sPEktrall #homophobia

sPEktrall #homophobia vigilantforums.com

I just don't think that the idea of homosexuals being able to adopt and raise children should be seen as any sort of progress in human rights or equality. That's preposterous, and the notion that such a thing is labeled as discriminatory if protested against illustrates a society with a distorted view(sorry for being blunt). It is one thing for homosexuals to marry, but they shouldn't be able to adopt in my opinion. Same sex preference is normal in the sense that it is a real phenomenon, but in itself it is not normal to be attracted to the same sex. It is an abnormal preference. This has nothing to do with a hatred or homophobia that one would accuse me of having, because I honestly have no beef against men who like men or women who like women, but since we are bringing a child into the equation it has everything to do with him/her. When I see a man kissing another man I honestly cringe and cant stand what I see, and that is a NATURAL reaction within me. I cant help it, but some would accuse me of being bigoted for a natural reaction I have no control over. This reaction is detatched from any sort of conditioning. I don't think we should start raising our children to believe that its normal for same sex couples to raise kids. There is no conditioning present here, because my natural reaction to a homosexual couple being intimate together is one of uneasiness. I use to feel that if homosexuals wanted to get married it was no big deal, and that is one thing, but to claim that objection for them raising children derives from conditioning is a faulty assumption.

38 comments

old comment by Noneofyourbusiness

You have failed to show how the parents' sexuality affects the children's welfare, or why it would be bad for them to be brought up not to have a squick reaction to seeing their same-sex parents kiss. And yes, your squick reaction is the result of conditioning, not DNA. As Warren Mcintosh said, it was in fact claimed in the past that a squick reaction to seeing black and white people kiss each other was natural.

Bringing up children to believe that homosexuality is just as normal and acceptable as heterosexuality does not equal conditioning them to be gay. Sexuality is inherent, and most children raised by gay parents will be inherently straight, just as some children raised by straight parents are inherently gay.

old comment by Anon

Since when did holding a position you disagree with make somebody a fundamentalist?
An individual's reaction to same-sex couples kissing in public is likely to be part of the same mechanism that causes some people to be uncomfortable with anybody kissing in public, and nobody is bothered about that reaction in the slightest.
An individual feeling uncomfortable with homosexuals kissing in public should be a non-issue in the same way it is with straight couples, it doesn't make them a fundamentalist and it isn't "wrong" in any meaningful sense.
Trying to be protected from feeling uncomfortable by force of law is a different matter (especially when it means trampling on the rights of others), but I see no indication of that here.
On the raising children aspect, I disagree because his reasoning seems to be based on homosexual parents being "abnormal" and I see no problem with that whatsoever, but it doesn't make him a fundamentalist by default because his position isn't liberal enough.

The groupthink on this site astounds me, and is the main reason this place has gone hugely downhill recently. The correct position on every subject is not Stereotypical American Liberal by default! I'd hesitate to call it fundamentalist, but the attitude of this site has become very inflexible, to the point where I firmly believe that if homosexuality was proven credibly to be harmful in some fashion (can't possibly see how) or any other factual refutation of the liberal American worldview produced, this site would be the last place to go with the evidence and adjust their views.

old comment by Angua

It's not the fact that sPEktrall feels uncomfortable seeing two men kiss that's the problem. And the fact that we disagree with sPEktrall isn't really the problem either.

The problem is that sPEktrall's reasoning goes likes this:

1.) Seeing two men kiss in public grosses makes me uncomfortable.
2.) The disgust I feel when I see two men kissing must be natural because I said so.
3.) Because the way I react to gay men kissing cannot possibly be the result of social conditioning objections to gay people raising kids aren't the result of social conditioning either.
4.) Ergo, gay people should not be able to adopt.

It's not that we have a mere disagreement with sPEktrall. It's the way that sPEktrall justifies their bigotry with one non-sequitor after another. They ignore all facts that might possibly undermine their case. They cling to their gut feelings and pretend that those gut feelings constitute a rational argument. The methodology by which sPEktrall arrives at (or, rather, justifies) their conclusions that makes this quote an example of fundie thought more than the conclusions themselves.

old comment by Phillip-George(c)2013

What are conjugal rights in Gaytopia?
Obviously the ability and plan to remove a child from a biological parent forever.

It's all about fundamental human rights people and SCOTUS are about the side with you 100 percent - aren't they?

People with 6 fingers are a rarity.http://media.photobucket.com/user/steinbacks/media/6fingers.jpg.html?filters[term]=6%20fingers&filters[primary]=images&filters[secondary]=videos&sort=1&o=6

This isn't photoshop - it's just rare. I wouldn't want this man's children taunted, ostracized, shunned, mocked or ridiculed - nor would I want those children thinking their dad was statistically normal. Its a mathematics thing you know. You know, simple maths. 2+2+2 = 6 fingers, on either hand.

6 fingered 'inyourfaceism' or "itsallaboutmeism"
Cry me a river all you five fingered people.

old comment by Anon

I see an awful lot of strawmen being defeated here, this place has really declined.
He is saying that homosexuals should not be able to adopt because it is abnormal, he's not saying that homosexuals shouldn't be able to adopt because he finds them icky.
Now, "normal" is pretty overrated in my opinion, and not being "normal" should not be a barrier to adopting children, so I don't agree with him, but I understand his position, he has concerns about the family upbringing the children will receive.
He is saying that his reaction to seeing gay men kiss is a natural one, in that it isn't a reaction that he fakes to register disapproval, and he is saying that it is a natural reaction rather than a conditioned one.
He's probably right to a point, it makes evolutionary sense for heterosexuals to be repulsed by homosexual intimacy because it does not follow their own sexual preference, but as with any trait it is expressed more or less in different individuals, which is why I'm not bothered by it in the least.
It is a conditioned response to a degree, though, as individuals brought up in more prudish social systems have a considerably higher chance of having a problem with other people's public intimacy than those who are brought up in more permissive environments.

Nothing fundamentalist there.

Oops, I forgot than anything other than "Stereotypical American Liberal" is automatically a fundamentalist here, heaven forbid anybody have a more nuanced view and not automatically agree with anybody who sounds like a fucking hippy.

old comment by Angua

@ Anon:

If sPEktrall's adverse reaction to gay men kissing is involuntary, that makes it, well, involuntary. "Involuntary" is not synonymous with "natural." Their reaction could be both involuntary and the result of social conditioning. sPEktrall's leap from "involuntary" to "natural" is completely illogical.

Homosexuals aren't normal in that they are a minority. But I could also say that people with green eyes aren't normal, because they're in the minority too. If this website quoted someone who thought that people with green eyes shouldn't be able to adopt kids because people with green eyes aren't normal, would you insist that the only reason we were mocking their viewpoint was that they didn't qualify as a "Stereotypical American Liberal"?