They Had Two Mommies in 1923

[MSimon]

“We feel very much like a family and some times wonder whether we are going to live through it,” she wrote in 1923. It was not uncommon then for lesbian couples, especially social workers, to adopt children.

http://mag.uchicago.edu/education-socia ... d-her-time

[Diogenes]

“We feel very much like a family and some times wonder whether we are going to live through it,” she wrote in 1923. It was not uncommon then for lesbian couples, especially social workers, to adopt children.

http://mag.uchicago.edu/education-socia ... d-her-time

I don't think it was your intent to propagate a hateful smear against people now deceased, but that appears to be the result of your effort at flippancy here.

I read the article. No where does it offer any proof that Jessie Taft and Virginia Robinson were homosexual. It claims so, but a quick google search revealed various articles about Jessie Taft which did not allege that they were "Lesbians."As a matter of fact, I ran across this little tidbit which appears to argue the exact opposite.

According to a 1918 survey by Katherine Bemet Davis, 50 percent of the unmarried and 30 percent of the married women admitted to having intense emotional relationships with women. Yet the women involved were probably not lesbians in the full sense of the term as is understood now and would probably be shocked to learn that today they would be thought of as homosexual.

As Jessie Taft said in her 1916 book The Women's Movement, "Everywhere we find the unmarried woman turning to other women, building up with them a real home, finding in them the sympathy and understanding, the bonds of similar standards and values, as well as the same aesthetic and intellectual interests, that are often difficult of realization in a husband, especially here in America where business crowds out culture."

It appears to me that this accusation is just another in a long series of accusations made by people attempting to promote a perception that homosexual behavior was considered normal and acceptable throughout history.

And you have repeated their propaganda without researching the truth for yourself.Here is an example of how you have already helped to spread this apparent lie.Thanks to your efforts, It will likely be cited in the future as "proof" that these women were lesbians, and further demean their character.

[Teahive]

Only if you think that homosexuality is somehow demeaning.

But in the given context sexuality is irrelevant. What matters is that there were same-sex couples adopting and raising children, something which is typically the domain of opposite-sex couples.

[Diogenes]

Only if you think that homosexuality is somehow demeaning.

The notion that it isn't is only a recent socially engineered development. For the vast bulk of this nation's history homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness. It was only "officially" changed in 1973 by the action of the American Psychiatrists Association, under threats and duress from activists groups such as "Queer Nation" and others. They would mass outside the meetings, and threaten retaliation against the individual doctors if they didn't vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses.

During the era in question, 1920s-, an accusation of homosexuality was a serious charge. It could have landed them in the docket, and possibly prison or an asylum. Even today, the accusation is considered derogatory by such social luminaries as Jerry Seinfeld, who made the implied derogatory nature of it a running joke throughout his series. Everyone knew he was implying that it was abnormal when he used the phrase "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

But in the given context sexuality is irrelevant. What matters is that there were same-sex couples adopting and raising children, something which is typically the domain of opposite-sex couples.

The section MSimon quoted was regarding LESBIANISM. That makes it the focus of the discussion, and intentionally so. You may or may not be aware that various homosexuality advocates have long made a habit of searching through history looking for people whom they can some how plausibly claim were homosexual, just so they can argue for the normalcy of the practice.

They have claimed everyone from Jesus to Marlon Brando was homosexual, often with little or no basis for such a claim, but propagandists don't really concern themselves much with what is true. It is not a respectable practice to help them spread their propaganda.

Again, either show some proof that they were homosexual or don't make the claim.

[Teahive]

Only if you think that homosexuality is somehow demeaning.

The notion that it isn't is only a recent socially engineered development.

It's also a notion that seems to be spreading, maybe as more and more people realize there's simply nothing to be ashamed of.

But in the given context sexuality is irrelevant. What matters is that there were same-sex couples adopting and raising children, something which is typically the domain of opposite-sex couples.

The section MSimon quoted was regarding LESBIANISM. That makes it the focus of the discussion, and intentionally so.

You can read it that way if you like and focus on it.

On the other hand, I think the sexuality aspect is mostly a distraction like it is in discussions about "gay marriage".

[Diogenes]

Only if you think that homosexuality is somehow demeaning.

The notion that it isn't is only a recent socially engineered development.

It's also a notion that seems to be spreading, maybe as more and more people realize there's simply nothing to be ashamed of.

They are "realizing" a fact not in evidence. There is a REASON why this is a recent phenomena. Prosperity and Medical science has made it possible for these people to exist without becoming the focus of Societies wrath. Also, their supporters (actors) have gone from being the equivalent of hucksters and troublemakers (A Century ago Actors were considered to be low class people only fit to associate with prostitutes and gamblers.) to being capable of wielding great wealth and influence.

They didn't change as people, they changed regarding their ability to promulgate their ideas. The invention of film and television allowed actors to get paid by audiences of millions rather than hundreds such as they would have obtained in live performances in theaters.

They have taken it upon themselves to sculpt public opinion on this issue, and they have made effective efforts to convince people that it's normal. They will enjoy some success in this effort for awhile, but unless they come up with a workaround patch for the laws of nature, I suspect this success will be short lived.

Social laws of reality are just like financial laws of reality. You can muck around with them for awhile, but eventually the piper must be paid.

But in the given context sexuality is irrelevant. What matters is that there were same-sex couples adopting and raising children, something which is typically the domain of opposite-sex couples.

The section MSimon quoted was regarding LESBIANISM. That makes it the focus of the discussion, and intentionally so.

You can read it that way if you like and focus on it.

Was there any other purpose to mentioning it? Had it not been included, the article wouldn't have been of any interest at all.

On the other hand, I think the sexuality aspect is mostly a distraction like it is in discussions about "gay marriage".

People who do not like defending their position, always find it to be a distraction when you point out their fallacies.

By the way, there is a new study out regarding children of same sex couples. Apparently sexual molestation of the children occur at a rate ten times higher than for Normal families.

Given that homosexuals make up 2% of the population, that makes the differential all the more egregious.

[kcdodd]

First, he took adults who said one or more of their parents had any homosexual relationships. And compared that to adults who spend their entire childhood with married heterosexual parents who stayed together. Ok, so the hell what! If you are going to make this study AT ALL, compare adults who spent their entire childhood with married homosexual parents who stayed together! Otherwise this is a farce! The most likely implication of this study, given the historical timeline, is to target adults who are the product of "heterosexual" marriages which then fell apart. NOT the result of a homosexual "marriage"! If you bothered to use your brain you could understand this.

Second, Mark Regnerus himself states as much, saying that the study really says nothing about what factor homosexuality even played! He freely admits that the social dynamic at the time these adults where children were much different than now. If anything, the conclusion of this study should be that essentially forcing people into "heterosexual marriages" as the norm is incredibly destructive for those cases where at least one parent is not heterosexual!

Third, your inference that a gay parent is somehow responsible for sexual abuse is completely of YOUR OWN MAKING. That was not a conclusion of the study, and the fact that you made the connection is on YOU. The study asked only in general terms if they had been the target of sexual abuse from anyone. The fact is it could just as well, in the case of divorced couples with one homosexual parent, have come from the remaining heterosexual home-life! Which could itself be a "one mom one dad" family with a stepparent. Especially since it seems most likely they would be the ones to retain custody. It could still even be the result of any sexual abuse at any point from anyone, even outside the home.

Further, he admits that allowing gay marriage could completely change the trend! Which is obvious if you even think for two seconds about why these families may have been dysfunctional to begin with.

[Teahive]

It's also a notion that seems to be spreading, maybe as more and more people realize there's simply nothing to be ashamed of.

They are "realizing" a fact not in evidence. There is a REASON why this is a recent phenomena. Prosperity and Medical science has made it possible for these people to exist without becoming the focus of Societies wrath.

Prosperity and medical science have made it possible for many people to live well past 80. So what? Shouldn't they?

What's the point of feeling anger towards homosexuals?

They have taken it upon themselves to sculpt public opinion on this issue, and they have made effective efforts to convince people that it's normal. They will enjoy some success in this effort for awhile, but unless they come up with a workaround patch for the laws of nature, I suspect this success will be short lived.

Given that evolution has not eliminated homosexuality thus far, I see little reason to believe that it violates the laws of nature in any way.

By the way, there is a new study out regarding children of same sex couples. Apparently sexual molestation of the children occur at a rate ten times higher than for Normal families.

How about a like-for-like comparison? The author of the article admits that this study isn't that.

[ladajo]

Given that evolution has not eliminated homosexuality thus far, I see little reason to believe that it violates the laws of nature in any way.

You really typed that?

Explain to me how a homosexual couple can procreate naturally?

[palladin9479]

Given that evolution has not eliminated homosexuality thus far, I see little reason to believe that it violates the laws of nature in any way.

You really typed that?

Explain to me how a homosexual couple can procreate naturally?

Yeah I never bought into people being born homosexual, it violates everything evolution has taught us. It's a learned behavior / personal choice, and there is nothing wrong with that. I really hate how whenever there is something unexplainable to a person people like to fall back on "their just born that way", like it's some sort of excuse.

[krenshala]

Given that evolution has not eliminated homosexuality thus far, I see little reason to believe that it violates the laws of nature in any way.

You really typed that?

Explain to me how a homosexual couple can procreate naturally?

Yeah I never bought into people being born homosexual, it violates everything evolution has taught us. It's a learned behavior / personal choice, and there is nothing wrong with that. I really hate how whenever there is something unexplainable to a person people like to fall back on "their just born that way", like it's some sort of excuse.

Personally, I think its a bit of both, since I have seen a number of references to about 10% of mammals being, or at least acting in a way considered, homosexual. The ones I know of for sure have been been reported: humans, chimps, apes, monkeys, wolves, dolphins, orca.

[ladajo]

And how do they procreate when coupled?

[rjaypeters]

They don't. But, there might be an advantage to having male gay relatives:

"Put differently, why haven't gay man genes driven themselves extinct?

This longstanding question is finally being answered by new and ongoing research. For several years, studies led by Andrea Camperio Ciani at the University of Padova in Italy and others have found that mothers and maternal aunts of gay men tend to have significantly more offspring than the maternal relatives of straight men. The results show strong support for the "balancing selection hypothesis," which is fast becoming the accepted theory of the genetic basis of male homosexuality.

The theory holds that the same genetic factors that induce gayness in males also promote fecundity (high reproductive success) in those males' female maternal relatives. Through this trade-off, the maternal relatives' "gay man genes," though they aren't expressed as such, tend to get passed to future generations in spite of their tendency to make their male inheritors gay."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/1 ... 90501.html

[Diogenes]

They don't. But, there might be an advantage to having male gay relatives:

"Put differently, why haven't gay man genes driven themselves extinct?

This longstanding question is finally being answered by new and ongoing research. For several years, studies led by Andrea Camperio Ciani at the University of Padova in Italy and others have found that mothers and maternal aunts of gay men tend to have significantly more offspring than the maternal relatives of straight men. The results show strong support for the "balancing selection hypothesis," which is fast becoming the accepted theory of the genetic basis of male homosexuality.

The theory holds that the same genetic factors that induce gayness in males also promote fecundity (high reproductive success) in those males' female maternal relatives. Through this trade-off, the maternal relatives' "gay man genes," though they aren't expressed as such, tend to get passed to future generations in spite of their tendency to make their male inheritors gay."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/1 ... 90501.html

This has been a popular theory, the notion that some genes are "dual-use" producing detrimental effects in males, but more than make up for the losses in the females. Even so, it appears that environmental factors play a part. Various studies indicate that an excessively high percentage of Male Homosexuals had been molested by other males when they were children.

[Diogenes]

You really typed that?

Explain to me how a homosexual couple can procreate naturally?

Yeah I never bought into people being born homosexual, it violates everything evolution has taught us. It's a learned behavior / personal choice, and there is nothing wrong with that. I really hate how whenever there is something unexplainable to a person people like to fall back on "their just born that way", like it's some sort of excuse.

Personally, I think its a bit of both, since I have seen a number of references to about 10% of mammals being, or at least acting in a way considered, homosexual. The ones I know of for sure have been been reported: humans, chimps, apes, monkeys, wolves, dolphins, orca.

Bear in mind that there are homosexual activists making efforts to skew a lot of biological and historical data towards supporting Homosexuality as being a natural phenomena. They misreport and misconstrue information so as to produce a more benign appearance for their cause.

For example, they claim that some birds are lesbian because they nest together. They claim that Bulls are homosexual because they will mount other bulls. Same thing with Bonobo apes.

They also claim many historical figures were homosexual, usually based on evidence which is at best flimsy, just as they did in the article at the top of this thread. This is a subject that I have kept up with for several decades, and my understanding is that the best estimates on homosexuality among the population run around 2%. Of course judging by the media's efforts to portray the behavior as normal, the public is suffering from an illusion that Homosexuality may be as high as 25%.