Comments on: The Burden of Blame: How Love In Action Harms Parents http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/02/19/1456 News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric Sun, 19 May 2013 14:07:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: William http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/02/19/1456/comment-page-1#comment-6845 William Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:53:39 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/02/19/1456#comment-6845 Yes, quo III, indeed we do, but the point that I am making is that the two propositions that you have mentioned - (1) that parents are not responsible for their children being gay, and (2) that being gay is not a bad thing - can both be believed without any breach of logic, since neither is inconsistent with the other. You don't have to choose between them. Whether one DOES in fact believe both of them is another matter entirely. I do: others may not. Yes, quo III, indeed we do, but the point that I am making is that the two propositions that you have mentioned – (1) that parents are not responsible for their children being gay, and (2) that being gay is not a bad thing – can both be believed without any breach of logic, since neither is inconsistent with the other. You don’t have to choose between them.

Whether one DOES in fact believe both of them is another matter entirely. I do: others may not.

]]> By: quo III http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/02/19/1456/comment-page-1#comment-6843 quo III Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:38:28 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/02/19/1456#comment-6843 William, we all have beliefs. William, we all have beliefs.

]]> By: William http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/02/19/1456/comment-page-1#comment-6834 William Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:04:47 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/02/19/1456#comment-6834 Quo III, You write as though one has to choose EITHER one OR other of the following propositions: 1. Parents are not responsible for their children being gay. 2. Being gay is not a bad thing. Not only are the above two propositions perfectly consistent with each other; both may be true, and I believe that both are. Quo III,

You write as though one has to choose EITHER one OR other of the following propositions:

1. Parents are not responsible for their children being gay.

2. Being gay is not a bad thing.

Not only are the above two propositions perfectly consistent with each other; both may be true, and I believe that both are.

]]> By: quo III http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/02/19/1456/comment-page-1#comment-6765 quo III Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:21:02 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/02/19/1456#comment-6765 The point I was trying to make was that if being gay isn't a bad thing, then parents who feel guilty because they think they caused their children to become gay should not be told that they aren't responsible, but that it doesn't matter because being gay isn't bad. BTW, do you have actual statistics about the rate of homosexuality in black mother headed homes? I've heard this argument often, but never seen anyone present hard evidence to back it up. Again, where's the evidence regarding third generation Asian families, and the other groups you mention? The point I was trying to make was that if being gay isn’t a bad thing, then parents who feel guilty because they think they caused their children to become gay should not be told that they aren’t responsible, but that it doesn’t matter because being gay isn’t bad.

BTW, do you have actual statistics about the rate of homosexuality in black mother headed homes? I’ve heard this argument often, but never seen anyone present hard evidence to back it up. Again, where’s the evidence regarding third generation Asian families, and the other groups you mention?

]]> By: Regan DuCasse http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/02/19/1456/comment-page-1#comment-6762 Regan DuCasse Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:28:51 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/02/19/1456#comment-6762 Quo3, the point is that NO parent causes their children to be gay. That they ARE gay isn't a bad thing, and it's not true that a parent can have ANY effect on their child's orientation by way of their style of nurturing, or not. However, as Peterson says, the ex gay industry PLACES blame on parents where there should be none, and parents suffer tremendous guilt and recrimination because of it. It's incredible how the ex gay movement gets away with such thin theories and no evidence that their endeavor has ANY healthy results all around. And if people looked at any given society, they could see that parental styles don't have anything to do with homosexuality. For example: there is a huge percentage of black children born out of wedlock to single MOTHERS. Often with ineffectual fathers or no male role model in the home. And yet, there is no disproportionate amoung of homosexuality in black mother headed homes. Another example: even among third generation Asian families, there are still strongly patriarchal family trends. And yet, homosexuality occurs with the same regularity as among any other ethnic group. Same goes for Native Americans, Armenians and Arabs. So in short, the archaic ex gay theory on what 'causes' homosexuality is easily busted. Period. There is no cause, however there is cause regarding incidence of depression, hopelessness and isolation. The calculation is higher against gay children, but the ex gay industry doesn't repect THAT cause, which is the one that matters. So they approach a human condition that requires no intervention or cure or change, with the wrong theory, application and no end of broken templates on which their exercises stem. Makes me wanna holler! Quo3, the point is that NO parent causes their children to be gay. That they ARE gay isn’t a bad thing, and it’s not true that a parent can have ANY effect on their child’s orientation by way of their style of nurturing, or not.
However, as Peterson says, the ex gay industry PLACES blame on parents where there should be none, and parents suffer tremendous guilt and recrimination because of it.

It’s incredible how the ex gay movement gets away with such thin theories and no evidence that their endeavor has ANY healthy results all around.
And if people looked at any given society, they could see that parental styles don’t have anything to do with homosexuality.
For example: there is a huge percentage of black children born out of wedlock to single MOTHERS. Often with ineffectual fathers or no male role model in the home. And yet, there is no disproportionate amoung of homosexuality in black mother headed homes.

Another example: even among third generation Asian families, there are still strongly patriarchal family trends. And yet, homosexuality occurs with the same regularity as among any other ethnic group. Same goes for Native Americans, Armenians and Arabs.
So in short, the archaic ex gay theory on what ’causes’ homosexuality is easily busted. Period.
There is no cause, however there is cause regarding incidence of depression, hopelessness and isolation. The calculation is higher against gay children, but the ex gay industry doesn’t repect THAT cause, which is the one that matters.

So they approach a human condition that requires no intervention or cure or change, with the wrong theory, application and no end of broken templates on which their exercises stem.
Makes me wanna holler!

]]> By: quo III http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/02/19/1456/comment-page-1#comment-6759 quo III Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:33:21 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/02/19/1456#comment-6759 It wasn't quite clear to me whether Toscano was saying that causing one's children to become gay is not a bad thing, or whether it isn't true that parents cause their children to become gay. If the former is true, then presumably there would be no need to argue the latter. It wasn’t quite clear to me whether Toscano was saying that causing one’s children to become gay is not a bad thing, or whether it isn’t true that parents cause their children to become gay. If the former is true, then presumably there would be no need to argue the latter.

]]> By: Ben in Oakland http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/02/19/1456/comment-page-1#comment-6740 Ben in Oakland Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:03:00 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/02/19/1456#comment-6740 Very sad to listen to this, and very angrifying. Shame is certainly going to be a part of this. Shame is at the very bottom of the integrity scale--it means you have abandoned your love of yourself. But you also have to consider this: this recitation of sexual adventures-- do you think anyone was, oh, GETTING OFF on it? Very much like that convicted therapist and his "touch therapy" turning into sexual assault? Very sad to listen to this, and very angrifying.

Shame is certainly going to be a part of this. Shame is at the very bottom of the integrity scale–it means you have abandoned your love of yourself.

But you also have to consider this: this recitation of sexual adventures– do you think anyone was, oh, GETTING OFF on it? Very much like that convicted therapist and his “touch therapy” turning into sexual assault?

]]>