Homosexuality Avoidable, Doctor Tells Parents

San Francisco Faith: The Bay Areas Lay Catholic Newspaper. ^ | Dr. Joseph Nicolosi

[BykrBayb]

And in case my previous post didn't make it obvious enough for you, I'm declining your invitation to join your support group.

[Jaysun]

Speaking with some experience on the HS'ing front....I can say that I don't recall ever seeing any HS'ed child not throughly exposed to ALL age groups of both sexes...In my opinion...what you appear to think the article "brings up"....is not even close to a valid point.

I think that he was talking to a specific audience. He'd been dealing with a group of parents who were complaining about having to drive their kids to various events and who had boys who were behaving "girlie."

[Jaysun]

Show some data. This article and you are full of crap.

Data on what? The obvious? Kids can't be both a) at home and b) with their peers at the same time. Of course I know that MOST parents have enough sense and love for their kids to get them involved in other things (church, sports, etc.) that exposes them to peers. However, in the article he was talking about a particular group of parents who were complaining about having to drive their kids here and there.

Boys need their mothers and they need a strong father that will show them where the boundaries are in the life. It is very black and white. It starts with a firm belief in God. The family unit is the first government that a child is exposed to...they will either respect authority or they will be lost to anarchy. Look at the men that are in jail or living as sodomites...I will find the link for you that their fathers were not present in their lives.

I completely agree! The article also makes the same point.

This article takes a huge leap, by lumping homeschoolers in with this group.

Not if you're talking about a group of parents that are bitching about having to drive their kids from place to place. What was he supposed to say to them?

[Jeff Chandler]

My first grandchild will arrive in about two weeks. He will be homeschooled. He will learn how to be a man from his father, from his ice hockey playing uncle, and from his martial artist, truck driving grandpa.

[capitan_refugio]

It has been over a decade (Hamer, et al., 1993, Science) since a serious article purported to identify a "gay gene." Since that time, there have been several other publications which called Hamer's work into question or have concluded that there is no good evidence for such a gene. Today, behavioral, rather than genetic, reasons for homosexuality are most commonly cited.

I read several general science journals on a regular basis, but I am not geneticist. So I can only pass along what I've read, with no real insight of my own.

All studies in human behavior must take into account cultural and societal mores. If one looks at a close human relative (the bonobo, or pygmy chimpanzee), one might conclude that it is well within the scope of "normal" primate behavior to have sex with just about anything (male-female, female-female, male-male, autoeroticism, inanimate objects, other species, etc.). However, it appears from our more primative "cousins" that complete aversion to the opposite sex is not normal behavior.

Separated twins studies give us some insight into the role of genetics in controlling human behavior. However, the data does not, to date, support the existance of a "gay gene."

[Osage Orange]

You wrote:

"I think that he was talking to a specific audience. He'd been dealing with a group of parents who were complaining about having to drive their kids to various events and who had boys who were behaving "girlie." \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

But that isn't what you posted. You specifically said that the author brought up a "valid point" If you would like to change your wording in hindsite...so be it. But I've copied once again...what you posted...below.

"No. The article brings up the valid point that children who are home schooled aren't always exposed to other boys or men (the mother often administers the home schooling) which can cause behavior problems. "

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

FWIW-

[BykrBayb]

Is it possible to bring up a valid point, while still speaking to a specific audience?

[Osage Orange]

You wrote:

"Is it possible to bring up a valid point, while still speaking to a specific audience?"

=======================================================

Yes....of course.

And may I ask what your point is?

Fwiw-

[BykrBayb]

My point is that in message number 347 you insinuated that when Jaysun said that he thinks the author was addressing a particular audience, that somehow contradicted his earlier statement that the article brings up a valid point. I'd just like to know how you came to that conclusion. It seems to me that Jaysun is saying the author is addressing home-schoolers, and he brings up a valid point, within the context of his audience and the subject matter.

[BykrBayb]

This has been               -               -               interesting. I don't know how much longer I can continue trying to teach reading comprehension. It feels more like a battle of wits, and the other side is unarmed.

[Jaysun]

This has been - - interesting. I don't know how much longer I can continue trying to teach reading comprehension. It feels more like a battle of wits, and the other side is unarmed.

Thanks. I actually questioned my own sanity at one point.

[Jaysun]

Is it possible to bring up a valid point, while still speaking to a specific audience?

I thought so. I had no idea that the focus would be on the homeschooling aspect of the article. We homeschool our kids. Go figure. I still maintain that the Doc has a valid point that shouldn't be overlooked.

I would also add that those critical of the homeschool comments in the article are in no danger of inadvertently raising gay boys via lack of proper parenting (by virtue of the fact that they were upset by the Doctor's warnings and saw them as insulting).

[Jaysun]

I don't find those comments contradictory. I made the post ("No. The article brings up the valid point that children who are home schooled....") early on. I didn't see the point in giving an in-depth opinion on how this article might offend Homeschoolers because:
a) We homeschool and I didn't read the article as an attack.
b) I had yet to receive the hundreds of messages that would follow in which everyone (it seemed to me) had misunderstood the intent.
c) I thought that this might be read by Conservatives.

The fact of the matter is that nobody CARES what I think (with the exception of me) anyway. I simply posted a article that I found interesting and maybe even helpful. I've spent the days since my initial post responding to messages that looked like they were coming from DU instead of FR. Baffling. Anyway, I still maintain that his point isn't to bash homeschooling. It's the exact opposite. I've grown tired of arguing about this matter. He never says anything remotely resembling what most claim - I would agree with their gripe if he did. I too find the insinuation that homeschool = homosexual absurd and offensive if it's of any consolation to you.

[Osage Orange]

Whoa..!! Wait..!! (g) Okay.....let's start over. I've no animus towards either of you..And I assure you I read, and understood the article. LOL!!

Here is the original post that I read & responded to:

"No. The article brings up the valid point that children who are home schooled aren't always exposed to other boys or men (the mother often administers the home schooling) which can cause behavior problems. My kids are "home-schoolers."

Okay....so I read the article, then I read the post above...and I came to the conclusion... that Jaysun thinks that it's a valid point...."that children who are home schooled aren't always exposed to other boys or men (the mother often administers the home schooling) which can cause behavior problems." Jaysun doesn't say that his statement is pertaining specifically to the article. Or specifically to those HS'ers the author spoke with..or interviewed. He states he says he thinks the author has a "valid point". Period.

I disagreed..and that is what I responded to...and continued to point out. IMO, Jaysun wasn't clear. It doesn't mean I think Jaysun is rotten scum....LOL!!

I think WE just have a failure to communicate fully........You both have my apology.

Best FRegards,

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

My point is that in message number 347 you insinuated that when Jaysun said that he thinks the author was addressing a particular audience, that somehow contradicted his earlier statement that the article brings up a valid point. I'd just like to know how you came to that conclusion. It seems to me that Jaysun is saying the author is addressing home-schoolers, and he brings up a valid point, within the context of his audience and the subject matter.

[Jaysun]

I think WE just have a failure to communicate fully........You both have my apology.

I think that you're right. I apologize to you as well.

[BykrBayb]

I think WE just have a failure to communicate fully........You both have my apology.

And you have mine.

[BykrBayb]

LOL - Jaysun & I must think more alike than I realized. I should have read past Osage Orange's comment before I replied to it. Now I just look like a copycat. OO, my apology was genuine. I'm sorry I misunderstood you, and said bad things as a result.