Ignorance about what "harms children"

First, I'm going to do you a favor and pretend that the above sentence makes some sort of sense.

That said most children at the age of five or eight know very little about heterosexual sex and understand even less about relationship forms.

My son is six and within the last year I was informed he started crying when he found out my wife and I were married. The reason...nothing agenda driven by any group... he wanted to marry his mom. This year year he has mentioned he wanted to marry his first grade teacher. The fact that she is already married and in fact has is clearly showing that a child is on the way is apparently of no consequence to the six year old.


How is this a fact? I live in a family in which two out of five children on my mother's side are gay. I was never taught even one time that they were wrong. I was told that their significant others were "roomates" but I still called them aunt or uncle and absolutely still loved them as family. No one explained to me how my aunt and uncle were screwing so no one felt compelled to explain how my uncle and uncle were screwing either.


Sorry but equality does not equal the right to scream in someone's ear or inject their agenda into anothers family.


Nonsense. Children encounter alternative family forms all the time and it doesn't mean schools can or should teach every possible combination nor does it mean that teaching one makes them hate all others.


Don't you feel a bit idiotic comparing genetic traits that govern appearance to genetic traits that govern behavior?

You are right that it is wrong to legislate against someone merely for being an American Indian. However it is not wrong to legislate against drunk driving. The fact that the American Indian might have a genetic prediposition toward alcoholism or drinking excessively wouldn't make such a law wrong, racist or any other term of hate you care to tack on.

We legislate against behavior, genetically based or not, all the time. We legislate against excessive violence, excessive risk-taking, even bad vision.

You also neglect to mention that if sexual behavior is purely genetic, then that means bad sexual behavior is also purely genetic and we have no qualms about legislating against that behavior.


I'm sorry but the "you are fat and ugly and thus wrong" argument is not very persuasive.


Something can still occur in nature and still be abnormal. Being albino for example is something that occurs within nature but is still abnormal.


I went ahead and explained this to you. Please read it slowly and carefully. Repeat until comprehension kicks in.


If sexual studies that have attempted to destigmatize homosexuality have shown anything it is that the sort of black and white reasoning you apply above does not exist. According to such studies there are indeed shades of homosexuality and heterosexuality. Just because you cannot choose does not mean somene else can't. Also there is a range of touch well before sex. Could you hug a man? How about kiss for greetings? How about kiss for affection? Etc.


They might exist. You might not consider them negative or wrong but that does not mean they are normal. Normal does mean conforming to the standard, typical or expected.


Isn't it nice to just claim a word.... like tolerance...

Claiming you promote tolerance allows you to avoid thought or reasoning. I could claim to be promoting tolerance when promoting almost any agenda. Disagree with me and you are simply intolerant.


The definition of marriage has changed countless times. Marriage hasn't always been two people. It hasn't always been people over 18. The definition has changed over time and religion hasn't been the only force driving that change.


So the fact that the little part of the globe you live on happens to, by some standards have more prosperity and lower morality means you can do as you wish and impose your agenda on others? Does it mean that if those two traits don't exist that you are full of shit? What if they exist now and change later. Does that mean that homosexuality becomes wrong again?


Perhaps we aren't looking at social opinion. Perhaps we are looking at evolutionary traits, or natural law.


Your view is profoundly ignorant. We are basically watching as rich, tolerant societies kill themselves off. The immigrants that are replacing the lack of off-spring in such societies are more than willing to impose the views that give them a higher reproductive rate.

You can dismiss this reality. However no one is above nature.


Regardless of prosperity and regardless of harm, people have the right to legislate bahavior.


Conversion is irrelevent. We retain the right to legislate behavior even if no one else is trying to get one to partake in that behavior. I don't have to have someone trying or not trying to convince me to drive drunk, slap a woman or anything else to know they are worth dealing with via legislation.


No one has undertaken actions to harm homosexuals. Voting is a right and exercising that right is not harming others.


Polygamy would be the only way to allow the same level of sanctity for three, five or twenty consenting adults. Yet we still do not allow this.


Anyone who can understand the difference between a physical attribute and behavior understands you are not comparing the same types of items.

Nick

There's a couple of different issues here...

First, if there is a single religion that accepts gay marriage, denying it at the state level is making a law preventing the free practice of said religion.

Second, if people want to argue that marriage is so sacred and religious, government shouldn't have any hand in it at all. NO OFFICIAL STATE MARRIAGE FOR ANYONE! Civil Unions should be for ALL instead.

Either way, it's bullshit to deny people the same rights. Separate but equal should NEVER fly.

I'll take on one for right now.

We are taught from every direction that gay is bad.

It's latest incarnation " That's so gay " makes me cringe everytime I hear it.

It's usually used to denote weakness or sensitivity as a negative.

It's just one example of a negative spin being put on the concept of gay.

This attitude comes from somewhere Trumpy.

It's been around in one form or another for a long time.

Or take the other side, no DIVORCE for anyone. If marriage is so sacred and all. Make adultery a felony or at least a misdemeanor.

Sorry but you obviously come from the school of thought that simply being heterosexual means that you have an agenda and are attempting to impose it. That isn't true anymore than it is true for those who claim that white people commit and promote their whiteness and racism associated with it by simply existing.

You expressed revulsion yourself at the thought of having sex with a man. Is that a hate crime? The fact that it is your default behavior means you have now, through your lack of tolerance promoted, heterosexuality over homosexuality.

Or.... perhaps you just expressed who you are and there was no hateful agenda there. Perhaps this is exactly what most of us do and you should stop assigning some sort of evil intent to it.


There are ignorant people in every group who end up putting negative spin on all attributes from all people. That isn't proof of a generalized hatred toward homosexuals or of group driven agenda against them.

Nick

I've seen the term being spelled on the internets thusly "That's so ghey" lately. I don't know if it's much better but it's taking the bad connotation away from 'gay'.

It is not the place of government to push the homosexual agenda on children.

It is not the place of government to push the religious right's agenda of hatred on children.

We all know what the "government" does,,,

They continue to "fix" things until they are broken..

Gotta love our leaders and the sheep who vote for them.

Fellows

tonton, in general, you are insisting absolutely that there are no absolutes on the issue of sexuality; that's a fairly bold statement. Now, you might wish that to be so, but it's just not something you can personally guarantee.

And there you have it. That kind of statement is the very reason I even mentioned the "gay issue" at all. If I don't want gay marriage, I suddenly am hate filled. It's a lot easier to scream "HATER!" than it is to actually defend you position.

Would you care to defend your assertion that the viewpoint of marriage being between a man and a woman is a only held by religious conservatives?

All polls I have read found clear majorities, regardless of race, gender or party, favor keeping the current definition of marriage as man and woman.

If you are going to assign hatred to avoid thought, at least be considerate and assign it to everyone who holds that view.

Nick

Im going to say something now that will piss off both sides of the argument. hehe!

I have no evidence of it, its just a thought i had.

have you considered that an 'anti-gay stance' is just a natural evolutionary instinct to ensure the proliferation of the species?

It is, isn't it. And you say this without the least bit of irony.

Remember that next time you decide to use that slur against liberals.

It's funny. Whenever a pro-tolerance individual uses nature as an example of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, the usual counter argument from the Anti-Gay group is, "We're human beings, we're different than 'animals'".

Which is why I find the above argument hilarious.

I noticed that Tonton offered a reasoned, level-headed argument.

I also noticed that within a few short paragraphs of Trumpt's response, the hostility was instant and provocative.

Perhaps you could notice your inability to focus on the actual facts put forward. Then perhaps you could notice that you dwell almost exclusively on how the party behind the facts is evil, hate-filled, a homophobe, or just "hostile" in this particular instance.

You quoted the actual words. Please address them. Are genetic behaviors the same as genetic differences in physical attributes? Is having blue eyes the same as a predisposition toward violence? We can understand how one cannot control that they have blue eyes. Should we demonstrate the same understanding for violence?

If not... explain why.

Nick

I still don't see how mentioning this would piss me off. I've already mentioned that just because something occurs naturally does not mean we consider it normal or that it is beyond the realm of society to address.

Someone is born far-sighted. We don't consider addressing it hateful because "it's natural." We don't consider the vision normal either. Finally we don't consider the fact that we require them to wear glasses while driving to be "tyranny of the majority" which amounts to a hate crime.

We make all sorts of requirements regarding genetic traits and behaviors. You must have an IQ within the normal range to be allowed to operate as a legal adult. You must be of a certain height, have vision within a certain range and have the ability to control your body within certain norms to operate a motor vehicle. Your aggression and tendency toward violence must not fall outside acceptable norms or you will be arrested. The list could go on, but there are thousands of ways in which we enforce norms.

Nick

well, it would probably piss off the Cretinists a bit more

see, the problem is, is that homosexuality is a normal natural trait, and (perhaps) the distaste of homosexuality is a normal natural state aswell.

Just like 'racism' is a natural evolutionary trait. We are naturally wary of 'different' people because they could pose a threat. It seems we like to protect our genes, but at the same time, we like to spread them around. A bit of a paradox.

So, while those of us who are not homo's naturally find it distasteful, the essense of us being mature educated humans is that we recognise that both homosexuality, and the distaste of it, are both natural states.

I've been a bit 'racist' and 'gay bigotted' in my time, which is just a natural expression of my evolution. However, what seperates 'me' from the animals is that I am 'conscious' of the fact that I am an animal, and not all the natural traits of 'animals', ie racism and bigotry are beneficial.

Its what makes humans a 'special' animal.

Bigots are just acting out the consequences of evolutionary animal urges,(perversely the very thing they are rallying against) - you cant blame them, but you might wonder why it is they havn't grown wise to the fact that they are 'human' animals.

Whatever.

Ya'll can do your usual song and dance, fretting about "agendas" and beating your chest about the sanctity of marriage and attempting to move the conversation to endless parsings of nurture vs. nature and how many biblical injunctions can dance on the head of a pin.

And maybe if you put enough intricate legalistic/christian gymnastics between yourselves and the source of all the trouble, you can convince yourselves that it's really not about finding gay sex, most specifically male gay sex, to be nasty and disease ridden and precious bodily fluids sapping.

That it's really about being logical and truthful about the nature of human sexuality, or that it's really about adhering to the dictates of a just and loving God, or that it's really about defending the fabric of the culture from unraveling chaos and never--how dare you even think it!-- about those womanish faggots and the ugly things they do, and the creeping horror of letting then walk around in full view of God and everybody, touching each other, I mean, possibly kissing, just shoving it in our faces, what will we tell the children about this skin-crawling affront?

It's a bit of a trick, of course, this strenuous denial of bigotry while grimly laying out the demise of western civilization at the hands of these not-hated agents.

Sort of "It has nothing to do with "hatefulness", it's all about the objective truth that gays are handmaidens to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse! Boy, you fag lovers can't help but resort to name calling, can you?"

And to be fair, I think some of you are just on reflexive "Liberals want it so I'm against it" mode, and you haven't ever really thought very hard about the lives affected by your posturing.

Anyway, as I say, whatever. Homophobia, no matter how dressed, no matter how denied, is a tough nut to crack. Ya'll just stick to your guns.

Because you're wrong, and the world is changing, and you'll end up like the elderly sons of the south, bitter in your rest homes about the how the niggers got the upper hand and ruined the world.

The battle is already over. Queers are at large, and nothing kills prejudice like knowledge. Knowledge of real people living their lives, who turn out to be not at all like the mincing AIDS monsters daddy told me about. Knowledge that Uncle Bob, who once would have sooner killed himself than let his horrible secret become known, is a gay man living with another gay man and, huh, that's funny, he doesn't seem to be cruising bathrooms on the interstate, looking for unattended eight years olds, he seem to be in a committed relationship and not a bad guy, really. Go figure.

Prejudice requires ignorance. For a very long time it was possible to make of homosexuals whatever the fevered imaginations of the hateful wanted, because violence and the threat of violence kept them from speaking for themselves, and living lives open to scrutiny. That's over, and you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

They're here, they're queer, and you're never going to get used to it, but that really is your problem.

These are moral issues and should be taught in the home. This should be taught by neither right nor left wing educators.

so if your parents are bigots, your children are too - and vice versa. Nice argument.

There is a huge difference between taking a moral stand and being a bigot. It is not necessary to hate and discriminate against another because you feel that they are morally wrong. Why must the left always make accusations of hate and bigotry?

tonton:


What if I as a parent don't want my daughter discussing sexuality in school, particularly when she's 5?


I disagree. How do you support that assertion? The children that I teach don't seem to think so. Their previous music teacher was openly gay. I really don't hear much about that. When it does come up, it's just a fact. He was gay. That's all.


It's a good thing for you. Some consider homosexuality immoral, and they don't want their children exposed to the concept of having two daddies...at least until they are really old enough to comprehend it.


You cannot compare being a minority race to being gay. See below.


Sexuality DOES exist for the purpose of procreation. That is the SOLE reason for its existence. Yes, it feels good and people have sex for pleasure alone. That doesn't change it's purpose.



It's just you. You can't pretend that 5-10% of the population represents a huge majority or even equal amount. This issue also ties into the issue of choice. There are, in fact, some people that choose to follow homosexual urges and some that don't. For others, it's not a choice...they are created gay and will always be gay. But I have personally known those who have been "gay" for a period, then "straight", then bi, then straight again. In other words, there is sometimes an element of choice involved. This stands in stark contrast to being black or asian or for that matter white. There is no choie whatsoever involved.


I don't oppose teaching true tolerance, as in "it's wrong to hate gays for their sexuality, wrong to mock them, wrong to do any number of things." I also do not oppose adoption rights, though I personally morally disagree with it.


Yes it does. Western civilation has defined marriage as being between one man and one woman for thousands of years. If we can change that for gays, what else can it be changed for? Why even have marriage at all? It destroys all meaning of the term.




1. Again, not what I'm arguing. People have every right to be gay.

2. I would disagree with that.

3. Disagree here too. If my child has to learn that it is totally normal and acceptable morally to live in a gay home and I don't want her believing that at the age of 5, 6 or whatever, that does plenty to my family morally.

4. That's correct, and that's why it should not be legal.

5. No it can't. People do not choose gender at birth, nor their race. Some DO choose their orientation, whether you will admit it or not.

"What does being gay harm", you ask? Nothing in and of itself. However, when we start changing laws and thousand year old standards and challenging people's moral beliefs without their consent, yes, it can be harmful.

The ability to rise above nature is not really an assertion that has been proven in my view. I've mentioned this in passing because people somehow believe the western world is "right" just because they have the majority of the world's wealth. However nature does not care about wealth, it cares about reproduction. If we, in our desire for wealth become so enamoured with the various toys and distractions that we fail to reproduce, then by the scorebook of nature, we lose.

As you noted, both sides consider their reasoning and their positioning of humans to be outside the circle of nature to be justified. I just don't buy that reasoning.

Nick

"Pro-tolerance".

LOL.

That's cheap. Sometimes people are filled with hate. Take Harry Reid for example.

Most all human emotions are centered on fear. Even love. Yet there comes a point when you have to ask, "What am I afraid of - Why am I afraid?"

Hatred and Bigotry are unconscious expressions of fear, yet what exactly is there to be afraid of? That you might suddenly turn Gay, because there are Gay people?

ps, i've been saving this one for CC, but what the hell...

humans shagging animals

It is work-safe!

I've never read such a thing. Are compassion and empathy also based on fear? If all emotions are based on fear, why trust some over others?


Not being willing to cater to the demands of a certain group does not make one filled with hatred and bigotry. There doesn't have to be any sort of fear involved.

Nick

yep, fear of screwing up.


denial is a state of fear too.

Fear? No

Apparently so is your frustation.

Nick

well done, 'the man can be taught'

I'm still waiting for someone who is against gay marriage to address my points:


There's a couple of different issues here...

First, if there is a single religion that accepts gay marriage, denying it at the state level is making a law preventing the free practice of said religion.

Second, if people want to argue that marriage is so sacred and religious, government shouldn't have any hand in it at all. NO OFFICIAL STATE MARRIAGE FOR ANYONE! Civil Unions should be for ALL instead.

Either way, it's bullshit to deny people the same rights. Separate but equal should NEVER fly.

You keep showing such rapier wit Marc and I'll have to give you a little man-love just to prove Tonton wrong on the whole sexual choice issue.


It puts the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again.


The government has ruled that it can govern against certain religious practices. The most famous of these is polygamy, but also include animal and human sacrifice for example.


You are barking up the wrong tree with me. I've already stated that the government should be forced to recognize more than one type of relationship form. We should have at a minimum, civil unions for both homo and hetersexual people, regular marriage and the covenent marriage where divorce is not granted unless fault is found.

Nick

When being asked to accept a change that is not just letting it be. Your command of English seems to be slipping lately.


You wouldn't consider it to be "letting them be" if instead of ignoring them, they were attempting to get the legislature to pass their own views as law and demand that if you spoke against such views it was a hate crime. They would be much harder to ignore then.


I already let them be. I'm not the one seeking change. Those who do seek change though have to be persuasive to the majority.

Nick