In other words, if gay is not bad, then how can a conscious choice to be gay (if such a thing were possible — I’m simply entertaining a hypothesis here) be bad?

There’s a disturbing undercurrent sometimes that IF being gay were a real choice, or something you could “turn” others to, it would then be evil, or at least an inferior option. I can’t see why.

Planned families are often more stable and happy than unplanned families. Gays and lesbians usually have to plan their families since their relationships won’t usually result in unplanned pregnancies.

…Fathers spend time with their kids.
…They do some parenting during that time.

What a dear little thought. I wonder where she got it from. Dickens? The Waltons?

…Mothers are the best caregivers for a small child.

Because they get more practice.

…Mothers can’t adequately restrain older children.

This woman has clearly never seen a Russian mother in full swing.

…Fathers can.

Presumably by means other than violence or bullying. But what other means of restraint are there that cannot be applied by women?

…Having a parent of the opposite sex shows you the value of that opposite sex.

So boys need to see their mothers in a positive light. Right? Perhaps we need to penalise sexist fathers? Or sexism, period?

I’d respect those arguments if they were applied to everyone. Parental leave for fathers once their kids are teenagers. Heavy fines for men who leave their families (to help pay for therapy). Companies forced to be family-friendly — free health insurance, free nurseries, flexitime, plenty of days off when your kid needs you. A kind of driver’s licence for men, with the levels of sexism and irresponsibility routinely tested. Unlicensed sex would be fined. Imagine the extra revenue that would generate.

But no: it applies only to gays. Funny.

Her last sentence in particular. It’s a study in falling flat on one’s face. Gosh, so “those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers”? As opposed to, say, children from heterosexual families where Mum is Dad’s third wife, the marriage fails and both remarry?

…Fathers spend time with their kids.
…They do some parenting during that time.

What a dear little thought. I wonder where she got it from. Dickens? The Waltons?

…Mothers are the best caregivers for a small child.

Because they get more practice.

…Mothers can’t adequately restrain older children.

This woman has clearly never seen a Russian mother in full swing.

…Fathers can.

Presumably by means other than violence or bullying. But what other means of restraint are there that cannot be applied by women?

…Having a parent of the opposite sex shows you the value of that opposite sex.

So boys need to see their mothers in a positive light. Right? Perhaps we need to penalise sexist fathers? Or sexism, period?

I’d respect those arguments if they were applied to everyone. Parental leave for fathers once their kids are teenagers. Heavy fines for men who leave their families (to help pay for therapy). Companies forced to be family-friendly — free health insurance, free nurseries, flexitime, plenty of days off when your kid needs you. A kind of driver’s licence for men, with the levels of sexism and irresponsibility routinely tested. Unlicensed sex would be fined. Imagine the extra revenue that would generate.

But no: it applies only to gays. Funny.

Her last sentence in particular. It’s a study in falling flat on one’s face. Gosh, so “those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers”? As opposed to, say, children from heterosexual families where Mum is Dad’s third wife, the marriage fails and both remarry?

…Fathers spend time with their kids.
…They do some parenting during that time.

What a dear little thought. I wonder where she got it from. Dickens? The Waltons?

…Mothers are the best caregivers for a small child.

Because they get more practice.

…Mothers can’t adequately restrain older children.

This woman has clearly never seen a Russian mother in full swing.

…Fathers can.

Presumably by means other than violence or bullying. But what other means of restraint are there that cannot be applied by women?

…Having a parent of the opposite sex shows you the value of that opposite sex.

So boys need to see their mothers in a positive light. Right? Perhaps we need to penalise sexist fathers? Or sexism, period?

I’d respect those arguments if they were applied to everyone. Parental leave for fathers once their kids are teenagers. Heavy fines for men who leave their families (to help pay for therapy). Companies forced to be family-friendly — free health insurance, free nurseries, flexitime, plenty of days off when your kid needs you. A kind of driver’s licence for men, with the levels of sexism and irresponsibility routinely tested. Unlicensed sex would be fined. Imagine the extra revenue that would generate.

But no: it applies only to gays. Funny.

Her last sentence in particular. It’s a study in falling flat on one’s face. Gosh, so “those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers”? As opposed to, say, children from heterosexual families where Mum is Dad’s third wife, the marriage fails and both remarry?

It would be vastly more scientifically precise to use the term “genetic and epigenetic influences”. “Epigenetic” meaning all the stuff that governs and regulates gene expression in response to internal and external environmental cues.

By the magic of WingnutLogic(tm), only gay parents should parent because all their kids are straight. QED, run rings around you logically, etc.

Like Mary Tracey9 said… I have had heterosexual experiences. Experiences which were largely driven by my fundie-christian upbringing, my ‘need’ for abuse, and letting men have sex with me in order to consummate and validate that abuse.

The one man that genuinely loves me, and I love him? Uh, I just can’t have sex with. Been thinking about it for a long time, and I have decide I may as well give up the idea. Love him to bits, but he is unfortunately waaay to male bodied for me.

Sexual behaviour is learned. I learned that letting a man dominate me sexually is how I am meant to behave, or they will abandon me just like everyone else.

Sexual ATTRACTION, genuine, physical, OMG you make my NIPPLES TINGLE, sexual attraction… well, thats just pure old biology, IMHO.

Just cos I am on a rant now… Why the hell do this damned wing nuts assume that you must be fucked up if you are gay? If they looked at my history, they would say “Oh, she’s a lesbian feminist man-hating wench cos she was abused for so long” when in fact the only reason I monkeyed heterosexual behaviour at all was to fit in, be accepted and *because* of the abuse and fear that drove my life.

Now that I am healing, I am out, and going to *gasp* gay bars, and flirting with girls, and generally much healthier. I’m not even depressed anymore.
Also, I expect I’ll like men much better now I have a firm boundary that says ‘off-limits’ rather than not knowing how to refuse them when they (inevetably) come on to me.