siho. Is Dick Cheney's daughter a "most confused individual"... of course not.

Truth is you're the irrational one here on this entire subject because you yourself couldn't keep a lover that was really gay... and you now for the rest of your life have committed yourself to some immature bitter root vendetta.

Get over yourself!



Gay parents rights issue divides U.S., not families

Sociologists find that children of gays are no more likely to suffer from psychological problems than kids raised in conventional homes

By Bonnie Miller Rubin
Archive for Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Tina Fakhrid-Deen was 10 when her mother came out and told her she was a lesbian.

“She didn’t look like other moms… . She was a construction worker and didn’t wear makeup.”

Despite being embarrassed and teased about her mother at times, Fakhrid-Deen, 35, grew up well-rounded, well-educated and straight.

“Aside from my husband, my mom is my best friend,” the wife, mother, consultant and teacher at Bronzeville High School said recently from her South Side home.

In wide swaths of America, a child being raised by gay parents is considered profoundly disturbing. The November election—with defeats in California, Florida and Arizona for same-sex marriage and approval of a ban on gay foster-parenting in Arkansas—left little doubt that many voters disapprove of nontraditional families. Along with abortion, it remains one of the most divisive issues of our time.

“A chaotic culture that will rip kids apart emotionally” is how James Dobson of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family characterized such households.

But away from the polarizing rhetoric of a campaign, what do researchers know about people like Fakhrid-Deen? Do the children fare better or worse than those with heterosexual parents? Are they, as social conservatives assert, more apt to experience harmful effects and confusion about their sexuality?

At least 4 million U.S. children have one or both parents who identify themselves as homosexual, said Gary Gates of the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law.

Sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz published an analysis in 2001 in the American Sociological Review of 21 studies of children raised by homosexual parents and found that, overall, they were no more likely to suffer from psychological problems than kids raised in conventional homes.

“There was a very strong consensus that kids turned out about the same,” Stacey said.

Ultimately, their findings were generally endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and other mainstream organizations.

The bottom line is that within the research community there are no empirical studies demonstrating adverse effects, said Stacey, who is now at New York University. “We know that a parent’s sexual orientation is not a significant factor. A good parent is a good parent, … and parents who get along and are consistent in their child-rearing … have better outcomes than those who don’t.”

Orson Morrison, a 35-year-old clinical psychologist, found that to be his experience growing up in Toronto. The Oak Park resident credits his hairstylist father with influencing his world view and career path and releasing him from some “hyper-masculine” ideal.

“Because of my dad, I was able to explore different interests … art, cooking, gardening. And that was a real gift,” he said.

Despite his closeness to his father, he never doubted his sexuality. “I am connected to the gay community, … but I was never erotically attracted to men,” said Morrison, who is married with a 2-year-old son.

Morrison said he hid the fact that his father was gay. He recalled an incident in Catholic school where his older sister’s teacher denounced homosexuality as a sin. “She started to cry … and it came out that my father was gay, which spread through the school like wildfire.”

Like Morrison, Fakhrid-Deen learned to never disclose. Still, she was taunted. “My mom would be wearing her construction hat and shoes and be all dirty because she was coming from work … and kids would say: ‘Is that your Dad? Is she a dyke?’ … It was embarrassing.”

Her mother was unaware of the pain. “Tina bore the mental load of this on her own,” said Stenovia Jordan, 55.

Fakhrid-Deen had her own coming out, of sorts, as a University of Illinois sophomore. That’s when her “very religious” boyfriend mocked an effeminate student.

“Right in front of the library, I just started screaming, ‘My mom is gay … and when you disrespect her, you disrespect me!’ That was the moment I forgave her, … and it was just so liberating.”

Now she’s not afraid to confront anyone. When a student recently declared he was troubled about the welfare of children in same-sex unions, the teacher pounced.

“I said, ‘I have a lesbian mom, and I think I turned out pretty great.’ … The silliest argument is that gay parents create gay kids. If that were the case, then straight parenting would create straight kids.”

Today, Morrison and Fakhrid-Deen work with children affected by gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues. He’s at Lawrence Hall Youth Services, a North Side social service agency; she started the Chicago chapter of COLAGE, an acronym for Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere, which has about 35 members. The San Francisco group formed in 1990 to give children a safe place to sort out all the complexities.

The issue of gay parenting promises to remain emotional and high-profile in coming months, with the California Supreme Court expected to begin hearings in March on a challenge to Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage.

Though society has become more tolerant, the political environment has become harsher, invalidating those families and making homosexuality one of the last bastions of acceptable discrimination, Fakhrid-Deen said.

“The burden is not so much coming from our parents, but from the very people who claim to have our best interests at heart,” she said.

Think about it Siho... because that burden is you!

 

[Sihouette]

Out of random probability there will be kids of gay parents who seem happy and kids of hetero parents that seem happy. But that doesn't negate the findings that deviant sexuality is almost certainly learned around puberty and if the study I cited is right, that it contains a social-approval element to choice of partners, then overturning Prop 8 would be a movement in the direction of expanding the sexual-deviant population throughout our culture.

Some people think this is OK. Some don't. I think the "don't" category was around 52% last Fall, if memory serves? We have a right to determine our own social trends via majority rule. No one is being descriminated against by not be allowed into the realm of normal as a deviant.

Remember, "We're queer and we're here" is not compatible with the public's wishes to have marriage (an essentially meaningless term today outside of its one purpose of a norm to shoot for) remain the publicly visible sanction of a normal sexual union.

"Marriage" is a word that represents, in CA, the union between one man and one woman. Not between two men and not between two women or between multiple partners greater than two. That is the "norm" voters decided to shoot for in "marriage".

If people who don't qualify feel miffed, they may join in a civil union. Problem solved. Except that the poor polygamists don't qualify for those under any conditions. I think. Do polygamists qualify for civil unions in CA? Anybody? Good question.

 

[Sihouette]

Here's the depth of which polygamists are hounded for engaging in acts more natural to our reproductive functions than homosexuals:

The existence of a valid marriage entered into by the defendant prior to the second valid marriage is an essential element of the offense in every jurisdiction. No particular type of ceremony is required for the first or subsequent marriage before someone can be prosecuted for polygamy. Even persons who satisfy the requirement for a COMMON-LAW MARRIAGE can be prosecuted for entering a subsequent marriage that itself is either another common-law marriage or a traditional marriage.~
Source: http://law.jrank.org/pages/9272/Polygamy-Crime.html

So if you have two girlfriends and are living with them or two boyfriends and are living with them as an opposite gendered person you are engaging not in misdemeanor but felony. And yet homosexuals enjoy freedom from prosecution, in CA at least for sexual practices well outside those that factually result in procreation of the species.

The arguments for the Supreme Court of CA based on marriage being valid between adults who are in "love" must not arbitrarily be limited to two. Why? There will be excellent arguments using the same language pushed now by the gay lobby to allow polygamy. For some this is acceptable too. Just know that it is coming and will win its day in court if the homosexual arguments do.

 

[top gun]

Out of random probability there will be kids of gay parents who seem happy and kids of hetero parents that seem happy. But that doesn't negate the findings that deviant sexuality is almost certainly learned around puberty and if the study I cited is right, that it contains a social-approval element to choice of partners, then overturning Prop 8 would be a movement in the direction of expanding the sexual-deviant population throughout our culture.

Some people think this is OK. Some don't. I think the "don't" category was around 52% last Fall, if memory serves? We have a right to determine our own social trends via majority rule. No one is being descriminated against by not be allowed into the realm of normal as a deviant.

Remember, "We're queer and we're here" is not compatible with the public's wishes to have marriage (an essentially meaningless term today outside of its one purpose of a norm to shoot for) remain the publicly visible sanction of a normal sexual union.

"Marriage" is a word that represents, in CA, the union between one man and one woman. Not between two men and not between two women or between multiple partners greater than two. That is the "norm" voters decided to shoot for in "marriage".

If people who don't qualify feel miffed, they may join in a civil union. Problem solved. Except that the poor polygamists don't qualify for those under any conditions. I think. Do polygamists qualify for civil unions in CA? Anybody? Good question.

There's nothing really "random" about it and you really do know that. The evidence shows that gays are perfectly able to raise completely well adjusted normal children.

In fact you could go right down the list of numerous & all too common heterosexual family problems (infidelity, drinking & drug abuse, spousal abuse, neglect... on & on) that one right after the other have been shown to be damaging to children. Contrasted to a loving, safe monogamous gay marriage where children are not adversely affected.

AND IN ANOTHER TRIUMPH FOR COMMON SENSE!

Just today the Iowa Supreme Court stuck down that states law banning gay marriage. Iowa (CONSERVATIVE IOWA) now joins the ranks of states that will allow gay marriage.

Very soon this won't even be an issue.

Oh... and again your entire repeated ad nausem rant that no one is born gay is just totally a projection on your part. It has been shown over & over & over again to just not be the truth...

 

[Sihouette]

When will Iowa ratify laws protecting polygamists' rights to marry?

Stay tuned...

 

[Sihouette]

Correction Topgun, it has been talked about time and again that "gays are born that way".

Hard science shows that homosexuality at least in some demonstratable cases with mammals [that we use to extrapolate animal-drives in humans from like sexuality, the paramount of animal drives], deviant sexuality not only is learned but can be sculpted [taught] in pubescents by classical conditioning.

If it can be learned and taught to be fixated in puberty, then we must take that into account when we talk about legitimizng homosexuality in a population. We must address that factor. You are saying we must ignore it wholly and forget, essentially, that the AI industry exists and its hard findings of mammalian sexual behavior are to be dismissed as applicable to humans..who are also mammals?

 

[top gun]

When will Iowa ratify laws protecting polygamists' rights to marry?

Stay tuned...

It's adult 2 person marriage as always Siho... you can throw up stawmen until your gay cows come home... it just highlights how weak your position is.

GO IOWA! Thinking wins over demagoguery!

 

[top gun]

Correction Topgun, it has been talked about time and again that "gays are born that way".

Hard science shows that homosexuality at least in some demonstratable cases with mammals [that we use to extrapolate animal-drives in humans from like sexuality, the paramount of animal drives], deviant sexuality not only is learned but can be sculpted [taught] in pubescents by classical conditioning.

If it can be learned and taught to be fixated in puberty, then we must take that into account when we talk about legitimizng homosexuality in a population. We must address that factor. You are saying we must ignore it wholly and forget, essentially, that the AI industry exists and its hard findings of mammalian sexual behavior are to be dismissed as applicable to humans..who are also mammals?

You do realize stating the same inaccurate information over & over again only shows you so desperately want to prove a totally unprovable position.

On the other hand one can look at the obvious and be honest about it.

Do some people choose to be gay... of course they do.

But is it indisputable that millions of men & women without sexual trauma or abuse remember clearly as far back as very young children... way before puberty... that they were mentally predisposed to be of the opposite gender... come on you know it is.

And to the whole diversion you keep floundering to promote that somehow having it be socially acceptable and legal to... (A) be gay... (B) be gay & live together as a couple... and (C) be gay & live together as a couple & have gay sex...

BUT OMG if you let them have a legal piece of paper to contractually bind them together and give them spousal rights THE END IS NEAR!!!

Like I've said before I'm as far from anything gay as possibly imaginable. Before I settled down it would probably even be fair to say I was an unashamed player. But even when I didn't really know or understand gay people I never saw any problem if they were going to live together either way being "married"!

I just see your whole irrational almost nervous breakdown over this issue as... well... silly... even though being left by a guy that ended up being gay probably was personally hurtful to you.

But look at it this way. Had he stayed he would have by now been either suicidal depressed or cheating. All good reasons to let people be who they are as long as it hurts no one else.

 

[Sihouette]

BTW, I have yet to view one of your promotional videos toppy..lol..

It's adult 2 person marriage as always Siho

Whoa.. "as always.."? If we are to discuss marriage in terms of "as always", you just lost the deviant-inclusion argument.

Think before you write...


The number "two" will be shown to be just as arbitrary as "between man and woman" only. Gays used this as the hinge to their arguments "love between consenting adults", plural. The number "two" is arbitrary given that hinge and you know it. More than two consenting adults can and have been in love at any given time, moreover you're alluding to that heterosexual polygamists should be given second preference to homosexual pairs in marriage. In nature polygamy is the most natural state with primates [of which humans are belonging]. Is it your goal to have marriage move as far away from natural mating pairs as it possibly can?

Just wondering. Please spare the histrionics and just give me thoughtful details as to why "two" isn't arbitrary weighed against homosexual arguments as "love between consenting adults" being the new qualifier?

 

[Sihouette]

Anybody? Why should "love between consenting adults" within the parameters of marriage be limited to "two" on tradition when tradition also mandates that marriage only be between a man and a woman?

I'm waiting... [attorneys for polygamists aren't though...]

 

[top gun]

BTW, I have yet to view one of your promotional videos toppy..lol..

And I don't blame you. It's because you know you'll just look even more foolish.

I put them out there for those who want real information and not just emotional dogma.

Whoa.. "as always.."? If we are to discuss marriage in terms of "as always", you just lost the deviant-inclusion argument.

Well I've always been talking about 2 adults and everyone for Prop 8 has always been talking about 2 adults and every state now including Iowa has always been talking about 2 adults.

You're the only one throwing out Red Herrings like polygamy, barnyard sodomy & women who want to marry their vibrators.

You can't stay on topic because rationally your hurt over loosing a lover to the gay community just doesn't hold water as to why they shouldn't be protected under a marriage contract.

 

[top gun]

Anybody? Why should "love between consenting adults" within the parameters of marriage be limited to "two" on tradition when tradition also mandates that marriage only be between a man and a woman?

I'm waiting... [attorneys for polygamists aren't though...]

Are you brain dead or do you just not read the other posts at all. FOR THE 5th TIME NOW>>>

Polygamy puts a legal undue burden on others in the family unit such as the multiple spouses themselves and their children. There would be wild child custody implications should there be a request for divorce from just part of the family unit as well as property rights and inheritance rights issues.

If you can't understand that is completely different than any 2 single adults being married then you really should just stop posting...

 

[Sihouette]

Actually I never said the bi man was my lover, I said I loved him. He was a "brother", (a close friend of my brother's). Though I understand how people of your ilk automatically assume that the word "love" compels one to have had genital contact.. He died of AIDS. I never judged him for being gay. But I did judge whoever molested him. His father was....strange...never did get the whole story but back in the day his mom got full custody when he and his brother were youngsters and dad never got rights to visit them so...?

Well I've always been talking about 2 adults and everyone for Prop 8 has always been talking about 2 adults and every state now including Iowa has always been talking about 2 adults.

So let me get this straight, "you" and "everyone [?] for Prop 8" and "every state..including Iowa [really, even Utah and Idaho?]" has been talking only two eh?

Think again. You will see the litigation soon. You do understand legal precident, right? If "love" between consenting adults is used as the qualifying hinge to marriage rights, that number "two" will be quite arbitrary in future court arguments. Mark my words, drive the nail in the wall and hang your hat on it..

In regular divorce not just the two parents are legally examined for custody and visitation issues, at least in the state I live in. Grandparents, stepparents, and in some cases aunts and uncles have "rights" to the children. So already there are multiple issues to and forms of "polygamy" of child custody rights. Stepparents of varying numbers already share custody with two or more adults of the same child.

Again, precident set, argument overturned...