[ninurta]

Okay, I was looking through some of the old debates where same sex marriage and same sex adoption came up, and I saw some things said, particularly by DaDanMan, that seemed to hint at it being a bad influence to children. As if children should be shielded from the very thought of homosexuality, yet they can watch Beauty and the beast (bestiality/heterosexual relationships) and other heterosexually suggestive stuff and its not bad.

So I just wanted to ask: Is there something wrong with children knowing about homosexuality, or being allowed to see it in the way they see heterosexuality? And how is it a bad influence? And how is it wrong?

Also, I doubt they can, but what if they could become homosexual, what would be wrong with that? And how would that be a bad thing?

[grypo]

Okay, I was looking through some of the old debates where same sex marriage and same sex adoption came up, and I saw some things said, particularly by DaDanMan, that seemed to hint at it being a bad influence to children. As if children should be shielded from the very thought of homosexuality, yet they can watch Beauty and the beast (bestiality/heterosexual relationships) and other heterosexually suggestive stuff and its not bad.

So I just wanted to ask: Is there something wrong with children knowing about homosexuality, or being allowed to see it in the way they see heterosexuality? And how is it a bad influence? And how is it wrong?

Also, I doubt they can, but what if they could become homosexual, what would be wrong with that? And how would that be a bad thing?

Comparing homosexuality to bestiality is obnoxious.

[RonPaulalways]

They should be told the truth. They should be told that homosexuals have the lowest life expectancy of practically any demographic, that they are less likely to procreate, and that they are far more likely to be promiscuous and contract STDs.

If you don't sugar-coat the truth, the truth isn't harmful.

[grypo]

They should be told the truth. They should be told that homosexuals have the lowest life expectancy of practically any demographic, that they are less likely to procreate, and that they are far more likely to be promiscuous and contract STDs.

If you don't sugar-coat the truth, the truth isn't harmful.

Well, unless you fill their heads with bullshit lies and homophobic rhetoric.

[Hot Choco]

They should be told that homosexuals have the lowest life expectancy of practically any demographic, that they are less likely to procreate, and that they are far more likely to be promiscuous and contract STDs.

Wow, that's gonna help the child when he grows up. Ever heard of self-fulfilling prophecies?

[ThereBeDragons]

When we teach kids about African-Americans, we should mention that they have lower life expectancy than whites, are more likely to commit crimes, more likely to contract disease, more likely to be poor, and more likely to be murdered. We can't go about teaching students about black people without first emphasizing how much it sucks to be black.

[PatrickMahoney]

I believe that it is important to teach children to be accepting about homosexuality and all people who are different.

Teaching the children while they are young - perhaps around the time they are 7 or 8 - should ensure that they will be tolerant in all circumstances.

[grypo]

When we teach kids about African-Americans, we should mention that they have lower life expectancy than whites, are more likely to commit crimes, more likely to contract disease, more likely to be poor, and more likely to be murdered. We can't go about teaching students about black people without first emphasizing how much it sucks to be black.

Yup. And some people just don't have the depth of thought of human understanding to realize why some (and I emphasize some because most of what is reported on homosexual statistics is Grade A bullshit) groups resort to dangerous behavior that may cause unhealthy lifestyle choices. When people of RPA's ilk force certain people to the edge of the main culture and tell them to fit in or get out then, any sociologist will tell you, a counter culture will develop that rejects the notions of the main culture. So if people gave a shit, which some obviously don't, this problem could be solved by education, which would produce understanding.

[NoRapture]

As a father, I don't intend to say anything to my child about homosexuality until he's old enough to date the young man my life-partner and I have chosen for him. Us gay marrieds are pretty socially conservative.

[Oxymoron]

Yes, they should also talk to them about Foot fetishes, bondage etc

[ninurta]

[]Okay, I was looking through some of the old debates where same sex marriage and same sex adoption came up, and I saw some things said, particularly by DaDanMan, that seemed to hint at it being a bad influence to children. As if children should be shielded from the very thought of homosexuality, yet they can watch Beauty and the beast (bestiality/heterosexual relationships) and other heterosexually suggestive stuff and its not bad.

So I just wanted to ask: Is there something wrong with children knowing about homosexuality, or being allowed to see it in the way they see heterosexuality? And how is it a bad influence? And how is it wrong?

Also, I doubt they can, but what if they could become homosexual, what would be wrong with that? And how would that be a bad thing?[]

Comparing homosexuality to bestiality is obnoxious.

While I agree, that is not what I was doing. My point was made to say that they see that, but in trying to stop a straw man, I set myself up for one. Right, aren't I naive.

They should be told the truth. They should be told that homosexuals have the lowest life expectancy of practically any demographic, that they are less likely to procreate, and that they are far more likely to be promiscuous and contract STDs.

If you don't sugar-coat the truth, the truth isn't harmful.

Somehow I am inable to disagree with you, but my aim was trying to see why some want to hide it from children. Libertarians and their usage of the truth, what's with that?

[]They should be told the truth. They should be told that homosexuals have the lowest life expectancy of practically any demographic, that they are less likely to procreate, and that they are far more likely to be promiscuous and contract STDs.

If you don't sugar-coat the truth, the truth isn't harmful.[]
Well, unless you fill their heads with bullshit lies and homophobic rhetoric.

He isn't saying to do that, that's what the theocons and neocons do. I personally I agree with RPA for the same reasons I believe that children should be informed on what can happen to people who have promiscuous sex and act irresponsible and do drugs. Its just teaching them the facts.

[]They should be told that homosexuals have the lowest life expectancy of practically any demographic, that they are less likely to procreate, and that they are far more likely to be promiscuous and contract STDs.
[]

Wow, that's gonna help the child when he grows up. Ever heard of self-fulfilling prophecies?

Well not if the kid uses his brain and does things intelligently, if not it may be. Though there is nothing you can do (except not be promiscuous and get tested before sex and your partner tested) and have a loyal partner, that can lower if not eliminate that risk.

When we teach kids about African-Americans, we should mention that they have lower life expectancy than whites, are more likely to commit crimes, more likely to contract disease, more likely to be poor, and more likely to be murdered. We can't go about teaching students about black people without first emphasizing how much it sucks to be black.

And the president has even done that, and he is african american. That is no different. Its called talking to youth to make sure they make wise choices, especially those most vulnerable and most at risk, but then again, thats what RPA already said.

I believe that it is important to teach children to be accepting about homosexuality and all people who are different.

Teaching the children while they are young - perhaps around the time they are 7 or 8 - should ensure that they will be tolerant in all circumstances.

Yeah, which leads to my OP question, and thanks for the answer! I agree by the way. I don't see why theocons and neocons believe that somehow teaching children about homosexuality, especially when all they see on TV almost is sexually suggestive, is a problem. That is where i was getting at from that side of the aisle. Though I know cheney claims to be for it, he was against it until his daughter left the closet.

Yup. And some people just don't have the depth of thought of human understanding to realize why some (and I emphasize some because most of what is reported on homosexual statistics is Grade A bullshit) groups resort to dangerous behavior that may cause unhealthy lifestyle choices. When people of RPA's ilk force certain people to the edge of the main culture and tell them to fit in or get out then, any sociologist will tell you, a counter culture will develop that rejects the notions of the main culture. So if people gave a shit, which some obviously don't, this problem could be solved by education, which would produce understanding.

Nope, education is power, no matter how controversial or potentially damaging it can be. If we made sure we teach all at risk groups (whether it be sexual orientation, race or what not) the dangers they are at most risk of, they are more likely to know of them and defend themselves against it.

I had a girlfriend who was african american, and because her parents taught her the risks of being an african american woman, the things she is at risk for, she turned out to be a decent woman and was never involved in gangs, drugs nor other bad things that target minorities.

How that relates to homosexuality, the risk level is high when it comes to STD's, so you educate them to let them know to be more responsible. Like you would do with any other person, though especially those most at risk. It's like teaching a person with bee allergies to jab themselves with that needle if they get stung, as they are at high risk of being killed by being stung. That does not mean we are against homosexuals and homosexuality.

I think we as a culture DO need to be alot more tolerant, actually acceptant, of homosexuals. Actually I think we need to learn to like them as they are not the ones overpopulating the planet like me and my fellow heterosexuals.

As a father, I don't intend to say anything to my child about homosexuality until he's old enough to date the young man my life-partner and I have chosen for him. Us gay marrieds are pretty socially conservative.

That's another thing I don't get, why neocons and theocons think those who are for it are all on the liberal side. There are most likely more libertarian conservatives for gays being allowed to marry (not same sex marriage nor any form of legal marriage, but that has to do with our views of the roles of government, as we don't want hetero-marriage to be a legal matter either) than there are liberals who are not libertarian that do.

Look at Obama, he used homosexuals for a quick political victory, but obviously has no real intentions on doing anything for them (unless he needs votes on something else that they can help him with, which is unlikely).

So as for you saying married homosexuals are conservative, I don't doubt the majority are, the country is center-right, what makes homosexuals different than any other american? (other than their sexuality)

[grypo]

He isn't saying to do that, that's what the theocons and neocons do. I personally I agree with RPA for the same reasons I believe that children should be informed on what can happen to people who have promiscuous sex and act irresponsible and do drugs. Its just teaching them the facts.

It would be saying that if it wasn't explained as to why these conditions happen to minority groups. If it were framed in a manor like homosexual = "early death" or all homosexuals are promiscuous and have STD's and this is a universal truth then it would undoubtedly be filling kids heads with lies. And that is how I tool RPA's post. If I'm mistaken, I apologize.

While I agree, that is not what I was doing. My point was made to say that they see that, but in trying to stop a straw man, I set myself up for one. Right, aren't I naive.

Well anytime someone says, 'is homosexuality ok to talk about with kids' and follows that up with a Disney reference to bestiality, it sounds like a comparison. Again, if I'm wrong then sorry.

Nope, education is power, no matter how controversial or potentially damaging it can be. If we made sure we teach all at risk groups (whether it be sexual orientation, race or what not) the dangers they are at most risk of, they are more likely to know of them and defend themselves against it.

You're right, education is power. Which is why it's important to educate on the reasons for the homosexual counter culture not merely equate homosexuality with, ya know, "the bad stuff". Do you find that to be wrong?

[ninurta]

It would be saying that if it wasn't explained as to why these conditions happen to minority groups. If it were framed in a manor like homosexual = "early death" or all homosexuals are promiscuous and have STD's and this is a universal truth then it would undoubtedly be filling kids heads with lies. And that is how I tool RPA's post. If I'm mistaken, I apologize.

I see what you are saying and I agree. Though I may be wrong, I don't think RPA was trying to do that. I think he was saying to be realistic and not sugar coat the facts.

Educate people about it. Not just that its not a bad thing, but also that it comes with risks that just happen to be really high at the moment. The risk level may fall, but it won't fall if people aren't educated about it.

Well anytime someone says, 'is homosexuality ok to talk about with kids' and follows that up with a Disney reference to bestiality, it sounds like a comparison. Again, if I'm wrong then sorry.

I see where you misunderstood me, and no doubt I agree with you that the idea is rediculous. Though what I was saying was more in response to some who try to argue morals and what not, and I was really comparing it to bestiality. I was just saying they allow their kids to see cartoons that have bestiality,which was a bad example, but it was a direct attack on any possible morality arguements.

You're right, education is power. Which is why it's important to educate on the reasons for the homosexual counter culture not merely equate homosexuality with, ya know, "the bad stuff". Do you find that to be wrong?

I actually agree with you. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, the problem isnt homosexuality but the risks it (and heterosexual promiscuity bring), though a higher percentage of homosexuals have HIV/AIDS than heterosexuals (I believe that is what the study someone posted said). That is why educated them about the risks and teaching responsibility is important. Frowning down on homosexuality will solve nothing I agree.

[Kman]

I dont think its a concept you can hide from them, the gayness of modern television is at an all time high

[ninurta]

I dont think its a concept you can hide from them, the gayness of modern television is at an all time high

I never saw it on TV. Though its not something you can hide from them even if they were in a box. If they are gay they are gay, its not like there is anything you can do to stop someone from knowing that. And in the same sense, why should we shield our children from something that is harmless?

[Quercus Robur]

No I think we should wait till they're teenagers to talk about sexuality- most kids at any rate are simply uninterested in sexuality - in fact I'm more worried that exposing kids to sexuality media will colour their relationships with older kids who do understand about it than direct damage to the kid (although I don't know anything about kid psychology). Anyway I would have said yes if you'd phrased it "know of" homosexuality.

But I see no reason why any type of stable non-sexual but loving relationship could take its place in proper context in a kid's movie. Neutral portrayals of 'heterosexuals' or 'homosexuals' where this is mere background should not draw attention to sexuality.

[Kman]

I never saw it on TV. Though its not something you can hide from them even if they were in a box. If they are gay they are gay, its not like there is anything you can do to stop someone from knowing that. And in the same sense, why should we shield our children from something that is harmless?

Its not harmless, its a disaster for western society to have so many people become gay at a point in time when birth rates are already at critically low levels. Every gay couple = 4 people that will not have children = 4 people committing genetic suicide.

The western world is commiting demographic suicide and if westerners do not change their ways soon then their wont be a western world or culture in the future.

[ninurta]

No I think we should wait till they're teenagers to talk about sexuality- most kids at any rate are simply uninterested in sexuality - in fact I'm more worried that exposing kids to sexuality media will colour their relationships with older kids who do understand about it than direct damage to the kid (although I don't know anything about kid psychology). Anyway I would have said yes if you'd phrased it "know of" homosexuality.

But I see no reason why any type of stable non-sexual but loving relationship could take its place in proper context in a kid's movie. Neutral portrayals of 'heterosexuals' or 'homosexuals' where this is mere background should not draw attention to sexuality.

Just to let you know, when I say kid, I mean preteen to young teenagers. You know, the time when the hormones start firing up.

Its not harmless, its a disaster for western society to have so many people become gay at a point in time when birth rates are already at critically low levels. Every gay couple = 4 people that will not have children = 4 people committing genetic suicide.

With the world as crowded as it is, I don't see why you are crying as if we are an endangered species. Trust me, we won't go extinct any time soon from not having children, actually us putting less children into the world is beneficial in that it doesn't overpopulate the planet.

And how are lower birthrates harmful? I see them as helpful since there are too many people anyway.

The western world is commiting demographic suicide and if westerners do not change their ways soon then their wont be a western world or culture in the future.

Or simply most westerners such as myself are being responsible and only want 1-2 children because we don't want to be irresponsible with the planets resources by making our population grow any more than it has to.

[Kman]

With the world as crowded as it is, I don't see why you are crying as if we are an endangered species. Trust me, we won't go extinct any time soon from not having children, actually us putting less children into the world is beneficial in that it doesn't overpopulate the planet.

And how are lower birthrates harmful? I see them as helpful since there are too many people anyway.

Westerners not reproducing will not save the world, it will lead to evil and oppression taking over since westerners are historicly the people that respected and protected freedom the most.

Your attitude will in the end cause evil cultures taking over the world, being good and virtuous is very much a personality trait, and if the people that believe in freedom the most die out then oppression and ignorance will take over the world.

[grypo]

Westerners not reproducing will not save the world, it will lead to evil and oppression taking over since westerners are historicly the people that respected and protected freedom the most.

Your attitude will in the end cause evil cultures taking over the world, being good and virtuous is very much a personality trait, and if the people that believe in freedom the most die out then oppression and ignorance will take over the world.

Who are the evil people taking over the world?