From: elf@polari.com
Subject: Re: babies
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:44:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.151337.8805@wam.umd.edu>
     aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:

>This is not a problem of counting how many people we have on each
>side. This is a problem of seeing how the development of a child
>will be affected by growing up in a homosexual household.

   But Alberto, don't you agree that if we have far fewer people on the
'homophobic' side, then many of the pressure you talk about (peer and
societal) would be off?  That if homosexuality in general were an
acceptible part of society, the children in question would have far
better recourse to develop without discrimination?

>Society has a set of values and a set of rules, that will define
>what is right and wrong "in theory". That is the basis for our
>functioning as a socity. Those principles or values change with time.

   What's wrong with starting now?  What's wrong with our attempting,
by being good and functioning examples, to alter those principles and
values, not just to our benefit, but to our childrens, and to yours, as
well?

>No, you did not. This is not a problem of examples given by parents.
>There are confrontations, in the child's mind, with the parent of the
>same gender, about possession of the parent of the other gender. That
>is the basis for the development of what is called in Spanish: Yo,
>Ello, and Superyo.

   In English: Id, Ego, and SuperEgo.  You really should learn, by the
way, to format your sentences with carriage returns and linefeeds; I
feel like I'm missing part of this discussion because some of your
paragraphs are longer than 512 chars and they're getting chopped up
somewhere in transit.

   The two problems we have to argue are (1) are these confrontations
_gender_ specific, or are they _attention_ and _role_ specific?  Do
these confrontation occur because (in a heterosexual household) the
father has a penis and the mother does not?  Or, do these
confrontations occur because one parent supplies an active role to the
children and the other a more passive role... does one parent enjoy
physical activity and the other mental?  Does one supply more attention
to one child than another?

>That is the basis (the superego), where society will define the role
>played over the individual, and not only the society, but it's
>institutions, as it was shown in principle by Freud (in Civilization
>and it's discontents).

   The superego is a set of conditioned responses (if my memory of
Civilization and its Discontents) which interrupts Id-based desires;
the superego contains the negative arguments by which animalistic,
self-indulgent and destructive urges are contained or supressed.  I see
nowhere in your discussion anything that suggests that homosexual but
otherwise normal parents have a specific set of failing that prevent
them from building a superego in their children sufficient for them to
be happy in society and for society to be happy with them.

   Obviously, there are many families, normal, heterosexual families,
failing to create within their children sufficient superego
constraints.

>Most arguments presentad here are simple and pragmatic: I knew a kid
>raised by homosexuals and he was OK. Ergo: it is OK for all.

   Your arguments equally simple: Society has always been this way;
going against society will, for the most part, be destructive to the
children involved.  We disagree.  I'm not going to hide a destructive
or dysfunctional homosexual family; I just don't know any!

>Well, society, its functioning, psychology (social and individual)
>are a little more complex than that.

   Granted.  But your version of psychology and sociology is very
mechanistic and deterministic, and I think the world is lot more
complex than you want it to be.  

>So, just by playing pragmatic,
>you are erasing a lot of variables that make the analysis and its
>conclusions useless.

   Ultimately, pragmatism is our only recourse.  If I were gay, and I
wanted children, I know that I could not raise them alone.  My
pragmatic response would be to join with a lifetime partner who could
be there if I could not be.

>I strongly oppose the idea of "gender" roles in a relationship. I do
>not believe that there are women and men roles. And, I do not follow
>them in my own relationship with my wife.

   Great; now go back and answer my questions regarding why a
homosexual family is insufficient to the devolpment of a child's
superego.  If your family does not follow "gender" roles, aren't you
failing to be that exemplary male your children require?

>Yes, you are. To begin with, that Something will come, is not the
>same that something is. So, the problem about peer acceptance is a
>problem "right now".  Also, you have to consider about the idea of
>legality-illegality, among other things in these kids.

   As I said later in the article, we have to start somewhere.  And I
haven't said single thing advocating comitting an illegal act.

>You should learn, first from their experience, second from the
>difference. It is not the same the fight for civil rights of women
>and blacks, than for homosexuals.

   Why not?  What differences are there?

>I would not say that Blacks let their children died. I would say that
>they had no choice, and that comparing Black' stuggle with homosexual's
>fights is mostly wrong.

   You have chosen that there are differences; I don't think there's
much to be said for your discussion.  Regardless of our historical
differences, we have to look at the here and the now; the situation is
changing, fast.  You're being left in the dust, Alberto.  And even if
you continue to say 'It's wrong,' I have to agree with... was it Jeff?

QUEERS HAVE KIDS.  And there's nothing you can do about it.

>Go and read: Freud, Fucault, Althouser, Rozitchner, Pulitzer, and
>several hundred others.

   Been there, done that.  For every article you throw at me, I can
toss one back.  There are reasons why psychiatrists sometimes call
themselves witch doctors.

>Second, the examples that Jeff and you presented, when placed in
>context, will show to you how big the problem is.

   Correct!  Jeff and I have given you examples of how hard the fight
is.  Stop offering opinions and do something to make it easier for us!

>There are scientific studies developed since more that a century,
>you know?, to deal and interpreted society, it's functioning, etc, etc.
>And it goes beyond the idea, it works for me.

   Great.  Sadomasochism works for me, Alberto, and if you read Hite,
Hunt, Money, Kinsey, Townsend, or Mains, you'll discover that it works
for a lot of other people.  But I don't recommend it for you; obviously
it wouldn't work for you.

>Then, you know a case where the kid's have to lie, they live in a
>relationship that is mostly confusing, at best, etc, etc.

   I did not say the relationship is mostly confusing.  You find it
confusing; they seem to have no problem with it.  They only wish the
fears of the majority did not prevent them from saying "I love my
mommies."

>But, society was there even before, so people have to act
>according to that.

   See?  Here's the major crux of our disagreement.  You say "Society's
mores will change, but in the meantime you should all be good little
sheep."  Bullshit!  Society's mores and principles will NOT change
until some of us stand up and make powerful examples of what we can
do, and what we are doing.  We_had_to_start_somewhere.  "I don't think
gays should raise children."  That's nice, Alberto.  It's going to
happen anyway, for the better of all mankind.

>>   Which role?  WHICH ROLE?  Name it, we can fill it.
>You know what I meant.

   I do not; in fact, your statement that you and your wife do NOT live
by "gender" roles makes my confusion even greater.  Don't be obtuse,
Alberto.

>AAP

         Elf !!!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality