[Pants-of-dog]

Well, children do live in all the situations described in the above posts so I am not sure of the value of the debate.
Sexual confusion is a problem most children deal with and our current lifestyle choices are making this more difficult for children. This is the real problem we need to be facing. How is it possible to give them a foundation to start from no matter the life style choice of their home? Originally we simply told them heterosexuality was normal, but now that is no longer acceptable.

It is still perfectly acceptable to tell children heterosexuality is normal.

Is it right to tell a young child it is okay to be homosexual?

Yes.

Does this just add to their confusion?

No. And if the kid is gay or bisexual, then this actually decreases the confusion significantly.

Yet, if the parents are homosexual then you can't expect them to say it is not normal. I doubt this would be any more confusing than having parents who are swingers, but we are adding new layers to the confusion of our children. We need to look at this very closely and very clinically without political bias.

We are actually removing confusion and making it easier for kids.

-----------------

As for the argument that being tolerant of homosexuality is somehow increasing STI rates:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=1091788

Abstract:
We empirically investigate the effect of tolerance for gays on the spread of HIV in the United States. Using a state-level panel dataset spanning the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, we find that tolerance is negatively associated with the HIV rate. We then investigate the causal mechanisms potentially underlying this relationship. We find evidence consistent with the theory that tolerance for homosexuals causes low-risk men to enter the pool of homosexual partners, as well as causes sexually active men to substitute away from underground, anonymous, and risky behaviors, both of which lower the HIV rate.

So being tolerant of homosexuality decreases the HIV rate.

[XogGyux]

You are basically saying don't worry about it.

I am not saying not to worry. It is the parent's job to worry, I think they can, they will and they should worry. I also think we worry too much and though we should still worry we should try to control that worry more.
It is similar to riding a bike for the first time. I am sure most parents worry (at least a little bit), after all, the kid can fall and break a teeth. That does not mean the parent should prohibit the kid from riding the bike or stalking the kid (and thus increasing the fear and perhaps likelihood that the worse might happen). In fact it is common that the parent, despite having some worries, would encourage (rather than prevent) the kid to ride the bike. The same is true about many things (driving, going to university/boarding school/first date/etc etc etc).
So no, I am not saying you/parents should not worry about something/anything. Rather I am saying that you should keep the worry at check and that ultimately over protection might actually be more detrimental than a mature exposure to the real world.

Very interesting, since this thread shows adults have not figured it out.

I don't follow, what are you trying to say. You implying that gay people "have not figured it out"?

There is a difference between pampering children and seeing they have real concerns that if not addressed cause emotional problems.

Actually I am advocating to address concerns/emotional problems rather than pampering. I think you are misunderstanding my point. Pampering would be shielding them from reality (because they cannot possibly understand reality or because somehow their brains would melt and their morals shatter if they are exposed to reality) and I am explicitly advocating against it.

Young children are not capable of reasoning.

You'd be surprised.

I do not see the difference between a straight child raised by gays and a homosexual child raised by straights. Our society has addressed the issue of the latter, yet you tell me we should ignore the former. Why is that? You seem to be letting your politics influence your logic.

The most important thing for a children is to be in a loving family. Does not matter if the family is only men or only women or if its 2 men or 3 or 2 women or some other combination. There are far too many children living in awful families, awful foster homes, or even the streets and somehow the nice gay couple that decided to adopt and love a kid is somehow the real problem that will destroy the child's life. This is bigotry at its finest.

Excellent post, so forgive me for cherry picking this one point. Children learn from what goes on around them much more than by what we tell them. Gay parents can be very conscientious about telling their child they might be different than him/her, but this does not matter to children. 'Right' is what they observe on a day to day basis. Homosexuality will appear the norm to this child and therefore there must be confusion if they are straight. I agree that I am at a loss what we could do about it.

This is only a concern if you think kids are being somehow coerced to change/modified their sexuality. I do not deny this is a likely possibility if not a reality. But I also want to remind you that the same also occurs with straight parents and gay kids, there is an expectation by straight parents, and perhaps even coercion that can (and likely does) cause conflict on the kid and depending how strong this influence by the parents is, it can (and often do) cause psychological trauma. So this is by no means an exclusive problem of gay couples, this is a problem of society as a whole.
Furthermore, you seem to imply the "monkey sees, monkey do" theory, which I find flawed. Just because your parents are engineer does not mean that you will also be an engineer. If you have vocation for that, living in a family that can show you the path might increase the likelihood. In the same way, if the child already has some inclination, living in a family that it is open might increase the chances of the child "coming out" but it does not in any way grantee that a "straight" child will somehow become gay because their parents are gay.
Finally, there would not be anything wrong if the child ends up being gay as well.

[One Degree]

Furthermore, you seem to imply the "monkey sees, monkey do" theory, which I find flawed.

You find it flawed that human behavior and morals are learned at home? Countless studies have shown almost the impossibility of counteracting this influence. I never said the child would become gay or straight. I said they would be confused by the conflict of what is normal in their home and what they are being told. I am not concerned with whether they are gay or straight, but whether they are conflicted. You can tell a child that reading is wonderful, but if he does not see his parents actually reading, he will not as likely accept it as part of his life. "monkey see, monkey do" is very real. Parents leading a sexual life that is opposed to the child's must create conflict. To accept it with homosexual children and not with straight children is absurd.

[Pants-of-dog]

.... Parents leading a sexual life that is opposed to the child's must create conflict. To accept it with homosexual children and not with straight children is absurd.

No, it does not necessarily create conflict.

[One Degree]

No, it does not necessarily create conflict.

So, you believe homosexual children with straight parents suffer emotionally, but straight children of homosexual parents are immune to this conflict? What makes these straight children so superior?

[Pants-of-dog]

So, you believe homosexual children with straight parents suffer emotionally,

No.

but straight children of homosexual parents are immune to this conflict?

Also, no.

What makes these straight children so superior?

How did you get such a ridiculously wrong idea out of what I said?

[One Degree]

@Pants-of-dog

So, now you are arguing children are free of any sexual confusion based upon their parents sexual practices?
It must be very lonely standing with that opinion.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog

So, now you are arguing children are free of any sexual confusion based upon their parents sexual practices?

Yes.

It must be very lonely standing with that opinion.

Why should I care if I am outnumbered by wrong people?

[One Degree]

Why should I care if I am outnumbered by wrong people?

Maybe because of your refusal to recognize a problem, you are part of the problem. I have had personal experience with children sexually confused by their parents sexual behavior. One child was so confused he murdered his mother and killed himself. I know another who was so confused as to whether he was straight or gay that he became a predator of very young boys. (they can be viewed as either sex if you have the right frame of mind)
Anyone who pretends these things do not exist are simply idealists who refuse to allow reality to affect their thinking. I do not know what the solutions are, but it definitely does not help to pretend the problem does not exist.

[XogGyux]

You find it flawed that human behavior and morals are learned at home? Countless studies have shown almost the impossibility of counteracting this influence. I never said the child would become gay or straight. I said they would be confused by the conflict of what is normal in their home and what they are being told. I am not concerned with whether they are gay or straight, but whether they are conflicted. You can tell a child that reading is wonderful, but if he does not see his parents actually reading, he will not as likely accept it as part of his life. "monkey see, monkey do" is very real. Parents leading a sexual life that is opposed to the child's must create conflict. To accept it with homosexual children and not with straight children is absurd.

How do you re-conciliate those ideas that you are portraying with the fact that gay kids can (and are) be born into straight families which would offer the same similar context.
The conflict might exist. I am just saying that "pampering" and shielding the children from that conflict rather than confronting (by means of explanations, educations, clearing of doubts/questions/etc) is ultimately more helpful.
Conflict and confusion is not even a result of mismatch of parents and children gender identity either. Even heterosexual kids in heterosexual family can (and most likely) be confronted with a myriad of possible conflicts regarding anything from sexuality to morality to basically everything (potential endless sources of conflict exist).

Maybe because of your refusal to recognize a problem, you are part of the problem. I have had personal experience with children sexually confused by their parents sexual behavior. One child was so confused he murdered his mother and killed himself. I know another who was so confused as to whether he was straight or gay that he became a predator of very young boys. (they can be viewed as either sex if you have the right frame of mind)
Anyone who pretends these things do not exist are simply idealists who refuse to allow reality to affect their thinking. I do not know what the solutions are, but it definitely does not help to pretend the problem does not exist.

If anything this seems to be an argument in favor of being more inclusive, more understanding and more open on the topic rather than discriminating, taboo(ing) and rejecting to have conversations of the topic. Last time I heard about the crazy asshole that terrorized the gay bar in Orlando it was fairly clear that he himself had unresolved gender identity issues which were compounded/amplified by the incompatibility of his desires with his religion.

[Drlee]

...from what goes on around them much more than by what we tell them. Gay parents can be very conscientious about telling their child they might be different than him/her, but this does not matter to children. 'Right' is what they observe on a day to day basis. Homosexuality will appear the norm to this child and therefore there must be confusion if they are straight. I agree that I am at a loss what we could do about it.

This would be true to some extent. The overriding factor seems to me to be that the world outside of the home is overwhelmingly heterosexual. These children would know that they "have two mommies" but when young sexual relations would not be the issue. Not any more than it is with heterosexual parents. By the time for them to express their own sexuality they would already have been exposed to the almost totally heterosexual world in which they live. And other than a hug and squeeze their parents might share, they are not exposed to the sex part of homosexuality anymore than is the child of straight parents.

The children of homosexual parents would not only have been told that their family is unusual, they would have observed it everywhere they looked.

[One Degree]

If anything this seems to be an argument in favor of being more inclusive, more understanding and more open on the topic rather than discriminating, taboo(ing) and rejecting to have conversations of the topic.

Of course it is, since my point has been it is silly to think homosexual parents will not encounter the same problems with children that heterosexual parents do.
I don't disagree with anything you said. My disagreement is with the idea that homosexual parents will not encounter problems due to their sexuality where as we accept heterosexual parents are confronted with these problems. Talking helps, but does not offset the reality of the home environment and its inherent conflict if the child is of a different sexual leaning. It can be overcome, but how many parents are qualified to do so?
For example using something even simpler: Studies show children who smoke have parents who smoke. I smoke yet I raised 5 children who don't. The result is they resent my smoking, because they do not accept my choice of smoking as valid. This applies to sexuality as well. You can not reject something of a loved one without rejecting part of that loved one. This is conflict.

[Pants-of-dog]

Maybe because of your refusal to recognize a problem, you are part of the problem.

I strongly doubt it.

I have had personal experience with children sexually confused by their parents sexual behavior. One child was so confused he murdered his mother and killed himself. I know another who was so confused as to whether he was straight or gay that he became a predator of very young boys. (they can be viewed as either sex if you have the right frame of mind)

Your personal anecdotes are not good as evidence.

I also have anecdotes. Many of them. All of them support my position.

Anyone who pretends these things do not exist are simply idealists who refuse to allow reality to affect their thinking. I do not know what the solutions are, but it definitely does not help to pretend the problem does not exist.

Other than calling me an unrealistic idealist, you do not seem to have anything to say about my argument.

[Vyth]

Just to be clear, I do not have any moral objections to homosexuality. I'm raising questions of a purely material and scientific nature here. I say this because I have found that people on both sides tend to treat homosexuality as a moral issue; when I call attention to objective social problems, and suggest possible solutions to these problems, such individuals think I am making moral arguments.

From a purely biological perspective, homosexuality is a maladaptive behaviour regardless of its moral status. Consequently, it is likely to exhibit comorbidity with conditions of a more pathological nature, since in nature any organism that displays biologically maladaptive behaviour (as a fixed preference) tends to be disorderly in other respects. In the case of homosexuality, such pathological conditions might have a deleterious impact on child rearing. There are also a wide variety of psychological traits that tend to be associated with homosexuality. These traits should be considered in relation to the impact of homosexual parenting styles on child development. E.g. narcissism shows a strong correlation with homosexuality, and it is also frequently associated with bad parenting styles.

Having homosexual parental figures could in itself be psychologically damaging to a child, since it would lead to rôle confusion during the formative years of childhood which would tend to disrupt the natural development of identity, producing a myriad of potential psychological problems in adulthood. From a biosociological perspective, it's a deviation from natural and familiar parental forms, and consequently has a high likelihood of being maladaptive.

Such practical considerations should have been taken into account before we decided to allow open homosexuals adopt children. This decision, unfortunately, was made on purely moralistic grounds by irrational individuals blinded by their emotions and personal desires.

[Drlee]

From a purely biological perspective, homosexuality is a maladaptive behaviour regardless of its moral status.

We can't say that for certain. It may be a biological determination in which case the act of having sex with someone of the same sex is a completely consistent adaptation. For this person the act of having sex with the opposite sex would be maladaptive.

[XogGyux]

Of course it is, since my point has been it is silly to think homosexual parents will not encounter the same problems with children that heterosexual parents do.
I don't disagree with anything you said. My disagreement is with the idea that homosexual parents will not encounter problems due to their sexuality where as we accept heterosexual parents are confronted with these problems. Talking helps, but does not offset the reality of the home environment and its inherent conflict if the child is of a different sexual leaning. It can be overcome, but how many parents are qualified to do so?
For example using something even simpler: Studies show children who smoke have parents who smoke. I smoke yet I raised 5 children who don't. The result is they resent my smoking, because they do not accept my choice of smoking as valid. This applies to sexuality as well. You can not reject something of a loved one without rejecting part of that loved one. This is conflict.

I don't agree with you that somehow "small character flaws" (not to say that homosexuality classifies as one, but you brought smoking so I will address that) of loved individual necessarily leads to decreased love by others. I also happen to be in a similar situation. Both my parents smoke and my father drinks heavily (borderline functional alcoholic IMO). That in no way decreases the my feelings for either of them. I don't drink nor smoke. I have never put a lit cigarette in my mouth and I have probably drank 2 bears and 5-10 small glasses of champagne/wine through my life (at the HEAVY insistence of family/friends during new years or similar occasions) so clearly I have a great distaste of alcohol/smoking yet that in any way affects my affection for my parents both of which smoke and my father is a heavy drinker. I understand that these things bring them pleasure and although it might not be 100% healthy, life is better when you enjoy it rather than we you simply live very long without enjoyment.
Furthermore, avoiding conflict is not a sustainable way to educate children for the future. Life will always bring conflict (not only during childhood but through all of it). Managing conflict in a controlled environment (home) with the help of understanding and loving people (parents) is the best reliable and reasonable way to prepare children for life.

Just to be clear, I do not have any moral objections to homosexuality. I'm raising questions of a purely material and scientific nature here. I say this because I have found that people on both sides tend to treat homosexuality as a moral issue and treat practical considerations as moral arguments.

From a purely biological perspective, homosexuality is a maladaptive behaviour regardless of its moral status. Consequently, it is likely to exhibit comorbidity with conditions of a more pathological nature, since in nature any organism that displays biologically maladaptive behaviour (as a fixed preference) tends to disorderly in other respects. In the case of homosexuality, such pathological conditions might have a deleterious impact on child rearing. There are also a wide variety of psychological traits that tend to be homosexuality. These traits should be considered in relation to the impact of homosexual parenting styles on child development. E.g. narcissism shows a strong correlation with homosexuality, and it is also frequently associated with bad parenting styles. This is one of a constellation of traits frequently associated with homosexuality (not all of which are maladaptive).

Having homosexual parental figures could in itself be psychologically damaging to a child, since it would lead to rôle confusion during the formative years of childhood which would tend to disrupt the natural development of identity, producing a myriad of potential psychological problems in adulthood. From a biosociological perspective, it's a deviation from natural and familiar parental forms, and consequently has a high likelihood of being maladaptive.

Such practical considerations should have been taken into account before we decided to allow open homosexuals adopt children. This decision, unfortunately, was made on purely moralistic grounds by irrational individuals blinded by their emotions and personal desires.

Peel the layers and layers of "sciency" bigotry and what do you find at its core? Homophobia and hate.

[Vyth]

Peel the layers and layers of "sciency" bigotry and what do you find at its core? Homophobia and hate.

Hate? No, when I hate something, I don't disguise my hate from anyone. My hate is very open and obvious. I'm proud of all the things I hate. If I hate something, I'll tell you that I hate it. Hate is good.

Homophobia? If you mean hostility to homosexuals, you would be wrong; for it is clear to me that homosexuality may have certain legitimate uses as an instrument of social control. Some cultures engage in homosexual behaviours to reinforce natural social hierachies. In such societies, effeminate weaklings learn their natural and proper place in the social hierarchy, by being sexually dominated by the more virile members of the community; by this means, rebellious spirits are emasculated, stripping them of the drive to disrupt the prevailing order and teaching them to "know their place", while effeminate weaklings are lead not only to accept their subordinate position, but they even learn to enjoy the act of submission, thus depriving them of the incentive to disrupt the existing social hierarchy. In such forms and cultural contexts, homosexuality can thus serve as a useful instrument of control.

Far from harbouring any irrational hostility towards homosexuals, I would argue that homosexuality in certain forms can act as a useful instrument of control, tending to preserve the traditional social order, reinforce natural hierarchies, and counteract the growth of certain social pathologies peculiar to the lower orders of society (e.g. ressentiment, a social poison frequently afflicting the weaker members of any community). Even the ancient Greeks, who rejected most of the behaviours that we would now classify as 'homosexual', found that some homosexual behaviours could serve a useful purpose in pædagogical settings.

If by "homophobia" you mean to say that I "fear" homosexuals, that would also be an error. Even if I could experience fear (an emotion that is as foreign to me as embarrassment, guilt, shame, &c.), why would anyone be afraid of these people? I doubt that anyone is truly afraid of homosexuals. People may be personally disgusted by homosexual behaviours, but that is not the same thing as fear.

[Pants-of-dog]

Just to be clear, I do not have any moral objections to homosexuality. I'm raising questions of a purely material and scientific nature here. I say this because I have found that people on both sides tend to treat homosexuality as a moral issue; when I call attention to objective social problems, and suggest possible solutions to these problems, such individuals think I am making moral arguments.

From a purely biological perspective, homosexuality is a maladaptive behaviour regardless of its moral status. Consequently, it is likely to exhibit comorbidity with conditions of a more pathological nature, since in nature any organism that displays biologically maladaptive behaviour (as a fixed preference) tends to be disorderly in other respects. In the case of homosexuality, such pathological conditions might have a deleterious impact on child rearing. There are also a wide variety of psychological traits that tend to be associated with homosexuality. These traits should be considered in relation to the impact of homosexual parenting styles on child development. E.g. narcissism shows a strong correlation with homosexuality, and it is also frequently associated with bad parenting styles.

Having homosexual parental figures could in itself be psychologically damaging to a child, since it would lead to rôle confusion during the formative years of childhood which would tend to disrupt the natural development of identity, producing a myriad of potential psychological problems in adulthood. From a biosociological perspective, it's a deviation from natural and familiar parental forms, and consequently has a high likelihood of being maladaptive.

Such practical considerations should have been taken into account before we decided to allow open homosexuals adopt children. This decision, unfortunately, was made on purely moralistic grounds by irrational individuals blinded by their emotions and personal desires.

I assume it is just a huge coincidence that all the people espousing the hypothesis that homosexual parents are bad for their kids just oh so happen to also be asking questions from a very conservative paradigm.

Yes, it is possible that having gay parents confuses kids. It is also possible that this is not happening. Why should we think the former is more liekly than the latter?

[Vyth]

I assume it is just a huge coincidence that all the people espousing the hypothesis that homosexual parents are bad for their kids just oh so happen to also be asking questions from a very conservative paradigm.

I am not a conservative and I'm approaching this question from a purely materialistic and practical point of view, not from the vantage point of any political ideology or philosophy. For me this is a purely scientific issue. The question is: is it a healthy or unhealthy practice to allow open homosexuals to adopt children? There is no need to appeal to any political ideology to arrive at the answer to this question. Conservatism, liberalism, socialism, and all other ideologies will be of no service to us in answering this particular question. They will only obsfuscate everything.

Nonetheless, it may happen that the best answer happens to "agree" with more with the principles of one ideology (in this case, conservatism) than with other ideologies. This need not imply that the answer was determined by the political ideology that happened to get the right answer on this particular issue. We arrived at this answer independently of the conservatives, and by a completely different route. In my observation, every political ideology is right on at least one issue (and on that issue all competing ideologies tend to get the wrong answer). It may be that libertarians have the best answer on questions of foreign policy but fail on questions related to social justice; that conservatives have the best answer on questions directly concerned with the family (marriage, adoption, etc), but they fail on economic issues or on foreign policy; that the communists may be generally correct in their critique of capitalism, but failed in their attempt to offer a an economically viable alternative to the capitalist system; that the fascists were correct about the need to develop a more organic or wholistic society in the modern world, but failed in their totalitarian application of this idea; and so on, and so forth.

As for me, the only question I consider is whether or not something is true; whatever ideology the truth happens to be in agreement with on this or that issue, is a matter of utter indifference to me. Ideologies are nothing more than useful fictions to control the masses in a given direction. I don't look to them for truth about anything. People who actually believe in political ideologies are naïve.

Yes, it is possible that having gay parents confuses kids. It is also possible that this is not happening. Why should we think the former is more liekly than the latter?

This, indeed, is the sort of question that ought to be asked in this thread. This is a scientific matter. Questions of political ideology only confuse the issue.

[XogGyux]

I am not a conservative and I'm approaching this question from a purely materialistic and practical point of view, not from the vantage point of any political ideology or philosophy. For me this is a purely scientific issue. The question is: is it a healthy or unhealthy practice to adopt children to openly homosexual parents? There is no need to appeal to any political ideology to furnish an answer to this question. Conservatism, liberalism, socialism, and all other political ideologies will not be of any aid to us in answering this particular question. It may hapen that the best answer happens to "agree" wth the principles of one ideology (in this case, conservatism) to the general exclusion of other ideologies. This need not imply that the reasoning behind our answer was determined by the political ideology that happened to get the right answer on this issue, independently of us.

From what I have observed, every political ideology of any significance is right on at least one issue (and on that issue all competing ideologies tend to get the wrong answer). It may be that libertarians have the best answer on questions of foreign policy but fail on questions related to social justice; that conservatives have the best answer on questions directly concerned with the family (marriage, adoption, etc), but they fail on economic issues or on foreign policy; that the communists may be generally correct in their critique of capitalism, but failed in their attempt to offer a an economically viable alternative to the capitalist system; that the fascists were correct about the need to develop a more organic or wholistic society in the modern world, but failed in their totalitarian application of this idea; and so on, and so forth.

As for me, the only question I consider is whether or not something is true; whatever ideology the truth happens to be in agreement with on this or that issue, is a matter of utter indifference to me. Ideologies are nothing more than useful fictions to control the masses in a given direction. I don't look to them for truth about anything. People who actually believe in political ideologies are naïve.


This, indeed, is the sort of question that ought to be asked in this thread. This is a scientific matter. Questions of political ideology only confuse the issue.

This is the reason why this is homophobia at its core disguised as "practicality" point of view.
Would you say those children that are adopted by gay couples would be better off in foster care, orphanages, under the care of abusive parents, or even dead?
You don't need to make a massive study to find out that the answer is a resounding no.