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

[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?

[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.

[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]

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!

[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.