PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gay Rights Debates
     Common misconceptions of GLBT

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Pint0_Xtreme

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The most common misconceptions of homosexuality:

1.) Homosexuality is a choice. (Haha. Just like how heterosexuality is a choice.)

2.) Homosexuality is unnatural.

3.) Homosexuality is a disease.

4.) Gay people are more prone to become child molesters and rapists.

5.) Gay families somehow raise children to become gay themselves. (Even though gay people come from straight families.)

6.) Gay parents are inadequate somehow.

7.) Gay marriage will destroy society.

8.) Gay males are more promiscuous than straight males.

9.) Gay sex is more dangerous than straight sex.

10.) Sexual orientation can supposedly change.


Feel free to add more if you like.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 6:37 PM on January 12, 2005 | IP
joebrummer

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pint0_Xtreme at 6:37 PM on January 12, 2005 :
The most common misconceptions of homosexuality:

1.) Homosexuality is a choice. (Haha. Just like how heterosexuality is a choice.)

There is no significant data supporting the idea that homosexuality or heterosexuality is a choice.   The mere fact that so many homosexuals try so hard to be straight and fail leads anyone with two brain cells to conclude if it was a choice, you could just change back and none have.
[b]Quote from Pint0_Xtreme at 6:37 PM on January 12, 2005 :
2.) Homosexuality is unnatural.

In the approximately 1,000 to 3,000 species whose behavior has been well researched and described in the literature, approximately 450 have been shown to have clear homosexual behaviors. As we'll learn in this essay, homosexuality is not at all exclusively a western, European cultural pattern as some Christian and Muslim fundamentalists and Afrocentrists (and even some African politicians) have long maintained. It's not even unique to humans. And any homosexual behavior you care to name - anal sex, same sex kissing, long-term pair bonding between members of the same sex, courtship rituals unique to homosexual couples, all these and many more are all commonly found in the animal kingdom.
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

Quote from Pint0_Xtreme at 6:37 PM on January 12, 2005 :
3.) Homosexuality is a disease.

only according to right wing christians.  The rest of the known scientific world has abandon this theory.

Quote from Pint0_Xtreme at 6:37 PM on January 12, 2005 :
4.) Gay people are more prone to become child molesters and rapists.

The number of Americans who believe the myth that gay people are child molesters has declined substantially. In a 1970 national survey, more than 70% of respondents agreed with the assertions that "Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children" or that "Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner."1
By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer – 9% of men and 6% of women – regarded most lesbians as child molesters.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Quote from Pint0_Xtreme at 6:37 PM on January 12, 2005 :
5.) Gay families somehow raise children to become gay themselves. (Even though gay people come from straight families.)
6.) Gay parents are inadequate somehow.

However, hundreds of kids with gay parents have been run through the social science mill, poked, prodded, filled out endless questionnaires and interviewed at length. When all the studies published to date are taken individually or as a whole, the results are uniform:

There are no significant differences between kids with gay parents and kids with straight parents on a variety of psychological measures, including gender-roles, self-esteem, and more.
Kids with gay parents are no more likely than kids with straight parents to be gay themselves. Although in our opinion this begs the question, "so what if we were?"
Similarly, when all the studies of lesbian moms and gay dads are analyzed, there are few quantitative differences from their straight counterparts.
Research that has looked at the qualitative experiences of gay parents and their kids is scarce…although there are now a few books and a number of articles and shows that deal anecdotally with the experiences of gay parents and their kids.
http://colage.org/research/index.html

Quote from Pint0_Xtreme at 6:37 PM on January 12, 2005 :
7.) Gay marriage will destroy society.

This is what they said about electricity, nuclear power, women voting, interracial marriage and democracy.
Quote from Pint0_Xtreme at 6:37 PM on January 12, 2005 :
8.) Gay males are more promiscuous than straight males.

Homosexuals are no more promiscuous or predatory than heterosexuals
There is an extant myth, propagated by the Christian Right, that homosexuals engage in highly promiscuous behavior. Granted, there are some homosexuals that do engage in such behavior. But there are heterosexuals that do the same thing. What is important to recognize is the substantial heterosexist bias that causes people to ignore heterosexual flaws while highlighting homosexual flaws.
a) One study which appears to support the idea that homosexuals are highly promiscuous was published by Bell and Weinberg, and is often cited by the Christian Right, and even some secular sources. However, their data is highly suspicious, and cannot be generalized to the entire homosexual population. Because of their methodology, their data is valuable only as a case study for the sample they studied, but it is not by any means representative of the general gay population. See Appendix A for my specific critique of this study, and why their statistics on gay promiscuity are so bizarrely high.

b) In a study of sexual behavior in homosexuals and heterosexuals, the researchers found that of gay and bisexual men, 24% had one male partner in their lifetime, 45% had 2-4 male partners, 13% had 5-9 male partners, and 18% had 10 or more sexual partners, which produces a mean of less than 6 partners. (The statistics I did by myself using the data presented, which is presented as a percentage of total males interviewed, both gay and straight (p. 345)--they can be verified yourself by looking at the numbers given in the paper)(Fay; n=97 gay males of 1450 males total). In a parallel study, a random sample of primarily straight men (n=3111 males who had had vaginal intercourse; of the total sample of n=3224 males, only 2.3% had indicated having had sex with both men and women), the mean number of sexual partners was 7.3, with 28.2% having 1-3 partners, and 23.3% having greater than 19 partners (Billy). This data indicates that gay men may have fewer number of sexual partners than heterosexuals.
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/facts.htm
Quote from Pint0_Xtreme at 6:37 PM on January 12, 2005 :
9.) Gay sex is more dangerous than straight sex.

There is no single sex act gays perform with each other that heterosexuals don't perform with each other.  Why would those exact same things be more dangerous for one group and not the other...
Quote from Pint0_Xtreme at 6:37 PM on January 12, 2005 :
10.) Sexual orientation can supposedly change.[/b]

No Bible basis exists for the so called "Ex-Gay" movement that has sprung up in the past 15 years in many denominations and independent religious groups.  No scientific basis exists for the "reparative therapy" to "cure" homosexuals or "deliver" people from their homosexuality.  Claims of such cures and deliverance do not hold up under close examination.
http://www.truluck.com/html/the__ex-gay__fraud.html

http://www.exgaynoway.org/

I hope I have made my fellow posters above post stronger and more convincing!!!







(Edited by joebrummer 1/12/2005 at 8:49 PM).

(Edited by joebrummer 1/12/2005 at 8:51 PM).

(Edited by joebrummer 1/12/2005 at 8:53 PM).


-------
www.joebrummer.com
 


Posts: 29 | Posted: 8:43 PM on January 12, 2005 | IP
Lord_Bremen

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


[b]1.) Homosexuality is a choice. (Haha. Just like how heterosexuality is a choice.)


There are different types of choices.  If it is possible through voluntary actions to alter sexuality (take hormone therapy, visit a psychiatrist, etc.) then I consider it a choice.

Regardless, choosing to be OPENLY GAY is a choice.  Externally homosexuals are no different physically than anyone else.

2.) Homosexuality is unnatural.


Do you know why homosexuality evolved?  I didn't think so.  Perhaps it's natural, and perhaps it's a detrimental mutation.  We don't know either way.  So why make assumptions?

3.) Homosexuality is a disease.


A disease, no.  A negative condition?  Quite possibly.  You don't think not being able to have children or even be physically compatible with your partner is a disability?

4.) Gay people are more prone to become child molesters and rapists.


I'm not sure this is a common conception?  Though homosexuals do tend to be much more promiscuous than heterosexuals.

5.) Gay families somehow raise children to become gay themselves. (Even though gay people come from straight families.)


What does this have to do with gay rights?

6.) Gay parents are inadequate somehow.


Very specific.  Except that studies have shown distinct relationships between both the mother and father.  Which means a child should have BOTH a mother and father.  If they have a parent-like figure of the opposite sex that could fill the gap, but two heterosexual parents remains the ideal.

7.) Gay marriage will destroy society.


Perhaps not, but promoting marriage not as a sacrifice to raise children for society but a hedonistic contract based around pleasure is hardly going to help.

8.) Gay males are more promiscuous than straight males.


Actually, studies have shown this to be true.  Disprove it if you can.

9.) Gay sex is more dangerous than straight sex.


Anal sex (which imo is equally bad between homosexuals or heterosexuals) does carry a higher risk of AIDs transmission.

10.) Sexual orientation can supposedly change.


You know it can't?  There are former homosexuals who are happily married, having undergone therapy.  Who are you to tell them they can't change?  Once again, you make assumptions.  Why is it so threatening that people might want to be normal, have a relationship with someone whose body is made to complement theirs, and live within our traditional society?
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 5:28 PM on January 20, 2005 | IP
justforfun000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are different types of choices.  If it is possible through voluntary actions to alter sexuality (take hormone therapy, visit a psychiatrist, etc.) then I consider it a choice.


Actually, this does NOT work according to all accepted evidence. It can at the very MOST lead to a suppression of what their desires are, and try to unnaturally create an alternate outlet for their sexuality.

Even regardless of this, how is this a "choice"?  The only choice you are affecting is the active attempt to alter what is already THERE. This isn't choice, this is alteration.

Do you know why homosexuality evolved?  I didn't think so.  Perhaps it's natural, and perhaps it's a detrimental mutation.  We don't know either way.  So why make assumptions?


Exactly. We don't know. It doesn't mean that because we don't know, it should be judged regardless.

A disease, no.  A negative condition?  Quite possibly.  You don't think not being able to have children or even be physically compatible with your partner is a disability?


Not able to have children is an incidental thing. So what? Neither can people who have reproductive problems. Are people deviant for not choosing potential partners that CAN? And on the other side of the coin, should people who cannot breed be considered morally unnacceptable?

Physically compatible is whatever you find attractive and fulfilling to your sexual needs. There really is no further necessity to be discussed in relation to what will make people happy.

I'm not sure this is a common conception?  Though homosexuals do tend to be much more promiscuous than heterosexuals.


Unsupported statement. Back it up with proof to be a valid position.

Very specific.  Except that studies have shown distinct relationships between both the mother and father.  Which means a child should have BOTH a mother and father.  If they have a parent-like figure of the opposite sex that could fill the gap, but two heterosexual parents remains the ideal.


Just because studies show a distinct relationship between both the mother and father does NOT automatically lead to the conclusion that their life would be in any way "diminished" by not having both sexes as parents. You have to prove this.

Of course there is going to be a "distinct relationship" defined in studies. You could do the same thing on a study showing this distinct relationship with the family dog and it's effect on the child's development. Does this mean people who DON'T have a dog are doing a disservice to the child because of the lack of an animal?

The only "ideal" you are proposing is that in your opinion it's better because it's the norm. So what? Lots of things can be defined as outside the "norm". People don't have a checklist of everything that will guarantee a perfect life all set up and needed to qualify through their childhood as being crucial to being well-adjusted. That's a great Norman Rockwell slash Disney pie in the sky wish, but it's not reality. Many people that had "perfect" childhoods from the superficial perspective were screwed up anyway.

Studies have been published showing definitive evidence that children raised by same-sex partners show absolutely no lack of anything important to their development. They are just as well-rounded and happy as the average kid. THIS is reality, not subjective feelings of it just being "not ideal".


Perhaps not, but promoting marriage not as a sacrifice to raise children for society but a hedonistic contract based around pleasure is hardly going to help.


A "sacrifice"? You call entering into a loving relationship a "sacrifice"? Explain this please...

So anyone (again) not entering into marriage for the MAIN purpose of procreation is hedonistic? Nice!

Anal sex (which imo is equally bad between homosexuals or heterosexuals) does carry a higher risk of AIDs transmission.


Even if so, what does that matter? Don't play unsafe or promiscuously.

So before AIDS came onto the picture (after millions of years on this planet), anal sex was no problem?

You know it can't?  There are former homosexuals who are happily married, having undergone therapy.  Who are you to tell them they can't change?  Once again, you make assumptions.  Why is it so threatening that people might want to be normal, have a relationship with someone whose body is made to complement theirs, and live within our traditional society?


They can choose to change if they want to, although in my opinion for all the wrong reasons. Just to "fit in"? Regardless, they have been thoroughly unconvincing that true homosexuals can change their orientation one bit. Only their "behaviour". BISEXUALS are a different ballgame and they are the only ones that the evidence seems to corroborate as pulling off this "ex-gay" trick.




(Edited by justforfun000 1/20/2005 at 7:23 PM).
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 7:23 PM on January 20, 2005 | IP
Sol

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1.  Homosexuality is a subconscious choice.

2.  Homosexuality IS unnatural.

There is more than one definition of natural, the first is something along the lines of 'occurring in nature.'  Yes, there is homosexuality in nature.

however...

Another definition of unnatural would be something along the lines of 'going against the intended purpose.'  Clearly the male sexual organ was intended to be used with the female, and vice versa.  When anyone says homosexuality is unnatural, they are referring to THAT definition.

3.  One could argue that it is one.  A psychological disease at any rate.

6.  They are.  Anyone raised in a gay family will be denied either a male or a female parent.  This has been proven to have strong negative effects.  From an evolutionary perspective, men and women have evolved with slightly different natures so that they can each do their designated part in raising children

7.  It will harm society, at any rate.

8.  They are.

10.  It can.  I've spoken with people who've seen it happen.
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 12:56 AM on March 6, 2005 | IP
joebrummer

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Sol at 12:56 AM on March 6, 2005 :
1.  Homosexuality is a subconscious choice.

2.  Homosexuality IS unnatural.

There is more than one definition of natural, the first is something along the lines of 'occurring in nature.'  Yes, there is homosexuality in nature.

however...

Another definition of unnatural would be something along the lines of 'going against the intended purpose.'  Clearly the male sexual organ was intended to be used with the female, and vice versa.  When anyone says homosexuality is unnatural, they are referring to THAT definition.

3.  One could argue that it is one.  A psychological disease at any rate.

6.  They are.  Anyone raised in a gay family will be denied either a male or a female parent.  This has been proven to have strong negative effects.  From an evolutionary perspective, men and women have evolved with slightly different natures so that they can each do their designated part in raising children

7.  It will harm society, at any rate.

8.  They are.

10.  It can.  I've spoken with people who've seen it happen.



Some very general statements with out any evidence to bakc up the claims which by the way are all false.

Children fair just as well with gay parents as they do with hetero parents.  Please visit www.colage.org


-------
www.joebrummer.com
 


Posts: 29 | Posted: 09:54 AM on March 20, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

should we then outlawy single-parenting? Surely, this would be more detrimental to a child, as you only have ONE parent, as opposed to TWO parents of the same-sex.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 01:37 AM on April 16, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.