Contract or not, lesbian can't be 'mommy'

[Straw Man]

Doesn't really seem like sexuality was an issue in the judgement.

exactly but you'd never know that if you only read the headline which is probably about as far as most of the numbnuts who read World Net Daily ever got

[Dos Equis]

Why do you care so much about the 2/y.o and not at all about Haggard's kids? Do you know the two lesbians in the story?

Yes, they're my neighbors.   

I didn't say I didn't care about Haggard's kids.  I'm sure they suffered a great deal of embarrassment.  I feel sorry for them.  But again, has nothing to do with this story. 

And just to clarify, there is only one lesbian in this story.  One of them is heterosexual.  This week. 

[Al Doggity]

Yes, they're my neighbors.   

I didn't say I didn't care about Haggard's kids.  I'm sure they suffered a great deal of embarrassment.  I feel sorry for them.  But again, has nothing to do with this story. 

You didn't say you didn't care about Haggard's kids,  but you did say you didn't care about Haggard in response to a question about his kids.



The first post in which you claimed Haggard and Craig's cases weren't relevant to this case, the reason you gave was that there were no custody disputes involved.


Are you saying that any confusion the kid might suffer is due to a custody dispute? If the lesbian couple had broken up and the mother had moved on to a male partner, without incident, would you still not be worried about the kid's confusion?

Aside from a matter of custody, this case and the Haggard case would probably affect the children involved in a similar manner. If anything, Haggard's kids would wind up more fucked up. The lesbians most likely provided an environment that developed an appreciation for atypical familial structures. Haggard certainly didn't.

[Dos Equis]

You didn't say you didn't care about Haggard's kids,  but you did say you didn't care about Haggard in response to a question about his kids.



The first post in which you claimed Haggard and Craig's cases weren't relevant to this case, the reason you gave was that there were no custody disputes involved.


Are you saying that any confusion the kid might suffer is due to a custody dispute? If the lesbian couple had broken up and the mother had moved on to a male partner, without incident, would you still not be worried about the kid's confusion?

Aside from a matter of custody, this case and the Haggard case would probably affect the children involved in a similar manner. If anything, Haggard's kids would wind up more fucked up. The lesbians most likely provided an environment that developed an appreciation for atypical familial structures. Haggard certainly didn't.

I didn't bring up Haggard or his kids.  You did.  That's your made-up issue.  I have no idea what's going in that man's family.  I hope they are healing and that he is getting his life in order. 

Regarding these kids, anytime there is a divorce the kids suffer.  Anytime there is a custody dispute the kids suffer even more.  When there is a divorce and custody dispute with one of the parents confused about their sexuality, the suffering is just that much greater. 

[Al Doggity]

I didn't bring up Haggard or his kids.  You did.  That's your made-up issue.  I have no idea what's going in that man's family.  I hope they are healing and that he is getting his life in order. 

Regarding these kids, anytime there is a divorce the kids suffer.  Anytime there is a custody dispute the kids suffer even more.  When there is a divorce and custody dispute with one of the parents confused about their sexuality, the suffering is just that much greater. 

I brought up the Haggard case after you and McWay claimed  that this case was an argument against "Once gay, always gay." Just as Haggard and Craig aren't arguments for the case that all married men are secretly gay, this one case is not an argument for or against any larger theories on gay people. Two years from now, she could go gay again.

 After I brought it up, you claimed that you didn't see any relevance in it to this case. I don't see how you could miss it.

You have no idea what's going on in Haggard's house, but you think you've got a handle on the confusion and suffering of people involved in this case?  This 2 year old is even aware of what's going on. Most children this young can't even process the concept of a deceased parent, I doubt his mother's sexuality is causing him much pain or confusion. That's your made-up issue.

[OzmO]

I thought homosexuality was permanent, you know, "Once gay, always gay".

That shows how little you understand homosexuality.  

[Dos Equis]

I brought up the Haggard case after you and McWay claimed  that this case was an argument against "Once gay, always gay." Just as Haggard and Craig aren't arguments for the case that all married men are secretly gay, this one case is not an argument for or against any larger theories on gay people. Two years from now, she could go gay again.

 After I brought it up, you claimed that you didn't see any relevance in it to this case. I don't see how you could miss it.

You have no idea what's going on in Haggard's house, but you think you've got a handle on the confusion and suffering of people involved in this case?  This 2 year old is even aware of what's going on. Most children this young can't even process the concept of a deceased parent, I doubt his mother's sexuality is causing him much pain or confusion. That's your made-up issue.

I don't have a "handle" on what's going to happen with this poor kid anymore than you do.  I'm talking about risks, which can increase based on the parents' choices. 

Regarding the age of the kid, kids are very smart and perceptive.  There is a very short window of time during which a kid's personality, character, etc. is formed.  They cannot completely comprehend certain things, but at age 2 their world gets increasingly larger by the day.  In fact, by about age 5 to probably no later than about 8, their personality is pretty set.  Everything the kid experiences during that time period influences the kind of person he or she will become.
   

[Dos Equis]

That shows how little you understand homosexuality.  

How so?  He's just repeating what homosexual advocates say. 

[Straw Man]

I didn't bring up Haggard or his kids.  You did.  That's your made-up issue.  I have no idea what's going in that man's family.  I hope they are healing and that he is getting his life in order. 

Regarding these kids, anytime there is a divorce the kids suffer.  Anytime there is a custody dispute the kids suffer even more.  When there is a divorce and custody dispute with one of the parents confused about their sexuality, the suffering is just that much greater. 

you brought up the ridiculous notion that somehow a 2 year old boy is going to suffer terrible confusion from his parents sexuality. 

Haggards kids are a relevent example

[Al Doggity]

In fact, by about age 5 to probably no later than about 8, their personality is pretty set.  Everything the kid experiences during that time period influences the kind of person he or she will become.
   

Didn't we have this discussion before?

That study wasn't about actual personality... it was about personality traits, i.e. is a kid agressive or shy, investigative, how he deals with stress. The personality isn't "set", the dominant personality traits are just apparent. That study concluded suggested that those traits were congenital. Just anecdotally, you must realize that. Yes, everything they experience fro 5 to 8 influences the type of person they will become. So does everything that happens from 8 onward. Kids develop their personalities well into their 20s.

Most kids can't even process the world around them at age 2, or retain memories from that period of their life.

[OzmO]

How so?  He's just repeating what homosexual advocates say. 

Based on the mother's actions, she's likely bi-sexual.

[Dos Equis]

Didn't we have this discussion before?

That study wasn't about actual personality... it was about personality traits, i.e. is a kid agressive or shy, investigative, how he deals with stress. The personality isn't "set", the dominant personality traits are just apparent. That study concluded suggested that those traits were congenital. Just anecdotally, you must realize that. Yes, everything they experience fro 5 to 8 influences the type of person they will become. So does everything that happens from 8 onward. Kids develop their personalities well into their 20s.

Most kids can't even process the world around them at age 2, or retain memories from that period of their life.

It's possible we have had this discussion, but I don't remember it.  I'm not really talking about a study, although I'm sure I've read something about this.  I'm talking more about not just my experience as a parent, but following kids I've known and mentored for years.  A person's personality and character does not change much after about age 8.  That's been my experience.  That's what I believe.  Those early years of a child's life are just crucial. 

I'm not saying kids don't continue to grow, develop, etc. after about age 8.  Of course they do.  But the essence of who a person will be, their character, and personality are pretty much set by that age.     

[Dos Equis]

Based on the mother's actions, she's likely bi-sexual.

But don't you agree that homosexual activists say people are born gay and "once gay, always gay"? 

[Al Doggity]

It's possible we have had this discussion, but I don't remember it.  I'm not really talking about a study, although I'm sure I've read something about this.  I'm talking more about not just my experience as a parent, but following kids I've known and mentored for years.  A person's personality and character does not change much after about age 8.  That's been my experience.  That's what I believe.  Those early years of a child's life are just crucial. 

I'm not saying kids don't continue to grow, develop, etc. after about age 8.  Of course they do.  But the essence of who a person will be, their character, and personality are pretty much set by that age.     

I don't agree with this. Regardless, the 2 year old is two young to be confused or in pain as a result of his mother's flipflopping sexuality.

[Al Doggity]

But don't you agree that homosexual activists say people are born gay and "once gay, always gay"? 

If she is bisexual, would that phrase be meant to apply to her?

You yourself made a post questioning her commitment to heterosexuality. Who's to say she doesn't still have strong gay feelings? "Always gay" doesn't mean "always a practicing gay".

[Dos Equis]

If she is bisexual, would that phrase be meant to apply to her?

You yourself made a post questioning her commitment to heterosexuality. Who's to say she doesn't still have strong gay feelings? "Always gay" doesn't mean "always a practicing gay".

McWay pointed out that the fact this woman was heterosexual, lesbian, and is now heterosexual again conflicts with the "once gay, always gay" belief.  Nothing more complicated than that.

She might have lesbians thoughts, etc. and she will always have the choice to return to that lifestyle.  What that does is support the belief that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. 

[Al Doggity]

If she still has lesbian thoughts, then she's still a lesbian.

[Dos Equis]

Uh.  No. 

[Al Doggity]

Uh, yeah.

[OzmO]

But don't you agree that homosexual activists say people are born gay and "once gay, always gay"? 

There's homosexual, there's heterosexual, and there's bi-sexual.  It's a basic distinction.  

A homosexual activist saying once gay always gay is likely referring to homosexuality.  

If she's with a man now, she's still attracted to women.  Doesn't mean she'll act on it and violate her marriage. 

[24KT]

McWay pointed out that the fact this woman was heterosexual, lesbian, and is now heterosexual again conflicts with the "once gay, always gay" belief.  Nothing more complicated than that.

How so, ...especially if the woman in question wasn't gay to begin with, ...but was bi-sexual?

She might have lesbians thoughts, etc. and she will always have the choice to return to that lifestyle.  What that does is support the belief that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. 

Nah, ...it's like any other relationship. If it's not working with your partner, ...you'll turn to someone else.
The only difference is this woman has a wider circle of potential partners to choose from.
In her case, I doubt it's a case of "I wanna be lesbian this week", but more a case of I'm attracted to this person who happens to be a [insert sex here]

[Dos Equis]

There's homosexual, there's heterosexual, and there's bi-sexual.  It's a basic distinction.  

A homosexual activist saying once gay always gay is likely referring to homosexuality.  

If she's with a man now, she's still attracted to women.  Doesn't mean she'll act on it and violate her marriage. 

Is a little more complicated than that.  There is also "transgendered" and "gender identity," which is whatever gender you think you are on whatever day you think it.

[Dos Equis]

How so, ...especially if the woman in question wasn't gay to begin with, ...but was bi-sexual?

Nah, ...it's like any other relationship. If it's not working with your partner, ...you'll turn to someone else.
The only difference is this woman has a wider circle of potential partners to choose from.
In her case, I doubt it's a case of "I wanna be lesbian this week", but more a case of I'm attracted to this person who happens to be a [insert sex here]

She wasn't bisexual.  She was lesbian.  And now she's not. 

[OzmO]

McWay pointed out that the fact this woman was heterosexual, lesbian, and is now heterosexual again conflicts with the "once gay, always gay" belief.  Nothing more complicated than that.

She might have lesbians thoughts, etc. and she will always have the choice to return to that lifestyle.  What that does is support the belief that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. 

What McWay and yourself are demonstrating is what initially said which is a lack of understanding.  It doesn't conflict because they are 2 different things.

Is a little more complicated than that.  There is also "transgendered" and "gender identity," which is whatever gender you think you are on whatever day you think it.

No it's not complicated at all.  She's likely bisexual.  End of story.

She wasn't bisexual.  She was lesbian.  And now she's not. 

She's been incorrectly labeled by another person who shows a lack of understanding.  It's not a 2 variable issue BB.  There's a third.

[24KT]

There's homosexual, there's heterosexual, and there's bi-sexual.  It's a basic distinction.

I've known gay people who say "They'd never get involved with a bi-sexual, it's just asking for trouble."
When you ask why... the response is always something to the effect of "I could never trust them". It never made any sense to me, cause I figure if someone is going to cheat, they'll do so regardless of whether they are gay, straight, or bi. Then I realized it's just that insecurity thing that they might on occasion crave something their partner could not give them. 

A homosexual activist saying once gay always gay is likely referring to homosexuality.

I think that really boils down to how one defines gay doesn't it?
 

If she's with a man now, she's still attracted to women.  Doesn't mean she'll act on it and violate her marriage. 

I think that all depends on how nicely her husband asks, ...and how persuasive he is, doesn't it?