From: pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?))
Subject: Re: babies
Reply-To: pmm7@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:27:32 GMT

alberto (<) and elf (<<) are in an argument about les/bi/gays
raising kids... 
>
>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. I guess that in English they are Ego, etc,etc. Then, that is basic for the kid's functioning in society.
>That is the basis (the superyo), 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). Then, ther are other precesses to, that should be taken care about when we talk about raising a child.

this is pretty pure freud.  do you know that he has been 
mostly discredited in the psychological/psychiatric 
community?  and isn't taken seriously by child development
folx?  i'd bet i've read more child development than you, 
and i've read some freud, too.  

>>   For the sake of _my_ argument, a family unit will consist of a body
>>of one or more adults who have taken on the burdern of raising a child
>>and making him a functional member of society.  To provide for his
>>material, emotional, educational and spiritual needs.
> 
>This might work for the sake of your argument, but not for the sake of reality. It is not so simple. You should see what is at sake in the "underground" of the relations among members of a society.
>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.
>Well, society, its functioning, psychology (social and individual) are a little more complex than that. So, just by playing pragmatic, you are erasing a lot of variables that make the analysis and its conclusions useless.

adolfo, we make arguments and give examples.  you give 
arguments, give no examples, and never successfully refute
our arguments.  if your theories of child-rearing in society
doesn't allow for pragmatism, for reality, then frankly
they're useless theories.  i advise you to read more in
the theory of child development.  

>>When society learns to accept gays and lesbians as
>>"acceptable" by social standards, just as it _had to_ learn that
>>color and religious difference are "acceptable," then these children
>>will not suffer.
>
>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".

so we work on it now.  should mrs. brown not have allowed her 
young daughter to go to that white only school?   children who
face adversity and survive get stronger.  our job, as parents,
is to support them and make sure they survive.  

>Also, you have to consider about the idea of legality-illegality, among other things in these kids.

agreed.  i am teaching *my* kids that bad laws should be changed.

>>   Alberto, to gain civil rights in my country, black people died.
>>White people blew up their churches, murdered their children, burned
>>their farms and houses.
>>
>>   Maybe, just maybe, that's going to have to happen to the homosexual
>>community as well.
> 
>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.

well, what i have learned from their experience is that i need
to take good care of my kids to protect them from 'phobes, like 
black activists tried to protect their kids from racists.  i do 
it for them.  what if one or more of them is queer too?  

and secondly, just how is it different?  seems pretty similar 
to me - a civil rights struggle.  

>>   I just heard a horrified roar go up around me.  "You're willing to
>>sacrifice children in the name of your sexual preference?"
>
>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. 

why? 

>Again, for simplicity, you are erasing the historical background in all of this. Blacks were taken as slaves. And you have to analyze the economic and society structures to understand the strugge that Blacks are still fighting.
>The history of the Homosexual struggle is completely different and in a completely different context.

if you are so sure that they are so different, *show*me*why*.  
queer rights also resemble women's rights as causes.  

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

all of these are theorists, philosophers.  where's your 
*science*?  your case studies?  concrete examples?  

>>   If society learned to accept us, learned to accept our families and
>>ourselves, we wouldn't have this problem.  But here you are, arguing
>>vociferously and without documentation or case studies (I've offered
>>one, Jeff's offered one) that that part of us, our families, is
>>'wrong.'
>
>First, I am offering an opinion.
>Second, the examples that Jeff and you presented, when placed in context, will show to you how big the problem is. Of course, if we start to simplify things, and at the end we are left with the conclusion: I believe that it is OK, because my praxis tells me so, we will never go anywhere.

so place them in context.  we're waiting for *anything* 
concrete fom you on this - science, case studies, etc. 
or put these in "context", show us why our beliefs are 
wrong.  

>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.

the problem with old science is that it is surpassed, refuted,
proven wrong.  

>The same with psychoanalysis. You have to make a seriuos study to see how things affect individuals.

freudian psychoanalysis has been almost completely discredited.
catch up, alberto.  

>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.

a) it doesn't have to be confusing.  my kids do pretty 
well with it.  
my daughter just informed me that she didn't feel confused 
or feel a need to lie since 2 other kids in her class have
gay parents.  so it's no big deal.  

b) kids don't have to lie.  my kids think it's kind of neat.  
i tell them the truth, they do the same with me... usually.  
they *are* kids, after all...

>Yeah, the kid's havve to lie because society is bad, bad, bad. But, society was there even before, so people have to act according to that.

then how do we change it?  

>You want documentation?, well, I offer as a proof yourself. Take yourself as a case and then make a complete analysis. Then, come back and tell me that everything in your families is OK, and that my saying that a port is socielly wrong is wrong.

ok.  now what?  my family of origin was/is *exceedingly* 
unhealthy.  i have 6 siblings, 5 of whom are straight.  
i know my own family is *significantly* healthier than my 
family of origin.  my family was fine by society's ideals.  
*very* sick within.  bad choice, adolfo.  

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

i sure as hell don't.  what roles?  


>>         Elf !!!
>AAP 

peg