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.
Like I posted before, and you can go back and look at my postings, I am trying to argue that the issue of alternative kinds of families includes gays and lesbians, but also includes other family configurations. Again, and I feel like I'm repeated myself over and over, I was adopted as an infant by a straight couple, but I could have just as easily been adopted by a gay couple.
My parents, cool as they are, had to have a conversation with me when I was about 5 about the differences between me and the child that they wanted but couldn't conceive. I was not like all the other children--I had come their way by a 15 year old's misfortune. When I then went to school and tried to explain these facts to my classmates, they recoiled--why didn't my original mommy keep me? If I would have had a vocabulary to talk about that, i.e., there are some families that can't deal with their children, and therefore they must find new mommies and daddies to deal with that fact, I would have been much better off. Extrapolating from my experience as an adoptee who had to reconcile that she didn't come from mommy's egg and daddy's sperm, I can only imagine what the children of same sex couples have to go through.
So what I'm asking all the probable advocates of adoption here is very simply, if that was hard enough for me to get through that, as an actual child of adoption, then how much harder do you think it would be for a child to get through who had been adopted by gay parents?
And before you turn that around again and say that just merely stating the fact that sex exists, which smart kids know by the time that they are eight, somehow encourages them to have it, I would just like to say that s really do play doctor, they really do touch themselves, and they are not sexually innocent in the way you imagine them to be. I really admire a lot of people who have been posting here. They have remained civil and respectful to an extent that I don't know I would have been able to maintain. All I have tried to do is offer an example of a family configuration that caused me pain as a child, in no small part because the way that you choose to raise your children makes them unable to recognize alternative family units. It is interesting to me that some of you always offer adoption as an alternative, but you never really think through what that entails. I think that people like "an unidentified male" and "zimbochick" have been immensely charitable to you, and I would just like to see that charity returned. This got really long, and I'm sorry for that.
It just strains the quality of charity when I have said over and over that you might want to watch the original video, that you might want to look at what I say about how kids figure their sexuality out on their own, and that you might want to define your terms. I have been begging for you to please define what a "homosexual lifestyle" means, and I have also asked you to define a "homoxesual agenda" and how it differs from, say, an algebra agenda.
I'm waiting for the first person to talk about how being adopted by straight people is remarkably different from being adopted by gay people. I'd really like to have that conversation.
While I think there could be some issues for the child, I know a homosexual couple can raise and nurture a child into a healthy, happy human being. I do however feel the presence of a mother and a father is important to the development of a child. But in today's world, this happens less and less. So, if a child is actually lucky enough to have two parents in their lives, be they same sex or not, they are blessed.
If these organizations, like Focus on the Family, are anti-gay religious organizations, wouldn't those who oppose them be anti-religious gay organizations?
Since we are giving access to our very young children to anti-religious gay activists, shouldn't we grant equal access to the "anti-gay religious" activists?
The gays of the world are so flippin' desperate to force the rest of us to acknowledge their unnatural sex is normal and equal with heterosexual sex, they will gladly rob these very young children of their innocence.
I'm sorry--wait--unnatural sex? Are we now engineering penises and vaginas from chemically-foreign substances or something? I'm not sure where you're getting unnatural from in relation to the topic.
The problem with some of the abstinence programs that I have seen is that it gives parents a false sense of security, and in my opinion a bit of a cop-out. They feel they have done all they need to, and sigh a big sigh of relief that they don't have to deal with the difficult stuff. Also the abstinence programs around here don't adress the normal young teen stuff like kissing and cuddling. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear in my post, I think sex ed in elementary school should be a gradual thing. There's no reason why they can't address age-appropriate subjects ever year, and work toward more complex topics. I grew up in an extremely conservative environment, but we had extensive sex ed from 4th grade. They started out gradually, but included all sorts of topics such as respect in a relationship, peer-pressure, taking responsibility for actions, keeping yourself safe, etc. Abstinence was one of the topics covered. There are lots of topics that could be covered without getting straight to the gory details that would help prepare kids, and I don't think it takes away from their childhood. I'll stop babbling now.
Again, I share your sentiments. Perhaps, I was under the wrong impression, but some people were arguing for sex ed for K-5 simply because a few 5th graders were having sex.
That led me to deduce that they wanted to teach our children about sexual preparedness at an elementary level. I think that is pushing the bounds of decency.
I support your ideas of gradualness, but I still think that abstinence should be the empahasis during the elementary years, then shifting over to sexual preparedness during the 6th grade and onward.
I think many abstinence only programs at the Jr High and beyond are simply unrealistic and actually may have an adverse effect.
I hope all of you people with issues concerning this have a son that wants to cross dress tomorrow night when he goes out trick or treating...and he likes it.
Gotta say that my very straight son did completely and very much enjoy dressing up in my very frilly clothes one Halloween. And he made a very pretty 'girl', too! lol!
Just like looking forward to the death of old people in order to reach a heavenly state of tolerance?
More like, as we all know the older generation can be more intolerant of certain things, it's more likely & it comes w/a bit more enthusiasm that as tides turn, we will see a shift in mode of thinking.
So focus on social programs and ignore the fact that they can't read or write. Let them be children. Let them play at recess. Teach them to read and write and do math. Leave the sexual orientation stuff for later years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Perhaps you could provide a link or two to these "scientific" studies.
If these organizations, like Focus on the Family, are anti-gay religious organizations, wouldn't those who oppose them be anti-religious gay organizations?
Since we are giving access to our very young children to anti-religious gay activists, shouldn't we grant equal access to the "anti-gay religious" activists?
The difference is that one is constructed (the religious argument) and one is inherently embedded in the individual (the sexuality).
To give both equal footing would be like saying "most people think black people are human but others think they are sub-human".
Obviously, the latter group is a bunch of racists with a social agenda while the former group ackknowledges the realities of nature. We can't let every radical social agenda infect our educational system, so we must let nature take the lead. If children are clearly gay when they are 5, 6, 7 years old, then it is part of their nature and must be respected as natural.
I've just known too many individuals like that and this oppression of their rights and liberties has to stop. This is the land of the free.
Really? I don't know much about Aussie history, but it would be interesting to compare the two nations to see which first allowed women to vote, which first allowed blacks to vote, and which first decriminalized homosexuality (among other things).
I think........and I could be wrong...but I think you had a state that allowed women to vote first but we allowed women federally to vote first, you run rings around us when it comes to the Civil Rights movement vs the treatment of Aboriginals and I THINK we decrimalized homosexuality first.......in the early 1970s, South Australia first.
I think........and I could be wrong...but I think you had a state that allowed women to vote first but we allowed women federally to vote first, you run rings around us when it comes to the Civil Rights movement vs the treatment of Aboriginals and I THINK we decrimalized homosexuality first.......in the early 1970s, South Australia first.
I do believe that sodomy is still considered a crime in some states.....
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.
....and I could be wrong...but I think you had a state that allowed women to vote first but we allowed women federally to vote first, you run rings around us when it comes to the Civil Rights movement vs the treatment of Aboriginals and I THINK we decrimalized homosexuality first....