From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: babies
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:04:27 GMT


From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: babies


>we'll see ;-)

>>There are certain processes in the formation of a child's personality that
>>are related with a confrontation with her/his parents, and where the 
>>gender of a parents plays a fundamental role.

>Not true... I want to know why you think that this is true...  Showing that
>it has happened in the past does not make it any more true.  

This is not a problem of showing that this is true in the past.
This happens all the time, with every single kid.
This point is basic for all psychology which is non-conductist. And the 
only country in the world with conductist psychologu is the USA.
It was also interpreted, in a different basis and in a different time 
by Clausewitz, for example, in analyzing the idea of battle not as a
duel.

>>A person's personality has three parts, and each plays an important role in
>>his/her life. One of them is developed in a confrontation of the child
>>with the parent of the same gender for the possession of the parent of the
>>same gender.

>> The child, in his/her mind, kills the parent of the same sex, in
>>this imaginary confrontation.

>Are you making this up?  This does not sound like the reality I dealt with
>at all.  Nor is it the case of anyone I have asked.  Just by general polling,
>I have found that everyone I know has had fights with their parents.  However,
>some people only fight with their father, some only fight with their mother
>and some fight with both.

>I do not believe this, and unless you can come up with a reputable source,
>I will have to take it as your own hypothesis.

I would like to believe that you are kidding me.
Of course you do not remember it. This is an process that is "fogotten" by
the kid. In Spanish is said "inconciente", and I do not kmow how to write
it in English.
There is a part of your mind which is conciousness, and the other which
is the unconciousness (I hope the spelling is write). What triggers most of
those reaction in you that you do not know where they come from, are the
unconciouness ones. And that's vital for the analysis.
Killing you father, in the imaginary way, is confronted by reality: You cannot,
and you love him, then you forgget in the conciousness part, but you never
forget in the unconciousness, then, guilt is developed.

You want a source for all of this???
Are you serious???
This is basic psychology, studied in all high schools in my country.
Sources: S. freud, A. Freud, J. Lacan, and all psychological schools in 
the history of psychology.
Just get any book about psychology and look about Edipous Complex, and the duel
of a kid with his father (It is called Electra's complex in women).
I guess you know about Edipous. 


>> Then, he/she fells remorse, and the sense of
>>guilt is formed in his mind. This is not a concient act. Then, the kid will
>>have sense of right and wrong, of guilt when something wrong is done.


>Oh please... This sounds sort of hairbrained to me.  I learned right vs
>wrong from my parents.  Not by fighting with them, but by learning from
>their example.

It might sound as you like, but it is also basic in psychology. 
You learn learn what is right and wrong from your parents, but you will
have a "sense" of it from some guilt you fell when you do something that
you believe is wrong.


>>Society, which is bassicaly repressive, will be based on that part of our
>>personality.

>American society is basically repressive.  All society is not repressive
>in the same ways.

Saying that society is repressive, means that a society is based in repressive
laws and enforcement of them to actually work.
That is, compared with a "free man", one that lives alone in an island, the
person living in a society has to comply with restriction on his "freedom".
And, the society will impose norms to restrict that freedom: Those are called 
laws and rights: You can do this but you cannot do that.
That is why a person's rights are given by birth, and laws are used to restrict
them. All the police, intelligence services, etc, are bassically "repressive".
They stop people from braking the law. But, breaking the law is breaking the
norms inpossed in your "freedom".
There is the basis for the phrase: "Your freedom ends where the freedom of
the others  begins".
This is basic in any sociologu class.


>>Clearly, this is not an absolute act, and the lack of a same gender parent,
>>for example, will modify the relation, bringing traumatic consecuences for 
>>the person in his/her growing.

>Do you have any evidence of this?  I know many children of homosexual
>parents, from children less than a year old to people in their 20s.  None
>of them show any signs of these "traumatic consequences".

It seems that you did not know that they existed. How do you know that these
people have no effects from these traumatic experiences???


>I will tell you what really happens.

>The teachers say that parents require a man and a woman.  The child goes
>home and says "mommy(s), this is what they taught me in school today."  
>Parents go in to school, and lecture the administration.  The administration
>changes it's tune and has the teacher explain why things are different.

>These kids will then grow up knowing that homosexuals can be parents.


You are erasing again the society around the kid. These kids have classmates
who would mostly repeat what it is said at home. Many of them will go to
church and learn more things there, etc, etc.



>You are assuming that the parents and the child will be "closetted" about
>the truth of the situation.  This is not how it works.  Most of these
>parents will be open and honest with the child, from an early age.  This
>will deter these sorts of problems.

No, I am not assuming anything

>You are assuming that the parents will behave like heterosexual parents.

No, I am not assuming that, and that is why I am saying this. 
If I had assumed that they would act like heterosexuals, I would have never 
rised this point.




>This does not parallel the situation with children of homosexual parents.
>Their world was defined, since birth, in such a way that having parents
>of the same gender was not an issue.  Therefore, when they reach an age
>where society tells the otherwise, they will know that society is wrong.

I know it has no parallel, and that is what I said. I do not believe that 
this is so easy, anyway, I believe that they experience some traumas that
are quite important.


>The other comment which is wrong from your logic is that society, as a whole,
>condemns homosexuality.  This is just not true (take it from me, I have been
>a homosexual in society for a long time now).  There are people out there who
>condemn homosexuality, but for the most part, people just don't care one
>way or the other.  It is the same sort of thing as the abortion argument,
>the minority who feels that it is wrong is small, but very very vocal.

Society is not just a sum of individuals.

Finally, what I can assume in your favor is that a homosexual couple does in
certain ways reproduce the society's norm in their relation: One of the 
members has a dominant role, and the other a passive role. It is like a 
male-like and female-like roles. Then, the same sex characteristic will not
erase completely the society's distribution of roles among them.


>FWA

AAP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality