Well, as a straight parent I feel I'm being made to feel like crap. (editted) (Main Forum)

by Oh Yet We Trust, Brisbane, Friday, June 08, 2012, 08:19 (377 days ago) @ James
edited by Oh Yet We Trust, Friday, June 08, 2012, 09:40

Using best examples of what one is for and worst examples of what one is against is what is fueling so much blind following, emotional responses, bblocking true research and conclusions in regards to this topic - and both sides are guilty of this as they are in the climate debate.

And in the end, it is all about equality isn't it, and not so much about long term evidence or the best outcomes for the majority of children involved not just the lucky few. If this argument was more rational and scientific and less political and emotional I might be more open to believing what the so called majority want.

Did anyone watch Q&A last week. Well, what ever you believe about the two men who asked questions about gay reform/rights and marriage it was the former who was really the brave one (even though a tweet said how brave the gay guy was, the gay guy who received so much applause) - the first guy who spoke stood up probably knowing he would be ridiculed: The gay guy stood up knowing he would probably be applauded and after the audience group-think had already vented its emotions against the other man who I think made a very valid point (as did the gay man): What was that point (to which no one really had a come back - or was it side-tracked and because of that fact) It was how no one a few decades ago believed that legislation for equality for defacto relationships would lead to other forms of relationships wanting the same rights. As he said now polyamourous and even paedosexual groups want their cases to be heard and we 'laugh' that down just as we would have laughed down gay groups wanting equality only 40 years ago. And we all know that even now paedosexuals are wanting to have paedosexuality removed from the DSM as a mental illness which is where homosexuality was how long ago - and we also should know that the changes to the DSM were not really wanted or believed in by the psychiatrists involved but it was a result of very strong political and emotional pressuring, not science. Perhaps we know more (or less) than we did then but it was in the end a very similar process to what we are seeing now. (Yes, I do know there is a difference between homosexuality between adults and paedosexuality, but it is the process I am talking about not the content so much).

I do not want to see a return to the days when gays were thrown into rivers but I would like a more objective debate into the whole area of sexuality including the latest research into the brain's plasticity. Having said that, though, I also believe that there is such a thing as freedom of choice that might even override scientific conclusions; there is also such a thing as compassionate acceptance of things beyond our psychological control, both within ourselves and others. But this does not negate what science might know and shouldn't bias science, including the social sciences against true and as full as possible objectivity because even scientific truth will and can and perhaps especially set us free in the long run.

Every time someone uses the 'thin edge of the wedge' approach to this issue they are ridiculed and made to look like fools - another tactic in itself) However, isn't the thin edge of the wedge approach exactly what our legal system uses itself: make a case, get it through and you have a precedent which can then be used to win all subsequent cases? Am I wrong?

What we have now is popularist and politically correct celebrities and the general public arguing about stuff I really don't think they know much about nor for which we have long term evidence and which they certainly won't allow rationality and science a look in if it dares go against the loudest voices. That's not 'enlightenment' that's mob rule.

It's not that different from the climate debate only this time the emotional ones are on the skeptic side while the scientific ones are on the 'believers' side.

I just cannot understand anymore why we here even no longer want to support the traditional family unit especially knowing how much society is breaking down because of the breakdown of a place where children can grow up with a strong sense of security, love and balance. If you even look in a shallow way into objective psychology books and psychiatric cases it always comes down to a child's relationship with their parents FATHERS included or the absence thereof. If many of the people who are hurting and lashing out in arguments such as this one, I am convinced it is because of their own hurts of their own childhoods and not necessarily because of objective reasoning. The fact that Channel 7 has latched on to this issue compounds my belief in this: They know what gets an emotional response and they don;t give a shit about the topic or truth, just ratings.

We had a crew here investigating our town and oh how they got it so, so wrong and misquoted and misrepresented all because the truth was not sensational enough.

The media is taking over the role of the church but it does not always have sound motives - even less so than the church.

Oh yet we trust that somehow good
Will be the final goal of ill