Posted on 11/07/2003 6:52:58 AM PST by I_Love_My_Husband
Yes, even twenty years ago, you could find gay parents who, one way or another, had acquired children, but they were the brave few, fighting an uphill battle against skeptical adoption agencies, disapproving teachers, and heterosexual parents who werent sure they wanted their offspring having sleepovers with friends whose two daddies would put the kids to bed. Now the mainstreaming of gay life has made adopting simpler, less controversial, and the number of people doing it has reached critical mass. This issue has reached its tipping point, suggests Scott Goldsmith, a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College. Children are a far more visible part of gay culture.
Inevitably, all these families with two moms or two dads are having a dramatic effect on gay expectationsand gay and lesbian identity. When younger gays begin to consider possible future relationships, they must judge potential partners in a different lightare they parent-worthy and do they have the same feelings about progeny? For older gays, especially those in established relationships, the question of children has arisen suddenly. Across town, gays are debating the pros and cons of becoming, of all things, breeders.
When I was 24, what your life looked like it could become, for an upper-middle-class white gay guy with cultural aspirations, was a lot of clubbing, a lot of dating, and a lot of fucking and a lot more fucking, observes the writer Daniel Mendelsohn. We had some vague idea that if you got lucky, you might find someone to settle with far on the horizon.
Now people in their twenties are looking at a cultural smorgasbord that includes not only Sunday nights dancing till six in the morning and taking ecstasy but also a time when you might get married and have children. And that is not all that different from the paradigm that all my straight peers were dealing withthat at some time they would settle.
(Excerpt) Read more at newyorkmetro.com ...
You don't speak for me, hunter112. Do you deny the reality of the health issues surrounding the homosexual lifestyle? They are listed in post 23.
Unfortunately for those pushing the gay agenda, they are no match for those pushing just the facts. Every time somebody comes along pushing the gay agenda, trying to argue against the facts, they just end up misrepresenting what was said or trying to act like they read what was posted.
If I'm wrong in my position I want somebody to show me with something other than "I think this or that," because my position is based on the latest research and I won't change my position based on what's currently politically correct.
If you read the latest research you'll have a really good idea how it happens. If genetics were, somehow involved, do we then accept and allow any behavior that can be traced back to genetics? Do we just let everyone do whatever they want to anyone, all in the name of, "Hey I can't help it, it's genetic."
If folks are interested in open debate with just the facts without pushing any agendas, then fine. That's kinda hard to do for those who already broke the rules and got banned, and it's really hard for them to come back if they covertly keep trying to do so. I don't know if that was the case today, but I know it's previously been the case.
I encourage everyone to read the summary of After the Ball: How America will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90´s by Kirk and Madsen. Here's one summary that I've verified myself after purchasing the book:
The Homosexual Propaganda and Media Manipulation Game...If you have facts that haven't been debunked, I'm interested in them.
Ditto.
I would have to agree with gcruse a little. I don't think facts have an agenda, but your point of view colors how you interpret the facts. It's easy to provide examples, but I'm not sure it's necessary.
The book of Judges in the Old Testament of the Bible keeps repeating the phrase, "In those days, there was no King in Israel, and everyone did what was right in his own eyes." Often this is interpreted to mean that people did whatever they pleased. But I think it means that people did their best with their limited capacity to discern right from wrong. They had their perceptions, their viewpoints, and their facts, but human beings are incapable of seeing ultimate reality. It's always filtered through our perceptions. Because of this, all our attempts to discern right from wrong on our own fail and fail miserably.
The most important fact is that you need a basis for reality outside of human reason. You need G-d to properly interpret facts. Without Him, you're taking a firm stand on quicksand.
This isn't the same as "responding to the ick factor" or "basing beliefs on an outdated book" but I understand why people who don't have G-d as their foundation would be confused on that issue.
So I'll accept gcruse's statement. I am pushing an agenda. The agenda is truth and it is based on facts, but it is even more based on G-d. He is my ultimate agenda.
Shalom.
So do I, yet he started out on this thread calling some folks ideologues which isn't true of me or anybody on the ping list. I almost said the exact same thing to gcruse:
So I'll accept gcruse's statement. I am pushing an agenda. The agenda is truth and it is based on facts...
...But the reference to ideologues gave me pause that it wasn't a good use of my time to really get into my agenda. I'm open to the facts, all of 'em. Otherwise, well, that kind of life is not the life for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.