leonardcohenforum.com

Epu, love, i'm not talking about gay or straight, juss about being mother. If I had a girl 3 or 5 years old, no matter what lover should appear on a rosy cloud, women or man that is what I am talking about.

I know that Bee... but do they know?

I have a colleague who recently split up with her long-term (lesbian) partner. They shared the upbringing of her partners turkey-baster produced child and my friend was very devoted and committed and it was known that they child had two "moms" at her local kindergarten. Since the split, the mother has been very discouraging of my friend in having any contact with the child. We all thought that the child would want to maintain contact with her "other mother" but actually she has withdrawn and freezed out my friend. Partly this is about being loyal to her "real mom" but mostly it's about not wanting to have two moms instead of a father and mother.

Maybe if she was older it wouldn't matter so much, but this discussion hasn't really said much about how the child feels about this.

And sure, society has a lot to answer for!

If a person is a good parent what does the sexuality matter? You can't influence anybody to become gay. More likely there are (too) many gays who can't accept themselves because the culture where heterosexuality is the only way has it's influence.

In New Jersey they can adopt and I believe they should. If I ever become a pastor..I want to marry same sex couples. I feel that we are all equal in god's heart.

Boogahbo wrote:You can't influence anybody to become gay.

not that i disagree. you are most probably right, but you have no scientific proof for that.

i don't realy see how it would do much harm if a child WOULD develop homosexuality. when you say the line above, you are asuming that being gay is bad. it's not.

i think society is still too primitive for homosexuals to adopt children. when i was a kid, not having as much money as other kids was big enough deal for other children to torture you... imagine how they would behave towards you if their idiotic parents filled them with ideas like: 'Don't hang aroud with him. He's a goddamn fag! His discusting parents ...' blah blah

i'd rather not be a child of homosexuals, so if i was one, i'd never adopt children.

Since Sandra put this question quite long time ago, one more opinion probably isn’t topical now but nevertheless…

Were this question a theoretical one I’d say, “Yes, of course, everyone should be able to adopt children, irrespective of his/her sexual preferences. Personal qualities and ability to provide quite good conditions – both material and psychological ones – for a child are only important.” But since the matter concerns a concrete situation… It really depends on surroundings. If the majority is prejudised against such pairs and demonstrates a kind of aggression the chances that the same attitude will be extended to the adopted children are “good” enough. They may face extremely negative attitude in the group of their coevals. It’d be too traumatizing for the children.
That pair may try to educate them, of course, but… excuse me, it’d be too cruelly. Sometimes it isn’t easy even for quite adult people to face the pressure of society so what could we say about children?

************
This theme reminded me one “anecdote” from my life – perhaps rather sad one, though.
When I was a student one professor gave us lectures on social anthropology. He was a man who was expelled from the country in the days of Soviet Union for a number of things including his sexual preferences. He lived and worked in the West, became quite an authoritative scholar there, and then, after SU has “given up the spirit”, came back in Russia.
One of his lectures concerned the theme of sexes. He was very, very enthusiastic while “letting us know” that, in fact, the sexes were six but not two. He obviously tried to destroy some stereotypes in our minds and make us freer in our views by spreading those “revolutionary” ideas. He evidently waited for some “wild” reaction – for enormous interest in someone who raised such questions so plainly, astonishment, maybe even a sharp disagreement which he intended to overcome. Well, we were born and grew in SU, we were its “products” so he definitely could have some reasons for expecting reaction of such a kind. And there we were sitting, in front of him, already perfectly accustomed to see everything in its different forms – and often not in the best ones, unfortunately. We were sitting with terribly boring faces, tracing in our conspectuses with no reaction at all, “six sexes”…
Can’t say he was disappointed. He was absolutely perplexed, and one could read clearly in his face, “Where am I?”
Poor professor!

*************
Btw, regarding scientific research… Once I had to read one paper upon this theme. Can’t recall exact numbers now but it was said there that the rate of “pure” homosexuals “by birth” was very low – as well as one of “pure” heterosexuals, though. The guys who carried out those investigations came to a conclusion that most of us are successfully bisexual (potentially). The next conclusion suggests itself: for the most part, our actual preferences were formed under the influence of some outer circumstances.

Yours,
TH.

thank you for your comments that I have read carefully......

I really like the honesty and balance in both of your responses, jurica and Helven.

So, were the 6 sexes ~ male heterosexual, male bisexual, male homosexual; Female heterosexual, female bisexual, female homosexual? Or, did he accomplish the 6 in some other fashion? Poor guy....expecting to be cutting-edge and coming off as a dull razor blade.

Hi Elizabeth,

Oh, yeah, it was really like that!

And his classification was different a little. He told of male and female hetero- and homosexuals, and of two other groups which he called "transvestits" (is it a correct English word?). The name is relative enough in this case as the later aren't those ones who simply tend to wear clothes of the other sex but those who feel their belonging to that sex. And he didn't mention bisexuals at all... Hmm, in fact, he, probably, still mentioned them somehow and I simply don't remember ... but they weren't included in that scheme.

Yours,
TH.

Hi Helven ~

Well, you're close; however, your spelling managed to add an extra layer of humour, one that had been invisible to me all these years, until your misspelling . Actually, the term is "transvestites" ~ absent the e, "transvestits" manages to give it an exponential component . Where did he fit transsexuals into it all, do you recall? Transvestites do adopt the clothing, behaviours, etc. of the 'opposite' sex, yes. Poor professor, not only did he not make the impact he'd intended, but whole segments of his points made seem to have become [or were, originally] lost on his students.

Love,
Lizzy

Oh, I'm just sssssure more diligent students grasped his points in corpore so he still succeeded at least in that respect .

Transsexuals?.. If you call transsexuals (as we do) those who change their sex operationally they're classified as a part of transvestites group. In fact, he used this word, "transvestism", not in its strict sense but rather as a "metaphor" for a wider notion. Or, to be precious, this term was adopted and got a little different meaning.

But could you tell me a little more of that humour in my misspelling, please? Is it connected with mathematics anyhow ? (I simply have "transvestism" in my dictionary with no "transvestites" and "transvestits")

Love,
TH.

Yes, Helven , I'll clarify the humour for you ......in "transves/tits" ~ "tits" is slang for a woman's breasts. Transvestites are generally men playing a woman's role, with all the 'accoutrements' of same, being imitated as effectively as possible.

Love,
Lizzy

Oh dear, what a joke, indeed ! And I was puzzled what the exponential you spoke of ! You just killed me ! Okay, yes, general meaning is the same here. But I know almost nothing of English slang ...

Love,
TH.

Well, you do now ! [At least a 'tit's' worth ! Groan.........by the way, that is entirely-new usage! At least as far as I'm aware! And, it will never be used again from this end ~ so you're on your own for any future usage !]

At least, now, you got the joke .

Love,
Lizzy