Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Take away the sexual aspect of any romantic relationship, then what do you have left? Wouldn't you have people interacting in ways that are not homosexual/heterosexual per se but instead, people behaving in ways that are universally human? No titles required.
BashfulBob, you completely missed my point. When you meet a heterosexual couple, is what they are doing in bed the first thing you think of? No. At least I hope not. But heterosexual people who oppose same-sex relationships, same-sex marriage, and discussion of families with same-sex parents in school are reducing gay couples to their sex lives only.
In a way, you've made my point, here. If you "take away" the sexual aspect, as you do when you show a child a picture of a family with opposite-sex parents, what's left is everything else...all of those universal, human commonalities. That's what children see when they see a picture of any family. Sex has no bearing on what they see, because it isn't something they think about when they conceive of parents and family. All they see are examples of what different children's families look like. It's heterosexual adults who bring sex into the issue. Gay people who advocate for awareness about their families aren't inviting children to think or talk about sex, gay or straight. They are inviting children to accept their families for the good of their own children, and for the good of kids who will eventually identify as gay so they don't feel alienated or invisible. That's it. The rest is all in straight people's imaginations.
Including the basic fact of homosexual sexuality in sex ed for older is kids is to prevent potentially dangerous ignorance among gay teens, and to promote safe sex the same way we do for straight teens. It's not about recruiting or a political agenda...no more so than sex ed for straight kids in schools is meant to encourage them to have sex. People get so hung up on the "gay agenda" that they forget there are gay teens in school who need the same kind of info straight kids get.
And yes, all of this promotes acceptance of gay kids. Of course it does. But you can't find me a single curriculum that says, "You SHOULD be gay" to children. The message is, "If you or someone you know is gay, that's okay." Again, that's not about sex. It's about accepting people for who they are.
What do arithmetic, science, geography have to do with homosexuality? Well to a sane person - Nada zilch Nothing at all but under a new education system being tested in the U.K. kids will be assaulted with homosexual propaganda in math , geography and science lessons as part of a perverted effort to promote the gay agenda. This pathetic and vile campaign by the gay rights activists is a blatant and devious attempt to destroy the fabric and concept of acceptable sexual behavior.
In math, they will be taught *statistics through census *findings about the number of *homosexuals in the population. In geography, they will be asked to consider why homosexuals move from rural areas to large cities. In science, they will be taught about animals where the male of the species raises the young.
Where on earth are you getting your information from??? You say all of this as though these things are the POINT of the lessons. They're absolutely not. My ex-boyfriend lives in Chippenham, Wiltshire, SW England, where basic information about gay people has recently been included in the curriculum at the school his teenage sons attend. They aren't lessons ABOUT gay people. They are lessons about different demographic groups in general that will now include mention of gay people as a category among many others. The statistics lesson is a lesson about stratified sampling based on various demographics...gay people are just one of many groups included in the lesson and they are not singled out in any special way whatsoever. The geography lesson is part of a sociology class, in which kids are asked to examine why a number of different minorities tend to concentrate in certain areas instead of others. The biology class has always taught about biodiversity, but now contains information about different kinds of family groups and gender roles in the animal kingdom just so kids understand how we are similar and different from other animals.
The school boards in the UK are famously tough about curriculum changes...if you think gay activists have simply stormed the schools and forced their "agenda" on the UK education system, you are sorely mistaken. They simply asked to be added like other minorities, and the administrators saw the sense in the change in a 21st century society. The changes got very little resistence from parents in my ex-boyfriend's fairly conservative country town. Why? Because most people there don't have any problem with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashful Bob
At Gorham Middle School in Maine students learned about homosexual foreplay during what was supposed to be a “Diversity Day” presentation. Students in an 8th grade class were molested by a group known as Proud Rainbow Youth of Southern Maine.
This pathetic performance involved assaulting students with descriptions and unsolicited advice regarding safe homosexual sex acts and suggested using saran wrap when giving a blow job if a dental dam was not available.
Again...I'm not sure where you are getting your information. I just researched this in detail...the incident you are talking about was not part of the presentation, which school officials said was "a worthwhile presentation about tolerance that explored some hurtful topics that gay, lesbian and transgender teens experience." It was during the random Q&A session AFTER the presentation that one of the 16-22 year old PRYSM members answered a direct question from a student in too much detail. The PRYSM young person's answer was relevant to the question and the intention was to promote safe sex, but like many young and inexperienced people, the kid didn't know where the "TMI" line was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashful Bob
Yes Homosexuality is deviant behavior, it is abnormal and sexually perverted - it is a Mental Disorder - in Men it is somewhat treatable - I'm not sure about women.Homosexuality is a disease - you can't catch it from a dirty toilet seat just as you won't catch AIDS that way, nor are most homosexual males born Gay. There is no such thing as a "Gay Gene" .
Scientists are closing in on a biological explanantion for LGBT orientations/states. New studies are published with increasing regularity. It may not be a single gene variant (allele), but scientists are more and more confident of a genetic or at least epigenetic basis (likely DNA expression affected in-utero), probably involving several different genes, as time goes on. It was only in 2009 that scientists isolated all eight genes responsible for eye color, six years after the Human Genome Project was completed, so clearly something this complex will take some time. But it is impossible to conclude a genetic and/or epigenetic basis for homosexuality can't/doesn't exist at this point.
The American Medical Association, The American Psychiatric Association, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders...plus every other reputable research entity in the United States...disagree that homosexuality is a disease or mental disorder.
After much research, homosexuality was determined NOT to be a mental disorder in the early 1970s, and was removed from the DSM in 1973. A highly controversial addition was made to the DSM III in 1980 that classified ego-dystonic homosexuality...or homosexual feelings which caused an individual severe distress...as a mental disorder, but by 1986 the new inclusion was removed. Basically, the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion was against it. The holdouts were older, old-school Freudian types. By the way...Freudian psychiatry is now all but obsolete in practice, as many of his key theories and ideas have been discredited.
I understand the argument that homosexuality is immoral, but in this day and age, the disease/disorder/no possible genetic basis argument mystifies me, since every single scientifically credible authority says the opposite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashful Bob
“The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over” .... Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, .... The one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called “gay gene.” Possibly because there is none, possibly because homosexuality is not truly a genetic issue, but as Freud and Socarides theorized - it's a Mental disorder. A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the “Gay Gene”
Okay...first of all....this quote is not from a scientific study. It is from an article written by three wildly controversial Evangelical Christian PhDs in a Christian publication that applies biased and highly selective interpretations to scientific findings.
To the meat of this little passage...Oh, goodness, where to start? See above about eye color. The Human Genome Project, completed in 2003, did not identify every allele (variation) for every gene. That wasn't the purpose of the effort.
From the project's website: "The Human Genome Project (HGP) was the international, collaborative research program whose goal was the complete mapping and understanding of all the genes of human beings. All our genes together are known as our 'genome.'" [Overview, genome.gov]
The project mapped the genes that make up the human genome for further research, meaning it identified which genes are where and involved with what...it didn't account for the vast diversity of expression (alleles/variation) those genes are capable of, or what combinations of different alleles may produce. Scientists will still be doing that for generations to come.
BashfulBob...you are entitled to your personal views about homosexuality, but I am concerned about the sources you rely on to inform them because they are apparently biased, incomplete, and inaccurate. A responsible consumer of information researches the most authoritative, most complete, most unbiased available sources to develop their viewpoints. You sound intelligent, and genuinely concerned about what you see as a threat to society. I totally respect that...as long as you support your claims with credible information. If you don't, you might want to stick with "morality" arguments if you want your concerns to be taken seriously.
Last edited by Slithytoves; 10-24-2013 at 01:09 AM..
Reason: Typos identified in review
God who the hell cares. I'm gay but I personally find the thought of black men screwing white women, only to leave our city with tens of thousands of part black kids whose dads BOLTED the second the blonde girlfriend was 'late' only to go screw another one disgusting. I know these men's game plan. And there are real kids involved who won't get one LICK of child support, ever because the sperm donor has never had a legal job and the mother often is a stripper/sticky floor mopper at an XXX bookstore.
Gay families whose parents have graduate degrees? Please, bring more! Get these pieces of trash I mentioned before out of our city and bring more people who,*GASP* work, read, speak proper English and have no felony convictions, nor do they ruin property values for homeowners who want to keep our communities and surrounding schools respectable places and clean for years to come. Send these felons back to prison so they can cornrow each other's hair and start teaching these stupid blonde girls to keep their legs closed for a change.
with the way things are going a special emphasis will have to be placed on the oddity of families with two original & biological married parents.
That's true..they're definitely a minority now a days...OP, I wouldn't let the school teach my children about sex anyways..my children skipped those classes. I figure I could do a better job of that myself. Teaching (in school) young children that it's OK to be gay is pointless in my opinion if the parents who those children come home to each day aren't OK with it themselves. ..They aught to be teaching the parents it's OK. But that'll never happen...There's absolutely noooo way my child would ever be sitting in kindergarden learning about gays, straights ,or anything else...they got more important things to learn at that age.
That's true..they're definitely a minority now a days...OP, I wouldn't let the school teach my children about sex anyways..my children skipped those classes. I figure I could do a better job of that myself. Teaching (in school) young children that it's OK to be gay is pointless in my opinion if the parents who those children come home to each day aren't OK with it themselves. ..They aught to be teaching the parents it's OK. But that'll never happen...There's absolutely noooo way my child would ever be sitting in kindergarden learning about gays, straights ,or anything else...they got more important things to learn at that age.
Do you object to books that are read to, or by, kindergartners that mention moms, or dads? That is all that is being taught about homosexuals to children at that age. Some families have two moms or two dads.
That's true..they're definitely a minority now a days...OP, I wouldn't let the school teach my children about sex anyways..my children skipped those classes. I figure I could do a better job of that myself. Teaching (in school) young children that it's OK to be gay is pointless in my opinion if the parents who those children come home to each day aren't OK with it themselves. ..They aught to be teaching the parents it's OK. But that'll never happen...There's absolutely noooo way my child would ever be sitting in kindergarden learning about gays, straights ,or anything else...they got more important things to learn at that age.
One of the biggest lessons of kindergarten is basic social skills. If you don't want your kids learning to respect diversity and accept others, keep 'em home for those lessons...but you're not doing them any favors. Any skill you deprive your children of now will make them less prepared later.
For all we hear about cases of bullying, kids today are, on the whole, very accepting of all kinds of other people. There's a boy in my niece's 5th grade class whom many kids don't like because he's prejudiced. This is the future for the rising generations. Parents need to think about the world their children will live in when they make decisions for them, not the one we grew up in.
[quote=Slithytoves;31997340]One of the biggest lessons of kindergarten is basic social skills. If you don't want your kids learning to respect diversity and accept others, keep 'em home for those lessons...but you're not doing them any favors. Any skill you deprive your children of now will make them less prepared later.
I disagree with the above...are you saying a parent who "keep em home for those lessons" can't teach their children about respect?..for diversity?. I don't know why you'd think that. it's not the case at all...if anything the child would learn that respect and acceptance more completely at home, especially if the child's parents model it themselves.
I disagree with the above...are you saying a parent who "keep em home for those lessons" can't teach their children about respect?..for diversity?. I don't know why you'd think that. it's not the case at all...if anything the child would learn that respect and acceptance more completely at home, especially if the child's parents model it themselves.
As I've said before, the lessons taught in primary grades are about different kinds of people and families, not about sex. This is the position I have maintained from my first post. The only reason why a parent should want to keep a child away from simple discussion of those things is if they have a specific prejudice against one of the kinds of people being discussed, in which case they are unlikely to be teaching respect for that group at home.
Thus my point about how this sets their children apart in a way that isn't beneficial to the child in the long run.
I'm all for parents reinforcing things their kids learn at school about diversity issues, even when that includes explaining to their children why they disagree. It's the preventing them for hearing the information at all that I find objectionable.
How about we quit showing preference to any particular groups and just encourage EVERYONE to RESPECT ALL PEOPLE??
It isn't about preference. It is about inclusion. I think people get confused about the intentions of these programs and groups like HRC that support them. It's only because it has been such a battle to be included as a real and fairly large group of people...probably a larger minority than American Blacks...that it appears that the LGBT community is trying to stand out in some extraordinary way. What they are asking is only to be included where before they were invisible.
I absolutely agree the real goal should be to have everyone learn to respect all people, and equally. But you have to know at least a little about who is out there before you can truly respect them. Excluding any large group from the discussion implies that they are not part of the "everybody" that deserves respect.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
