Gay and Lesbians.... should you be charged with child molestation

[Tock]

dude maybe we should just drop this stuff, since like it might get a little hostile and just stop it before it gets any worse, cause i know if i post what i feel about homosexuality ill get banned, and i know they cant help it so i feel bad in a way but i dont but i think we should just let this thread die guys.

Haven't seen any hostility, or even any beginnings of hostility. Just a lively and direct give-and-take.
Some folks prefer to avoid disagreement, and that's fine, but other folks consider a healthy discussion of differing points of view to be a good thing.
As the philosophical sage wrote, "It is better to debate an issue without settling it than to settle an issue without debating it." Yah, as recent news stories have shown, the Bush administration didn't have a healthy enough debate over CIA and Iraqi issues, and it got us into an unnecessary war that got a bunch of American soldiers killed and worsened terrorism.
So, IMHO, it's best we continue on with this thread rather than cease discussion on the issues. There's really no reason to quit; no one is getting upset, as far as I can tell.

[einstein1905]

Haven't seen any hostility, or even any beginnings of hostility. Just a lively and direct give-and-take.
Some folks prefer to avoid disagreement, and that's fine, but other folks consider a healthy discussion of differing points of view to be a good thing.
As the philosophical sage wrote, "It is better to debate an issue without settling it than to settle an issue without debating it." Yah, as recent news stories have shown, the Bush administration didn't have a healthy enough debate over CIA and Iraqi issues, and it got us into an unnecessary war that got a bunch of American soldiers killed and worsened terrorism.
So, IMHO, it's best we continue on with this thread rather than cease discussion on the issues. There's really no reason to quit; no one is getting upset, as far as I can tell.

I agree.....and disagree. The thread should not die, and it certainly should be debated further.

I disagree with the idea that nobody is getting upset. It's clear that people are getting upset, trying to rationalize their "beliefs" with reality......the two don't agree, so that can surely be upsetting.

Summary of recent homosexuality threads:


Homosexuality is a choice and it's wrong.

Numerous reasons/explanations to clearly show that it is NOT a choice,,,,although actions are

OK, fine. Maybe it's not a choice, but it's still wrong

Why is it wrong then?

We should just end this thread

[worldknown]

dude i dont have to explain why its wrong, im not trying to say your right by ending this convo i just dont want to get in a fight over this. I want to end this thread so i dont get pissed and maybe you dont change your opinions about me, thats why you should leave stuff like this on the side. and im not going to explain why some guy sticking his penis into some other guys ass is wrong its self-explainatory.

[einstein1905]

dude i dont have to explain why its wrong, im not trying to say your right by ending this convo i just dont want to get in a fight over this. I want to end this thread so i dont get pissed and maybe you dont change your opinions about me, thats why you should leave stuff like this on the side. and im not going to explain why some guy sticking his penis into some other guys ass is wrong its self-explainatory.

Does it get me going sexually? No. Does that mean it's wrong? Hell no. Oral sex is just as "wrong"; there's no functional purpose there.
You said it yourself, that "they" can't help it......why then is it wrong? It's not "catchy". It affects nothing in ED life and is merely confined to the bedroom or anywhere else that heterosexual people are allowed to express their love/lust.
The only issue with it is when people adopt a mindset that says it's "wrong".
Nobody can actually explain why it's "wrong". Selective citation of the Bible brings about hypocrisy, as you can't condemn homosexuality but then disapprove of all the actions in the Bible that have subsequently been disallowed or deemed unacceptable. You can't argue it's wrong just because it doesn't lead to procreation, or that argument would condemn the vast majority of sexual acts all together..

It IS wrong, if it's against your own desires, but it is in no way wrong if two consenting individuals, both of which share the same desires, decide to act upon their feelings. It's just as wrong as heterosexual sex.

It's difficult to articulate just how it's "wrong" when one's merely been taught that it's "wrong" but not given a reason to explain why

[worldknown]

cuase if those gay marry and decide to raise a kid,t hat kid will be screwed up and i would be money on it, and i wasnt saying you were gay if you were asking that.

like i hope you realize that no matter waht you say will convince me that homosexuality is right and that i shoudl condone it. and i realize that no matter what i say to you will not convince you, so why dont we just like drop it?

[einstein1905]

cuase if those gay marry and decide to raise a kid,t hat kid will be screwed up and i would be money on it, and i wasnt saying you were gay if you were asking that.

This has already been gone over....there is nothing to indicate that a child raised by homosexual parents is anymore maladjusted than any other child....the data are clear on that. The only potential for a child having problems is dealing with others' unacceptance of the situation, dealing with the unfounded prejudices that are rampant in society.

[worldknown]

what do you mean? i think pretty much any kid these days that goes to school will be screwed if other kids in that school know his parents are gay, therefore it will **** him up mentally. like i can guarntee it man, you cant say that they wont grow up like a regular kid getting raised by a mother and a father, cause no one in this world can replace a mother for a father.

[einstein1905]

like i hope you realize that no matter waht you say will convince me that homosexuality is right and that i shoudl condone it. and i realize that no matter what i say to you will not convince you, so why dont we just like drop it?

Because this is the same attitude that made it take so **** long for people of color to be accepted as full citzens....the same exact mentality. Now we can all look back at those dark times and roll our eyes and the ignorant prejudices that were destroying many peoples' lives.
It's a **** shame that people are taught these prejudices, because they surely are not inherent. Once engrained with them though, they are hard to remold, even despite the clearest of rationale against their taught beliefs

[worldknown]

im not racist and i dont think your saying it, but its not as much as the gay people doing their thing as much as them getitng married and adoptign kids and messing up a kids childhood, life and his emotions in the long run.

[einstein1905]

what do you mean? i think pretty much any kid these days that goes to school will be screwed if other kids in that school know his parents are gay, therefore it will **** him up mentally. like i can guarntee it man, you cant say that they wont grow up like a regular kid getting raised by a mother and a father, cause no one in this world can replace a mother for a father.

You're arguing against yourself here. The reason the kid will be "screwed", as you say, would be because of others' unacceptance (which is wrong)....not because the situation itself is wrong, but because the blind prejudices against the situation are wrong. And, yes, studies show that even children raised by homosexual parents are not any worse off than children raised in "normal" families, as if there is such a thing as normal.

[Tock]

being gay is a choice, not a culture, or race or creed,

Um, yes, people are indeed born into culture and race, but isn't subscribing to a particular creed a matter of choice? After all, you could "choose" the Nicene Creed, Apostles, Athanasian, or the Creed of Chalcedon (do you know what any of those are? Or how the beleifs you have evolved down the centuries to these creeds to what you have now?), and it would be a choice. Well, IMHO it would be.
Since folks have the right to choose whatever religious creed they feel best sums up the Bible's message, why shouldn't people have the constitutional right to choose whatever sexual orientation suits them best--and not be discriminated against by government authorities for doing so?

just means you like boys and not girls big deal, drop it and move on. we all really dont care what you guys do

Ya, I know you're an ok guy, and don't really care what folks do. And I appreciate that. But what you wrote (being gay is a choice) is not only contrary to scientist's findings, but is an untruth circulated by religious conservatives as justification for their anti-gay discrimination. Every time they succeed in getting someone who hasn't taken time to examine the facts for themselves (findings of replicated sociological and psychological studies) and instead get them to parrot their own antiquated fictions, it makes it that much more difficult for a % of US citizens to secure the same rights that other citizens take for granted.
So, that's why I nit-pick over terms. Words are important because that's what is used to write laws, and laws govern what happen to people. You're conversing with a fellow who wants only the same rights and responsibilities and obligations as what you have. Before that can happen, folks need to be basing their opinions on fact instead of religious fiction.

That's it . . . I'm pooped . . . As they say at the end of a radio news program, "Thanks for listening . . ."

-Tock

[worldknown]

You're arguing against yourself here. The reason the kid will be "screwed", as you say, would be because of others' unacceptance (which is wrong)....not because the situation itself is wrong, but because the blind prejudices against the situation are wrong. And, yes, studies show that even children raised by homosexual parents are not any worse off than children raised in "normal" families, as if there is such a thing as normal.

i would really like to see these studies, i dont know the last time you were in school but i can bet dollars to donuts that a kid would grow up depressed or something that he might feel ashamed on and it might screw him up. it might be wrong what i think, but good luck convincing the the rest of the world about gay pride.

[einstein1905]

what do you mean? i think pretty much any kid these days that goes to school will be screwed if other kids in that school know his parents are gay, therefore it will **** him up mentally. like i can guarntee it man, you cant say that they wont grow up like a regular kid getting raised by a mother and a father, cause no one in this world can replace a mother for a father.

When the first black children were integrated into white schools, they were verbally and physically abused to no end. Was it because being black was "wrong"? No, it was because the blind prejudices of the other children were wrong. We've made great strides with respect to racial integration, but now an identical situation exists with homosexuality and the blind prejudices surrounding it.

[worldknown]

When the first black children were integrated into white schools, they were verbally and physically abused to no end. Was it because being black was "wrong"? No, it was because the blind prejudices of the other children were wrong. We've made great strides with respect to racial integration, but now an identical situation exists with homosexuality and the blind prejudices surrounding it.

your takinga bout black children , im talkikng about GAY ADULTs raising STRAIGHT CHILDREN and when they realize and rumors keep spreading that their parents are gay and he is told by his friends how bad it is hes not only going to look at his parnets differently, hes going to look at himself lower than everyone else cuase he has gay parents man. you cant defend it

[einstein1905]

i would really like to see these studies, i dont know the last time you were in school but i can bet dollars to donuts that a kid would grow up depressed or something that he might feel ashamed on and it might screw him up. it might be wrong what i think, but good luck convincing the the rest of the world about gay pride.

Read through the recent homosexual threads....the studies are cited. Again, you're missing the point. The reason gay children or kids with gay parents are theoretically abused is because of the unacceptance of the other kids.....that's the problem. When is verbal and pkysical abuse justified? The reason the "other" kids have these blind prejudices is because they are taught them.


There is no gay pride, as it's not a choice, and one can't be proud of something that is not their own doing. There should also be no gay shame, as their nature is not their own doing. It is simply yet another variation of the human race

[worldknown]

Read through the recent homosexual threads....the studies are cited. Again, you're missing the point. The reason gay children or kids with gay parents are theoretically abused is because of the unacceptance of the other kids.....that's the problem. When is verbal and pkysical abuse justified? The reason the "other" kids have these blind prejudices is because they are taught them.


There is no gay pride, as it's not a choice, and one can't be proud of something that is not their own doing. There should also be no gay shame, as their nature is not their own doing. It is simply yet another variation of the human race

well have fun convincing the kids of today that being gay is okay, especially with rap and ****, seriously good luck, but its not going to happen.

[einstein1905]

your takinga bout black children , im talkikng about GAY ADULTs raising STRAIGHT CHILDREN and when they realize and rumors keep spreading that their parents are gay and he is told by his friends how bad it is hes not only going to look at his parnets differently, hes going to look at himself lower than everyone else cuase he has gay parents man. you cant defend it

You miss the point yet again!!!!
WHY would his friends say it was "bad"? because they are taught these blind prejudices. Eliminate these ridiculous prejudices in the first place. it's the parents of the children that are teasing who are responsible for the damage here....thos ethat continue to propogate this archaic mentality.

[einstein1905]

well have fun convincing the kids of today that being gay is okay, especially with rap and ****, seriously good luck, but its not going to happen.

It all starts with their parents using their rationale and seeing the world for what it really is.....only then will the children of tomorrow have a different,more accepting mindset

[worldknown]

dude you thikn the parents know that their kid is calling another kid gay? are they there at school everday? the kid just doesnt say it around his parents? its like look, i cuss infront of my friends not to be cool, but i have a habit, but when im with my parents i try and keep it on the dl and just out of respect for my parents i dont say it. now im not saying i dont have respect for my friends but its a different type of respect.

[Tock]

i would really like to see these studies, i dont know the last time you were in school but i can bet dollars to donuts that a kid would grow up depressed or something that he might feel ashamed on and it might screw him up. it might be wrong what i think, but good luck convincing the the rest of the world about gay pride.

Try this for a quick summation of what's available, with a few references:
http://www.colage.org/research/index.html
Aside from that, there's experience from the thousands of folks in PFLAG
http://www.pflag.org/
In essence, what's usually considered in custody cases is whether or not a kid's sexual orientation will be "adversely" affected by being around homosexuals. Studies show that doesn't happen. And so what if it did? Psychological studies of gays and lesbians time after time show that the only difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is their sexual orientation. Intelligence is identical, patriotism is the same, weirdness, drug abuse levels, religious devotion, athletic ability, etc etc, are all the same. There is one thing that IS different--the crap that some heterosexuals dump on gays and lesbians; the rights denied to gays and lesbians; the abuse they get from heterosexuals. Of course the abuse & etc will negatively affect them, but that is the fault of heterosexuals, and is NOT inherent to a homosexual orientation.

So if a gay kid grows up depressed, it's probably because of all the crap straights dumped on him. Back off, and he'll be just fine.

-Tock

[einstein1905]

dude you thikn the parents know that their kid is calling another kid gay? are they there at school everday? the kid just doesnt say it around his parents? its like look, i cuss infront of my friends not to be cool, but i have a habit, but when im with my parents i try and keep it on the dl and just out of respect for my parents i dont say it. now im not saying i dont have respect for my friends but its a different type of respect.

People don't have inherent prejudices....they ar elearned. When a child hears (and they pick up on every subtlety) references or anti-gay remarks, they ingest this and foster these ideals. I'm not talking about parents punishing children for teasing children of homosexuals....I'm talking about parents not teaching these ideals (directly or tacitly) in the first place. Your children (if you decide to have any) are the very children we're talking about.....they will adopt your anti-gay sentiment, no matter how unfounded it may be. Someone will be debating with them in the very same way we're going back and forth, and they won't hav eanymore answers than you do......they'll hav eto fall back on the same arguments......"gays and children of gays will get teased". It's a very clear cycle

[worldknown]

my parents never one spoke to me about homosexuality so i dont know what your talking about, convincing hte kids that its right is the first part but its not gonna happen, and im not gonna tell my kids its okay to be gay.

[BASK8KACE]

let me further explain.............

The school takes the official stand that there are children in society that will never get the sexual education from thier parents... thus the school is stepping in and doing so..... to the school's standards...
example... to 9 year old girls.... todays leason.. how to apply a condom to a penis, pick up your bananas and open the condom on your desk, roll the condom over the banana... this is how we stop you from getting pregnant..

sound out of line???

Been going on here starting with my kids classes... they are 21 and 23 now..

Regarding gay/straight etcetera and telling a child about sexual orientation and sex:
There's a certain age that a child should start to be exposed to differences. This age should be determined by the parents. However, since there are so many horribly, misguided and incapable parents in the USA, GOOD schools feel a responsibility to fill in the LARGE GAPS left by thousands of miserably bad parents. You have every right to fight against that with which you disagree. But, I think you should look to your neighbor's irresponsibility (and lack of parenting skills) as the cause of the decisions being made at the schools rather than blame the schools' and teachers' ernest desire to provide children with a well-rounded education.

Teachers and schools have been backed into a corner: too many parents expect teachers to do all the work of parenting then they scream at the teachers and schools for making blanket decisions on how to parent/educate their kids when it doesn't follow some religious or personal opionon--usually it's the good parents that get caught in the crossfire between the teachers/schools and the lazy, inept parents who don't give a **** about real parenting skills.

There are many good parents out there, but it seems more and more, the majority of parents are overworked and have just about no time to spend with their kids. The rich, overworked buy a nanny to bring up the kids or shove them off to boarding school and expect them to come out okay. The lower middle class and poor overworked shove the kids off to school and expect the teachers to parent their kids. Then both kinds of parents are the first to whine when their kids cuss back at them or disrespect them or break the law.

There are too many parents that AVOID parenting. We've all seen the kid in the store or the restaurant that has ABSOLUTE control over his/her parents at 5 or 6 years old. The parents of today seem incredibly self-involved and do not seem willing or able to discipline their kids. These inept parents bribe thier kids to shut up, they avoid difficult conversations, they plead (weakly) with thier kids, they try to be a pal to thier kids....but they don't PARENT or DISCIPLINE the kids.

Why do the schools get involved in decisions that should be made by parents? Why is goverment ever more involved in how we treat our kids? Because the lack of parenting skills of many American parents are turning out kids that are pulling this nation down--slowly destroying it with ignorance and violence. Who do you think is most keenly is aware of this degeneration of America? Our teachers.

[abstrack]

Anytime a teacher says the phrase, "My wife" or "My husband" or even "My children," they infer they are heterosexual. So, if everyone is going to conceal their sexual orientation, teachers should no longer be allowed to use those phrases.

Which is pretty silly . . .

I think we all can agree that teachers shouldn't tell students they are doing something that is illegal (drugs, adultery, 'roids, etc). And there's no need to go into graphic details of some things that are legal, like any sort of sexual copulation. But, legally speaking, you would need grounds upon which to issue a rule that allows straights to reveal their sexual orientation while penalizing gays who do the same. And since homosexuality is no longer illegal, finding those legal grounds is gonna be pretty tough.

So . . . if you're upset that your kids know which teacher is gay and which isn't, then you may as well get over it . . . kids don't really care anyway, at least not until they pick up their parent's unreasoned prejudice and bitter hatred of gays. And they're gonna discover, sooner or later, that the world is populated with not only gays and lesbians, but a wide spectrum of unusual sexual proclivities, some of which they themselves probably would enjoy. They may as well learn early that they don't have to feel guilt over sexual activities their preacher says is sinful.

So, ya, in other words, get over it. Homosexuality ain't illegal, and there's nothing inappropriate with gays talking about their relationships to the same extent that straights do.

--Tock

finally some words of wisdom have entered the room. I figured the topic was going to head straight south from the get go.

[abstrack]

I agree, all these things are important and essential for a more functional society. All the things you mention are adult problems too, with the possible exception of being killed for this obviously means violence and this can be seen at younger ages. This being the case, don't you think it proves that this problem really not need to be considered by adolescents and minors, leave children to be children, they don't need to grow up any quicker than they already try to.

I was in a funeral yesterday and the vicar giving the sermon (a woman), said a few words that made me think of these discussions on AR. It went something like "When we are children we think like children, reason like children, play like children, understand like children and do childish things. It is not until we develop and become adults that we stop being children."

It was far better than what I have managed to remember, and really made me think that the viewpoint I hold and points I have put across in these threads is true and correct. Even though it was a religious ceremony that which was said that was appropriate to this topic was without reference to the bible, god, faith or belief, it was simply a stated fact.

You've got to stop denying the facts of life, and accept that some things should not be tampered with, childhood being one of them!

actually the bible passage you quoted is more along the lines as being directed to men. " When I was a child i played as a child, thought like a child but when I became a man I put my childish ways behind me" Saying to men that they need to grow up and be man and not act like they did when they were children. I cant remember the exact passage but the phrase you qouted from that lady is off.

[abstrack]

Children's minds are the most flexible, accepting minds there are. The best time for a person to see and accept life (the world) for what it is is as a child. Why shelter them from reality only to then throw a burdensome load of "here's how life really is" when the reach maturity? Children have no biases or prejudices. You don't have to explain the gory details of things....just the mere concepts. By denying children exposure to many situations, you're instilling in them a bias (by default). if they aren't exposed to the variety that makes up this world, their worldview will be extremely limited, and anything that doesn't fit will be difficult to accept. However, an upbringing that exposes a child to the world as it is, in all its various forms, will provide for a much more open-minded, accepting adult

AMEN!

[abstrack]

Think what you want, this is what makes the world go round.

yeah thats great

here's a web site for you and your family

www.whitechildren.com

[abstrack]

being gay isnt a social class or subculture, just a decision, i hate tons of ppl based on decision they make..lol i have no quams with gay ppl, i think anyone tellin children about any type of sex is wrong.

A decison?? being gay is a decision??

Umm yeah, my sister woke up one day out of her life and said " you know what Mom, I am going to be gay for the rest of my life!" The a few weeks later my brother said to my mom " Mom, I am going to be gay also"

My other sister,brother and myself told our Mom " no worries Mom, Were going to stay straight and thats our final answer!"

[abstrack]

dude i dont have to explain why its wrong, im not trying to say your right by ending this convo i just dont want to get in a fight over this. I want to end this thread so i dont get pissed and maybe you dont change your opinions about me, thats why you should leave stuff like this on the side. and im not going to explain why some guy sticking his penis into some other guys ass is wrong its self-explainatory.

why is it alwasy the guy thing? what about lesbians? is it not wrong for a women to please another women with her mouth? Will you teach you children that it is cool when women do this but bad if men do it?

[Carlos_E]

i would really like to see these studies, i dont know the last time you were in school but i can bet dollars to donuts that a kid would grow up depressed or something that he might feel ashamed on and it might screw him up. it might be wrong what i think, but good luck convincing the the rest of the world about gay pride.

This is from the American Pschological Association.

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

"Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."

[Quake]

Einstein - Explaining complex things like sexual preference to children in the age group we are discussing in order to create a more accepting view to homosexuality is really bad psychological practice. This is not guiding, it is pushing/forcing a child to understand something they don't have the vaguest conception of at that age. I'd seriously think about your viewpoint on that, and don't think of it objectively, consider this from a subjective point of view, remember what you were like at that age. Personally I remember having a g/f at about 8 years of age, but I did not understand the concept of attraction or preference. For someone to explain it to me at that age to any degree might have altered my thinking in such a way that would cause me problems later on in life, problems which may require psychiatric help to remedy. You see it is one thing to talk of inhereting a mental condition such as depression (and your relation to inherent biological defects being the case with homosexuality is a bad one as this leaves a person the opening to argue that homosexualityt is therefore a "condition" which is treatable through medication, i.e. that homosexuality is an illness) but psychological disorders also evolve as effects of peoples personal life experiences. What is being destroyed in trying to explain complex things to a young child is the childs natural progression of discovering life for themselves, something that is very delicate and should be nurtured and protected not smashed down in an attempt to build better foundations for a social groups future.

Also I don't understand how you don't understand that teaching only plays a part in our view of morals of the world. Things are as they are, nature is as it is, we can not change it, we can break it down, mix it up, experiment with it, but we CANNOT change it. Peoples views are largely obtained from their personal empirical experience, and it is these views that hold, sometimes learning someone elses views of the same things will change a persons view, but it is more likely that they will hold true to their own feelings of something and not somebody elses feelings of the same thing. (Obvious application of this is to homosexuality, some homosexuals wouldn't go through the grief they have gone through if their feelings were easily changed by an explanation of someone elses feelings on homosexuality) So enough talk of this "it's only because we are "taught" that it's wrong that we think it's wrong", the teaching is only a notion that might go with what the person feels anyway and thus that teaching becoming a point to be referred to.

Also on the subject of parentage, I think it was Carlos who posted the write up of a study on the other thread, and it stated evidence that children who were brought up by lesbians displayed a more feminine personality or traits (I don't remember the exact wording). This is only one affect of this unbalanced parenting. Personally I believe that many more would exist, and as you would know, given your experience, an experiment is carried out many times (or at least twice) to make sure of the truth of it, as too is social research and psychological research/experiments, although political policies do get passed on the strength of one set of results, whilst in professional circles the strength of one studies results are still held in question.

Others unacceptance you say is wrong, but some people find the idea of homosexuality/lesbianism as physically revolting, just as I have heard that some homosexuals find they feel the same way about heterosexuality, i.e. find it physically revolting. So if unacceptance comes from a persons feelings toward something then if we see it your way it is equally feasible to say that peoples acceptance is also wrong. In a social context unacceptance is socially disfunctional from a functionalist perspective, whilst from a Marxist perspective it might be considered to be the natural order of things.

Tock - I do believe, if memory serves me correctly, that drug abuse amongst gays is recorded as being considerably higher than with homosexuals, I believe a possible reason for this was stated as being that drugs were more freely available in the gay communities as it was considered part of an "alternative" lifestyle, being that it is considered as being an "alternative" in itself. Don't ask me to tell you where I got that from because I read it years ago and have no idea what the book was.

I dug a couple of old books out from Uni and one states that in some circles the growth of "tolerance" of homosexuality and lesbianism "as an alternative to marriage" is already being named as responsible for the disruption of family life, and that a normal family is recognised as being made up of the two "biological" parents and the child/children. (Might be worth looking up an organisation called the "Moral Majority" who are based in the USA (the name says it all)) The same book also describes homosexuality as a "deviant behaviour".

Lesbianism is/was considered as having more drive than homosexuality as it is/was encouraged by feminism. This is not a stereotype, it is a fact!!!! The fire behind this coming from what is/was deemed to be mans view of women in a male dominated world (at the time, not so much these days), i.e. as sexual objects whose role in life has been determined by nature in the fact that they are the child bearers, meaning that the man is the worker with the choice and freedom to do what he likes with his life and the women have one choice with little room for progression.

[Quake]

This is from the American Pschological Association.

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

"Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."

That's the same quote as you put in another thread, and further down it contradicts the part you have posted here by saying that children brought up by lesbian couples exhibit more feminine personalities or characteristics (words to that effect). In a world where we are knocked down for our misgivings more often than given support for the same things, such a thing as a man exhibiting "feminine" traits is a definite disadvantage! Bad study example bro!

[einstein1905]

Einstein - Explaining complex things like sexual preference to children in the age group we are discussing in order to create a more accepting view to homosexuality is really bad psychological practice. This is not guiding, it is pushing/forcing a child to understand something they don't have the vaguest conception of at that age. I'd seriously think about your viewpoint on that, and don't think of it objectively, consider this from a subjective point of view, remember what you were like at that age. Personally I remember having a g/f at about 8 years of age, but I did not understand the concept of attraction or preference. For someone to explain it to me at that age to any degree might have altered my thinking in such a way that would cause me problems later on in life, problems which may require psychiatric help to remedy. You see it is one thing to talk of inhereting a mental condition such as depression (and your relation to inherent biological defects being the case with homosexuality is a bad one as this leaves a person the opening to argue that homosexualityt is therefore a "condition" which is treatable through medication, i.e. that homosexuality is an illness) but psychological disorders also evolve as effects of peoples personal life experiences. What is being destroyed in trying to explain complex things to a young child is the childs natural progression of discovering life for themselves, something that is very delicate and should be nurtured and protected not smashed down in an attempt to build better foundations for a social groups future.

Also I don't understand how you don't understand that teaching only plays a part in our view of morals of the world. Things are as they are, nature is as it is, we can not change it, we can break it down, mix it up, experiment with it, but we CANNOT change it. Peoples views are largely obtained from their personal empirical experience, and it is these views that hold, sometimes learning someone elses views of the same things will change a persons view, but it is more likely that they will hold true to their own feelings of something and not somebody elses feelings of the same thing. (Obvious application of this is to homosexuality, some homosexuals wouldn't go through the grief they have gone through if their feelings were easily changed by an explanation of someone elses feelings on homosexuality) So enough talk of this "it's only because we are "taught" that it's wrong that we think it's wrong", the teaching is only a notion that might go with what the person feels anyway and thus that teaching becoming a point to be referred to.

Also on the subject of parentage, I think it was Carlos who posted the write up of a study on the other thread, and it stated evidence that children who were brought up by lesbians displayed a more feminine personality or traits (I don't remember the exact wording). This is only one affect of this unbalanced parenting. Personally I believe that many more would exist, and as you would know, given your experience, an experiment is carried out many times (or at least twice) to make sure of the truth of it, as too is social research and psychological research/experiments, although political policies do get passed on the strength of one set of results, whilst in professional circles the strength of one studies results are still held in question.

Others unacceptance you say is wrong, but some people find the idea of homosexuality/lesbianism as physically revolting, just as I have heard that some homosexuals find they feel the same way about heterosexuality, i.e. find it physically revolting. So if unacceptance comes from a persons feelings toward something then if we see it your way it is equally feasible to say that peoples acceptance is also wrong. In a social context unacceptance is socially disfunctional from a functionalist perspective, whilst from a Marxist perspective it might be considered to be the natural order of things.

Tock - I do believe, if memory serves me correctly, that drug abuse amongst gays is recorded as being considerably higher than with homosexuals, I believe a possible reason for this was stated as being that drugs were more freely available in the gay communities as it was considered part of an "alternative" lifestyle, being that it is considered as being an "alternative" in itself. Don't ask me to tell you where I got that from because I read it years ago and have no idea what the book was.

I dug a couple of old books out from Uni and one states that in some circles the growth of "tolerance" of homosexuality and lesbianism "as an alternative to marriage" is already being named as responsible for the disruption of family life, and that a normal family is recognised as being made up of the two "biological" parents and the child/children. (Might be worth looking up an organisation called the "Moral Majority" who are based in the USA (the name says it all)) The same book also describes homosexuality as a "deviant behaviour".

Lesbianism is/was considered as having more drive than homosexuality as it is/was encouraged by feminism. This is not a stereotype, it is a fact!!!! The fire behind this coming from what is/was deemed to be mans view of women in a male dominated world (at the time, not so much these days), i.e. as sexual objects whose role in life has been determined by nature in the fact that they are the child bearers, meaning that the man is the worker with the choice and freedom to do what he likes with his life and the women have one choice with little room for progression.

Homosexuality is a "condition" akin to depression, as both have been given negative connotations. Depression isn't scientific, really. it's merely a natural phenomenon that allows one to see the world from a different perspective, a more real perspective IMO and not such a rose-colored glasses perspective. The fact that what we call depression is also correlated with neurotransmitter irregularities is just indicative of it being a natural phenomenon, just one that's relatively rare. Too often is this "condition" diagnosed and attempted to be "treated", as if anything outside the bell-shaped curve is wrong and must be adjusted to fit the mold of societal norms. Homosexuality too is an abnormality in terms of frequency and could very likely be "treated" once the genetic predispositions are elucidated. many physiological 'conditions" can be treated as eveidenced by AAS use, liposuction, hair dye, etc. What we deem to be a flaw or just a normal variation in nature depends on society's collective view of things.


You don't give nearly enough credit to learned morality. The collective ideology of 100 years ago was that blacks were not equal to whites. Now the collective ideology has drastically shifted.....this was all the result of abandoning and changing learned morality.......it has nothing to do with the inherent value of a person of African descent. The "learning" is most often tacit and not explicit, but that's just as potent.


I in no way advocate explaining sexual intricacies to young children, but teaching them the very idea of relationships means teaching them that the world is not black and white, and that there are many variations of relationships. By just teaching man-woman relationships, you are tacitly molding their worldview so that they are not prepared to deal with anything but man-woman relationships. However, by letting them know that variations do (and always will) exist, you're giving them a much more flexible worldview, which sets the table for acceptance

[Carlos_E]

That's the same quote as you put in another thread, and further down it contradicts the part you have posted here by saying that children brought up by lesbian couples exhibit more feminine personalities or characteristics (words to that effect). In a world where we are knocked down for our misgivings more often than given support for the same things, such a thing as a man exhibiting "feminine" traits is a definite disadvantage! Bad study example bro!

"Gender-Role Behavior. A number of studies have examined gender-role behavior among the offspring of lesbian mothers (Golombok et al., 1983; Gottman, 1990; Green, 1978; Hoeffer, 1981; Kirkpatrick et al., 1981; Patterson, 1994a). These studies reported that such behavior among children of lesbian mothers fell within typical limits for conventional sex roles. For instance, Kirkpatrick and her colleagues (1981) found no differences between children of lesbian versus heterosexual mothers in toy preferences, activities, interests, or occupational choices."

"Lesbian mothers were no more or less likely than heterosexual mothers to report that their children often played with "feminine" toys such as dolls. In both family types, however, children's sex-role behavior was seen as falling within normal limits."

"Rees (1979) administered the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) to 24 adolescents, half of whom had divorced lesbian and half of whom had divorced heterosexual mothers. The BSRI yields scores on masculinity and femininity as independent factors and an androgyny score from the ratio of masculinity to femininity. Children of lesbian and heterosexual mothers did not differ on masculinity or on androgyny, but children of lesbian mothers reported greater psychological femininity than did those of heterosexual mothers. This result would seem to run counter to expectations based on stereotypes of lesbians as lacking in femininity, both in their own demeanor and in their likely influences on children."


---------------

Apparently you do not know what psychological femininity means. You're taking it as being negative. They're not referring to feminine boys prancing around thinking they're girls. They're referring to traditional gender personality traits. Read up on basic psychology.

Psychological Feminine traits:
nurturing, intuitive, sensitive to non-verbal communication, accepting, receptive
private, empathetic, able to successfully carry on several activities simultaneously, cooperative, highly verbal

Psychological Masculine traits:
stoic, analytical, public, good with spatial relations, competitive

"Many individuals are shown to be appropriately sex-typed; that is, men tend to be high in masculinity and low in femininity and women the reverse. However, a substantial amount of men and women are androgynous - high in both masculine and feminine characteristics - while some are high in neither. Importantly, androgynous individuals display more self-esteem, social competence, and achievement orientation than individuals who are strong in either masculinity or femininity or are strong in neither."

[Quake]

Einstein - This is from a co-written book, one of the co-writers being Professor Kenneth Plummer (did you look him up?).

"....it was not until the nineteenth century that homosexuality was invented as an object of scientific investigation......From this time until the 1970's, the dominant mode of thinking about homosexuality was clinical - it was primarily viewed through a medical framework as a pathology, it's causes were located in biological degeneracy or family pathology, and treatments ranging from castration to psychoanalysis were advocated. Although such an approach still continues amongst a few, since 1973 the American Psychiatric Association has officially removed homosexuality from its clinical listing of pathologies, seeing it as non-pathological in itself. Ironically, some of the leading clinicians, and notably Freud, had never viewed it as a pathology: in 1935 Freud could write in a famous "letter to mother" that "whilst homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, it is nothing to be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual development"."

So you see, the view you express is an old belief which modern science has all but outdated.

On the collective ideology, you must look at the empirical observations of first contact with blacks which led to the creation of the ideology. And as I said, peoples personal feelings are what plays a key part in their expressed preferences/beliefs. Whilst this is obviously a stronger factor in the case of sexuality, I have heard that some people actually find black people frightening to look at and cannot help feeling nervous around them.

And I agree that guidance and proper explanation are a good thing when involving such things as we are talking about, but there are correct times to do this, and I do not feel that a child below the age of say 11 need be concerned with having knowledge of the various social groups that exist in todays society even if these explanations do not refer to sex in any way.

Carlos - you left out the part that talks about what I mentioned. That is the same thing you replied with in another thread and we discussed, so I won't go through it again.

I'm well aware of what it means, and these things are still characteristics that would be noticed as different if displayed at a certain age. Personally I do not think the definition is wholly accurate or correct even though it is probably recognised by many. That nurturing is included as a female trait I believe is an inequality for men that arises out of the old stereotype of the woman/mother role of being the one who does most of the child rearing, men have just as good nurturing skills only they are not recognised by scientific studies as they are not displayed as often for such periods of time (especially in the past) as they are with women. The others are also flawed in the same way and the definitions seem to evolve largely based upon previous conceptions of the roles and length of time playing these roles that either sex plays in society and in the family. If this is to be the case, then the conception of "androgynous individuals" might be a more recent one from studies that have involved individuals with a more "modern" "balanced" life in which they are able to exercise more of their character on a more regular basis.

[Carlos_E]

Carlos - you left out the part that talks about what I mentioned.

I did not leave out anything. Post the part you're referring to.

[Tock]

Einstein - Explaining complex things like sexual preference to children in the age group we are discussing in order to create a more accepting view to homosexuality is really bad psychological practice.

Geez . . . you don't have to give 'em a give 'em a scholarly, in-depth explanation. But you can tell them what's what in a manner appropriate to their psychosocial development.

Tock - I do believe, if memory serves me correctly, that drug abuse amongst gays is recorded as being considerably higher than with homosexuals, I believe a possible reason for this was stated as being that drugs were more freely available in the gay communities as it was considered part of an "alternative" lifestyle, being that it is considered as being an "alternative" in itself. Don't ask me to tell you where I got that from because I read it years ago and have no idea what the book was.

There's nothing quite like dragging up some old, vague, half-forgotten heresay information you could have got from the village idiot to bolster your position.

First off, there is no way possible to compare group behaviour between heterosexuals and homosexuals because most homosexuals are hidden in the closet, and there is no possible way to include them in any reputable research. So I consider your above paragraph to be nothing more than a dishonest attack on gay and lesbian's reputations, which is to be expected from someone who just plain doesn't like queers.
If ya don't have the hard evidence, bring up the "I forget where I heard it, but . . ."

I dug a couple of old books out from Uni and one states that in some circles the growth of "tolerance" of homosexuality and lesbianism "as an alternative to marriage" is already being named as responsible for the disruption of family life, and that a normal family is recognised as being made up of the two "biological" parents and the child/children. (Might be worth looking up an organisation called the "Moral Majority" who are based in the USA (the name says it all)) The same book also describes homosexuality as a "deviant behaviour".

JHC . . . First off, the Moral Majority are neither moral, nor are they the majority. They are a group of christian fundamentalists who beleive the Bible is 100% true, has absolutely no mistakes whatsoever, and that God requires people to live by all the rules and regulations in the Bible. Yes, that includes the 10 Commandments, which require people to get rid of all "graven images" such as pictures on currency, in magazines, books, billboards, product packaging, portraits, everything. They say that people must obey the commandment that requires keeping the Sabbath holy, meaning the whole f'in planet has to shut down one day out of seven. An awful lot of industries can't do that, and shouldn't have to do that.
Rant rant rant . . .
Look, you're across the Atlantic, so I'm gonna give you a bit of leeway here, but the Moral Majority are widely considered to be a bunch of fascist nitwits who want to replace the US constitutional form of government with a theocracy. I'm gonna assume you didn't know that, along with a lot of other things. So I'm not going to say you're stupid, just poorly informed.

The rest of your post, though, might tempt me to reneg on my charity, so I'm not even going to address it. After having read it, though, I wonder how after you wrote it, why the earth didn't open up beneath you and swallow you up whole.

--Tock

[Carlos_E]

I have heard that some people actually find black people frightening to look at and cannot help feeling nervous around them.

I have also heard that some people are incredibly stupid and have irrational fears based on stereotypes and racist beliefs they were taught as a child.

[decadbal]

what do you mean? i think pretty much any kid these days that goes to school will be screwed if other kids in that school know his parents are gay, therefore it will **** him up mentally. like i can guarntee it man, you cant say that they wont grow up like a regular kid getting raised by a mother and a father, cause no one in this world can replace a mother for a father.

the divorce rate in america is at its highest, the way ppl act toward each other is also horrible, and its all bc of the past. i dont think it matters what sexual oreintation a parent is for determining if the child will be good or a POS. the man woman thing hasnt worked so great thus far, what more harm can a gay couple do than heteroparents havnt already done?

[decadbal]

I have also heard that some people are incredibly stupid and have irrational fears based on stereotypes and racist beliefs they were taught as a child.

u klnow what scares me about black folk... when im singing a rap song or something like that and say the N word (bc of lyrics) that they might hear it and take it the complete wrong way..lol