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

[einstein1905]

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So you see, the view you express is an old belief which modern science has all but outdated.

the definition of a pathology is a physiological variation, which is deemed "problematic", that's all. It clearly is a physiological variation, but we've since decided not to conclude it as being problematic. This doesn't change the fact that it's a physiological variation. Prejudice, on the other hand, is a psychological pathology, as it assuredly is problematic.
I'm not saying you're prejudiced, but I am saying that the majority, unfortunately, is.

[einstein1905]

u klnow what scares me about black folk...

All of them?


This is what I'm talking about. Some use the N word. Some use it and also act offended by it. Others do not use it at all. generalizations like this are where stereotypes originate.
There is no one statement you can make that describes all black people, other than the obvious.

[decadbal]

All of them?


This is what I'm talking about. Some use the N word. Some use it and also act offended by it. Others do not use it at all. generalizations like this are where stereotypes originate.
There is no one statement you can make that describes all black people, other than the obvious.

yea any brothas that dont know me, when your singing a old snoop song or whatever, i usually dont say it out of respect but if i drink it slips out bc my mind isnt catching up to my mouth..lol i just dont want em to take it as me saying it instead of singing it, u know what i mean..

[einstein1905]

yea any brothas that dont know me, when your singing a old snoop song or whatever, i usually dont say it out of respect but if i drink it slips out bc my mind isnt catching up to my mouth..lol i just dont want em to take it as me saying it instead of singing it, u know what i mean..

I know you didn't mean it the way I made it sound.....I just wanted to demonstrate a point. There are way more differences between members of any one subclass than there are similarities, and there are way more similarites between members of different subclasses than there are differences. yet, so many focus on a few discrepancies and divide the world into so many unreasonable categories.

[worldknown]

like im just wandering so dont take offense but are any of you guys homosexual cause like i just hav ea feeling oneof yo might be beucase this thread is going on for a long time.

[Carlos_E]

like im just wandering so dont take offense but are any of you guys homosexual cause like i just hav ea feeling oneof yo might be beucase this thread is going on for a long time.

No. Not having a problem with homosexuals does not automatically make someone gay. Some of us were not taught the same beliefs as you. By the way, you asked for someone to post a studying about homosexual parenting. I did so. Read above.

[einstein1905]

like im just wandering so dont take offense but are any of you guys homosexual cause like i just hav ea feeling oneof yo might be beucase this thread is going on for a long time.

Yes, at least one of us is homosexual, but it's not me, although that should make no difference at all. I have no direct vested interest in this debate other than sticking it out until everyone sees things from all possible perspectives and holds off making premature personal moral statements until they do so. This whole world has become a prepackaged culture, where everyone's ideas are handed down and regurgitated without any real reflection or contemplation. It's absolutely necessary that discussions like this occur so that people on all sides of the issues (because there are not just 2 perspectives) can see the flaws in their thinking (or in some cases, lack of thinking, which is replaced by adopted dogma). The very difference between two common words, "different" and "wrong", come into play here, and people seem to be confusing the two.

[Tock]

like im just wandering so dont take offense but are any of you guys homosexual cause like i just hav ea feeling oneof yo might be beucase this thread is going on for a long time.

Yep. And aren't you glad!
-Tock

[Quake]

Tock - the whole of the rest of the post you referred to (me being swallowed up) was not my opinion or view, it was direct from a study book, not a quote, but the view which was expressed. It talked of "lesbianism" as "seperatism", encouragement from feminists for women to become lesbians in order to escape the role they may or may not feel forced to take in society.

I also, have said this before, but have no problem with gays period. I do however have a vested interest in certain matters of current affairs. Just because my point of view places a certain type of restriction on a persons actions does not mean I have anything against that person. I just believe they are not in the best position to carry out a particular duty to the best affect. This discussion is only about one such example, many more exist in society, here in the UK a recent example being a caretaker who became employed by a school when he was known by the police to have a history so meaning that he should have been unemployable for the role which he became employed. There are many more examples, place yourself in each example you think of and ask yourself if you have a problem with those who are being restricted, I know I don't in most cases.

Einstein - I agree that there must be a fundamental difference for a person to naturally feel attracted to those of the same sex. I do believe also that whilst prejudice is a psychological problem, in certain cases it is also a persons life experience that causes a confusion in "what turns them on", whilst they are always attracted to women and never attracted to men, they might become aroused at the observation of a gay sexual experience. In these cases a commonly quoted and used suggestion by other gays is that they should "admit to themselves" or "accept" their "feelings", when feelings are not the issue or are crystal clear, and when there is nothing to accept. In such cases there are links to childhood experiences that caused a strong reaction in the person as a child and has lived with them since. This is a psychological problem too. I do not believe there is correct support in many cases for dealing with a persons issues on these matters. Gay studies are a very specialist area and forgetting about all the big headlines, there are a minority of people who are qualified and learned enough that study the gay phenomenon and really know anything about it. You might tell me there are "loads" of books on the subject, but not nearly as many as there are about, say, drug abuse. There is still a lot of room for development and approaching children to try and instill an understanding at a young age IMO is the wrong way to go about it.

[Quake]

Carlos - this is from your study post

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.

The underlined part.

[Carlos_E]

Carlos - this is from your study post

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.

The underlined part.

Apparently you did not read my post #79. THAT IS THE EXACT SAME TEXT IN MY POST. I did not leave anything out. Here is my post again.

"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."

[Carlos_E]

Bouncer272001 now that you know what psychological femininity means. What's your point?

[Quake]

I did read your reply, I didn't register seeing that it was included, so thus it is still a bad study example and you have posted the evidence. I also read and replied with regards to "feminine characteristics" and the definition you posted, you are just as guilty as me of not reading it properly. Here is the post again for you to read -

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.


You are very antagonistic in your attitude toward me, you mock my mistakes and give no evidence of understanding any of the points I have made. IMO you have already convinced yourself that all "others" are homophobic, and that those same "others" will never understand. If you're mind is made up why do you continue replying?

[Carlos_E]

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.

The definitions are taken directly from a psychology reference book. Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) research was done in 1974 so mental androgyny is not a recent concept.

You are very antagonistic in your attitude toward me, you mock my mistakes and give no evidence of understanding any of the points I have made.

I am not mocking you. It's just that you continue to post that homosexual parenting is wrong and a bad thing yet you post no evidence to support this. It's just your opinion based on personal beliefs, not facts.

IMO you have already convinced yourself that all "others" are homophobic, and that those same "others" will never understand. If you're mind is made up why do you continue replying?

Where exactly in this thread did I call you homophobic? Because I don't see it.

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

Now if I were to say "I find rabbits frightening to look at and cannot help feeling nervous around them." You would call this a phobia and suggest I seek therapy to get rid of this irrational fear. I hope you would suggest the same for people who have an irrational fear of Blacks.

[Quake]

Carlos - You are right, my posts are mostly made up of my view developed from my experience. But you do not know my experience, and I am not going to divulge personal information. You really do not need to know me that well for something such as a discussion on a forum which is of no real consequence in any big socially altering way. But my opinion and view are individual, as is everyone elses and it is good to air personal views to other people and form discussions on interesting topics. I've got to say I am enjoying these discussions very much.

Laughing at other peoples mistakes can be construed as a form of mockery. The little laughing smiley gives it away.

Again, I feel you feel that I am homophobic, I think it is Tock who came out and said it, but I am not going to trawl through the posts on the threads just to point the finger. Homophobia is described as a fear or hatred of gays, I definitely am not afraid of gays and definitely do not feel threatened by them, I also do not hate them and at no point can you say I have showed any sign of this either.

There are many phobias, and all of them have names, it is a ridiculous number! A similair example to yours is a phobia of spiders, arachnaphobia, and as you likely know, treatment is available for this. However arachnaphobia is a different ball game, after all the spiders couldn't give a sh.it if people don't like them or not. And they are less likely to be the victims of violence, or maybe not, I know I've flattened quite a few in my time. I bloody hate the things, something about the way they walk sends shivers up my spine, sets my skin crawling, and my nerves on edge. There, I've admitted it, I am arachnaphobic.

[decadbal]

i didnt think carlos was talkin to u..lol

[Quake]

I don't know if any of them would give me the time of day in person, or on another subject. I'm just enjoying the point of views, Einstein has come up with a few things I'm inclined to agree with, but I haven't heard anything I'd agree with from the others, no offence.

[Tock]

Well, not to change the subject or anything, but Texas' Republicans have spoken their mind about Homosexuality, and here is what they (or is it God?) have to say:
---------------------------------------------


Strengthening Families and Promoting a Freer Society
Celebrating Traditional Marriage

Family and Defense of Marriage –
The Party supports the traditional definition of marriage as a God–ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman, which is the foundational unit of a healthy society, and the Party opposes the assault on marriage by judicial activists. We call on the President, Congress, and the Texas Legislature to take immediate action to defend the sanctity of traditional marriage. We urge Congress to exercise authority under the United States Constitution, and pass legislation withholding jurisdiction from the Federal Courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the traditional definition of marriage. We further call on Congress to pass and the state legislatures to ratify a marriage amendment declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist and be recognized only as the union of a natural man and a natural woman. Neither the United States nor any state shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse. We oppose the recognition of and granting of benefits to people who represent themselves as domestic partners without being legally married. Texas families will be stronger because of the passage by Governor Perry and the 78th Texas Legislature of the “Defense of Marriage Act”, which denies recognition by Texas of homosexual “unions” legitimized by other states or nations.

We urge the repeal of laws that place an unfair tax burden on families. We call upon Congress to completely remove the marriage penalty in the tax code, whereby a married couple receives a smaller standard deduction than their unmarried counterparts living together. The primary family unit consists of those related by blood, heterosexual marriage, or adoption. The family is responsible for its own welfare, education, moral training, conduct, and property.


Marriage and Divorce –
The Party believes in the sanctity of marriage and that the integrity of this institution should be defended, protected, strengthened, and nurtured at all levels of government. No fault divorce laws have caused untold hardships on American families, by reducing their standard of living, and by harming the emotional and physical well–being of children. It has contributed to an increase in government assistance of all kinds. We call upon the Texas Legislature to rescind no–fault divorce laws. For these reasons we support Covenant Marriage, which has proven effective in stemming the tide of divorce in Louisiana and Arizona. We recommend the following provisions in line with this concept: 1) pre-marital counseling and, 2) a pre-nuptial agreement that when problems arise within the marriage, both parties will agree to marriage counseling with the intent of restoring the marriage to its proper balance and harmony.

Marriage Licenses –
The Party supports legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple.

Homosexuality –
The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Texas Sodomy Statutes –
The Party opposes the legalization of sodomy. The Party demands Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

[Tock]

. . . and here is what Texas Democrats have to say on the matter:
------------------------------------------------

Rights and Freedoms

Full protection and equal opportunity under the law remain bedrock values of Texas Democrats. We believe every Texan and every family has the right to participate fully and equally in American society and enjoy its benefits and freedoms. The Constitution is intended to protect freedoms, not to be used as a tool to restrict freedoms or dictate social policy by forcing states to discriminate against groups of their own citizens based on race, religion, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. Free debate and discussion and the enforcement of civil rights have kept this country strong for more than 200 years. It is wrong to write discrimination into the Constitution of the United States or the Texas Constitution. We pledge to:
-Fight all forms of discrimination;
-Enforce laws prohibiting sexual harassment;
-Promote the right to privacy;
-Support policies that protect the confidentiality and privacy of an individual’s personal, medical, and financial records - in both paper and electronic formats;
-Work for the immediate repeal of provisions of the Patriot Act that are inconsistent with the letter or spirit of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution;
-Protect every state employee's right and duty to provide factual answers to the public in response to requests for information on matters of public interest;
-Support efforts to eliminate secrecy in government by fully enforcing the people’s right of access to governmental records and information on matters of public interest;
-Reject efforts to arbitrarily censor materials in public libraries and efforts to censor textbooks to reflect narrow ideologies and discriminatory or sectarian beliefs;
-Support Native American nations’ rights to self- identification and self- rule; and
-Preserve and enforce all state and federal disability rights laws, including vigorous enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

[einstein1905]

Separation of church and state? Or does that only apply when it suits their needs/ supports their cause?

[NewBreed]

It may be okay to teach a child about same sex, sex with animals, forced sex and sex with children, but only what that child is mature enough to understand each one.

hey,it might hurt,if you´re throwing those together with fags,or hetero-sexual practices must be added,but what is matured enough?-when the´ve tried it all out?

All I see is that some people still see it as a cancer or illness their children could be infected with,dishonouring themselves and the family for sucking dicks and being penetrated in their colons.

On the other hand it´s OK talking about pentrating penises and putting condoms on penis-models in sex-ed classes.

I could also imagine,the teacher having a direct reason for outing himself in class,thus rising a scandle to some ,but helping in an other way,not mentioned and not known to us.

One should take everthing as it comes so it is with sex.

BTW we´re all Bi-sexual more or less and aren´t the most first sex expierinces of 7-10 aged,homosexual somewhere happening in the dark quickly forgotten,because experienced with a tired mind ,as a 100% natural demand of the body(nature itself)?

Yes,I think it´s OK,and there is no reason for judging him,as the only problem that occurs here,is not with the children,but the adults.

No one will ever be able to eradicate homosexuality ´cause it´s absolutley natural,omnipresent and thus no one can keep one´s children away from it especially,if the own child tends to be a homo.-then you´ll really do serious damage to the mature of this human being in every way and we´ll all lose,because of this happening,(it could become a second Einstein with all the support everyone gets- D`OH) and absolutely no one would be affectd negative because of someone being homosexual except he´s an ass-O at the same time. -I think that says it all.

[Quake]

Tock - I am non plussed by what the bible followers have to say. As for acceptance, it will or won't, I don't know why it's put in peoples faces, demanding acceptance, makes the whole thing seem a little desperate. As for teaching children, my thought still remains the same, I think it should be allowed to develop in the young, reproduction is taught as science thus becomes "sex education", it's always very clinical except for the children laughing and giggling. I don't think it can be compared to a description of a gay sexual action, if you're doing it then I suppose it seems natural enough, but to most people it's "out there".

As for the Texas democrats, I'd go with that, but as you know, I'd make an exception for gay parenting, but only in the childs interests.

[Quake]

New Breed - Mature enough for me is when they start thinking about sex for sex sake, not at a time when they are first becoming attracted to people, at this time sex probably doesn't exist to them, and their first tutorial being in sex-ed class causes no problems for anyone, give a little time to get used to the idea and from there alternatives and different kinds of sex could be discussed. But should the subject be brought up by the children or the adult?

I've already made clear I don't see gay as a cancer or an illness.

I don't agree with the penis model idea.

I too can imagine a reason for that and see it as bad practice for personal gain.

I agree, let the concepts of the various types come naturally to a person, not be introduced or force fed it.

Cannot comment as I have no reference except that my first sexual encounter wasn't until I was 15, but I remember my first french kiss at about 12 years old. I couldn't stop thinking about how her tongue felt on mine. I was sold!

100% agree, it is the adults who have the knowledge to practice the best methods of guidance for children, be it their own or someone elses.

Yes, gay will always occur there's no getting away from that. But even free speech should fail at times, times when it is inappropriate to speak freely, such as teaching a child to swear/cuss for example, another such time being that which is discussed in this thread. If gays are to try and force their way of thinking on to ones so young, they should remember that those children have parents who already know what it is about (views obviously vary) and that they are likely to take an attitude upon finding out what their child has been told by another adult, and so by attempting to gain acceptance for their kind from one, they have possibly achieved rejection from three (child and both parents), as the parent may then feel forced to give their own explanation to the child which may not be favourable for gay acceptance. A backward step!

[Tock]

I don't know why it's put in peoples faces, demanding acceptance, makes the whole thing seem a little desperate.

If gay people had not been "putting this issue in people's faces," the cops would still be arresting patrons of gay bars, still calling their employers to tell them where their employees were found, employers would still be firing people for being gay, landlords could still refuse to rent (or renew leases) to gay people, gay people still would not be allowed to be policemen, undertakers, or other state-licensed professionals, and having sex in private would still be a criminal act.
That's why we "throw this issue" in y'all's face -- it's because y'all made an issue of it first, denying us the same rights and responsibilities that y'all have. And we're gonna keep on doing it until we acheive parity with y'all.

Oy . . .
-Tock

[Quake]

I don't think "y'all" is an appropriate address, as it's not all that do/have done the things you describe. Stop thinking the world is against you, because it's not!!!

[Tock]

I don't think "y'all" is an appropriate address, as it's not all that do/have done the things you describe. Stop thinking the world is against you, because it's not!!!

"Y'all" is a Texas thing, sorta like "Youse guys" is Northeastern (New York or Boston, I think). It's the way I speak, and I write the same way I talk. So.
Y'all quit nit-picking, and y'all come back now, y'hear?

Ayup (New Hampshire/Maine).
Like, wow, man (Californicata).
-Tock

[decadbal]

yalls a texas thing..... texas thinks everything southern is there, when they arnt even part of the south...hahaha texas..

[NewBreed]

@ quake :i generally don´t see a reason why a child in the snese of a sex-ed class shouldn´t be confronted with all kinds of sex vasriations thatt are generally occuring and suposd to be normal,therefor I don´t see a reason why one shouldn´t tell he´s gay when he thinks he shoulgd do that,this could happen everywhere and is no affront,why should it be so in a class.<again I think there must have been a reason for a teacher telling this except "forcing" the children´s thoughts into his direction as you call it.

If it should be discussed anyway in the sex-ed agenda then it´s automatically brought up by adults ´cause obviously it´s a not small part of human sexuality as well and should be included.-again I don´t think some one claiming to be gai should do any harm at all except helping those who may tend to the same sex and teaching the rest being respectful to some one who is differnt in a kind of way to the most,the eartler it´s taught the better.

after all this i´ve thought up and just rewinded myself to the age of 8-11 I think there´s absolutley nothing to worry about,in fact to me it seems as normal as s/o saying I like peanuts.(although this being more complex and with a lot more ,but ,if everyone is acting respectfully,no critical,social interactions included.)

And it boils down to the point not wanting gay people to get in touch with the normal society....

...but maybe after the excitement has gone one just might let it be and keep its mouth shut,respecting the opinion of an adult man talking about his life and what´s it about in general .-and that´s what it is,just getting young humans in touch of what there is outside in the real,adult world and I don´t think anyone in class should have felt forced or scared maybe upset ´cause homo was still a kind of a swearword to us,even though we never knew(or even I didn´t and wasn´t very courious about it,too),what it meant.

fear kills.