Continuation of "how do you explain gay?"...

[MomoJA]

For me it always comes back to one question "Why the hell would anyone choose that lifestyle?" they are one of the few members of society who are still allowed to be treated like second class citizens. Why would anyone go out of their way to be treated like crap?

It has always been my gut feeling that homosexuality is something you are born being or not. However, I don't have any scientific proof. I don't know if Mjgates knows what he's talking about in terms of the "gay gene." I don't think he's making it up which means there must be some scientific studies that seem to suggest there is not a "gay gene." That's interesting, but it doesn't really matter, I don't think.

As for peopel chosing a lifestyel for which they are going to be treated like crap, I don't think homosexuality is alone in that. When I married my ex husband, I knew that there was a very good chance that we would face prejudice that would affect our livelihoods, our social lives, and possibly even our safety in extremely negative ways. It never actually came to anything, but we were just lucky in that. However, I do not think that I have a genetic pre-disposition to be attracted to Black men. In fact, I know for sure I do not.

 

[singledad]

Without wading into the debate here, I just want to point of some misconceptions:

Sorry I forgot to add, with all due respect, there are some who are born gay, that is on their genes. I know some people who showed it since they were little kids. But also you have the sex addict who turns gay because he/she does not find enough pleasure with a person from opposite gender.

Anyways, that is a discussion to have on another website.

I understand why you say this - I, too, believe that there is a small minority of people who choose the flamboyant, hard-partying and often promiscuous lifestyle commonly associated with homosexuality, for reasons known only to themselves, but you should not confuse that with people choosing to be gay. That is a different matter all together. And btw - there is no such thing as sex-addiction. It is a term that was made popular because of celebrities using it as an excuse when caught cheating on their partners. Compulsive sexual behaviour simply does not fit the definition for addiction. I'm not saying its not a problem for which professional help may be necessary - I'm simply saying that its something very, very different from addiction.

Actually, studies have had more success linking homosexuality to child abuse (although this was a small percent) and those raised by heterosexual as opposed to homosexual parents (big percentage differences in this study).

As parentastic said - these studies measured the likelihood of coming out, not of being gay.
1) Being abused does not make one gay. Period. That's a bit like saying women fall in love with rapists. Offensive, isn't it, when you apply it to women instead of little boys? Truth is that boys who were abused are very likely to be confused about their sexuality, and so are more likely to seek help than a gay man who wasn't abused, thus coming to terms with it and coming out.
2) Homosexuality isn't contagious. You cannot "catch" it from whoever brought you up, and it can't be "taught". Children brought up by homosexual parents are just more likely to accept it, and to be tolerant.

What you will do when your little boy (or girl) tells you after school:

"Daddy/Mommy, a boy (or girl, insert same gender here) was touching me today. Why they do that?"

Gay people are not more inclined to be abusive. They are no more likely to abuse children than straight people. Don't ever confuse pedophilia with homosexuality. There is no correlation whatsoever between the two.

To answer your question - I would tell my daughter that it was wrong for anyone to touch her without her permission, and that if anyone touched her in any way that made her feel uncomfortable, she should ask them to stop. And if they didn't stop, she had the right to make them stop in whichever way she chooses. I would also report the incident to the school. I don't see that the gender of the child in question would make any difference to how I deal with it.

 

[mjgates]

Parentastic, you seem to repeatedly get so caught up in your view of things as the only acceptable view of things that you do not see the forest for the trees. Mjgates has clearly answered these questions. He has clearly said that he DOES NOT want his child to believe that homosexuality is abnormal. That's his whole point.

I personally don't know or care if there is a "gay gene." I don't think it matters. And if the only way it can be normal to be gay is if there is a "gay gene," then that is a very sad state of things. I don't think there has to be a "gay gene" to accept gay people in the same way you would accept straight people.

It is actually possible, parentastic, to see things differently from you and not be a bigot. There are lots of ways of thinking and anyone who is truly "tolerant" should be able to accept that.

Exactly. Which is why I removed myself from this conversation. Parentastic. Read posts 6-8 on this thread. I did not have any hidden agenda as you stated. And I surely was not trying to pull out the argument,or else by that, you mean, not agreeing with you. Post 6 simply explains why I would take another approach on how to explain this to my kids. Which was the original subject matter of this thread, No? Post 7 on your reply starts to go a little off topic, and again, in post 8, I gave some reasons for my beliefs and tried to bring it back on topic a bit to no avail. This is an unproven subject matter on either side of the isle, so it is natural there will be differing opinions. I accept that, can you? It doesn't mean either approach is necessarily wrong, as long as there is a common goal of tolerance and understanding of minority groups, including the homosexual community. Who knows, in 2, 5, 10 years from now, maybe we have more data supporting one side of the isle more than another. Until then, there will continue to be opinions on both sides. And even with supported data, people will always have different parenting styles and approaches. There's 1000 approaches, but I would think, or hope, most have 1 common goal.

 

[NancyM]

Parentastic, you seem to repeatedly get so caught up in your view of things as the only acceptable view of things that you do not see the forest for the trees. Mjgates has clearly answered these questions. He has clearly said that he DOES NOT want his child to believe that homosexuality is abnormal. That's his whole point.

I think all of us have gotten 'caught' up in our own views somewhere through out this board where we didn't want to even TRY to accept anyone's view who differed from ours. Me being guilty as well.

But, I don't see why it's necessary to point that out MomaJa, this board belongs to all of us, and we all have our unique ideas on how to solve a problem.. And some of us do have the education to back up what we say.

Sometimes it's frustrating when your familiar with certain life problems because you studied it for years, or work in that profession, or have been degreed in a particular field and no one appreciates your input. You feel like "wow I can really help this person" and than someone makes a discourteous remark like the one you made , which not only demeans that persons effort but causes uncertain feelings to all of us who read it.

Parentastic has the same right that you and I have to express his view point as strongly as we all do, and from what I've seen, he has at many times considered other peoples points in many of his posts.

Some of his posts may be a bit loquacious but that is his technique and he's comfortable expressing himself that way. We should all just take what we need from each others posts and leave the rest without making hurtful comments.

Personally I feel uncomfortable when that happens to someone, but many times I don't say anything because I know what will happen when I do as will with this post, but I feel it necessary to say this.

And I've never been really good at keeping quite for too long... so I've been told.

 

[parentastic]

I think all of us have gotten 'caught' up in our own views somewhere through out this board where we didn't want to even TRY to accept anyone's view who differed from ours. Me being guilty as well.

But, I don't see why it's necessary to point that out MomaJa, this board belongs to all of us, and we all have our unique ideas on how to solve a problem.. And some of us do have the education to back up what we say.

Sometimes it's frustrating when your familiar with certain life problems because you studied it for years, or work in that profession, or have been degreed in a particular field and no one appreciates your input. You feel like "wow I can really help this person" and than someone makes a discourteous remark like the one you made , which not only demeans that persons effort but causes uncertain feelings to all of us who read it.

Parentastic has the same right that you and I have to express his view point as strongly as we all do, and from what I've seen, he has at many times considered other peoples points in many of his posts.

Some of his posts may be a bit loquacious but that is his technique and he's comfortable expressing himself that way. We should all just take what we need from each others posts and leave the rest without making hurtful comments.

Personally I feel uncomfortable when that happens to someone, but many times I don't say anything because I know what will happen when I do as will with this post, but I feel it necessary to say this.

And I've never been really good at keeping quite for too long... so I've been told.

Thank you for your support, Nancy! :wubclub:

 

[MomoJA]

I think all of us have gotten 'caught' up in our own views somewhere through out this board where we didn't want to even TRY to accept anyone's view who differed from ours. Me being guilty as well.

But, I don't see why it's necessary to point that out MomaJa, this board belongs to all of us, and we all have our unique ideas on how to solve a problem.. And some of us do have the education to back up what we say.

Nancy, I don't think it is acceptable to suggest that someone who has clearly said he does not want his children to grow up to be bigots is, because he holds a different view from you, going to do that or perhaps even WANTS to do that.

I agree this forum belongs to everyone, which is why a person should be able to state a different point of view and not be accused of being a bad parent and a bad person. (And as this is a parenting forum, any time you start using "bad parenting" to support your argument that has nothing to do with parenting, you are hitting WAY below the belt, and I would consider that to be the hurtful statement in all of this.) I feel it is important that when any of us see that sort of thing, we point it out and stand up for the parent.

 

[parentastic]

I don't think it is acceptable to suggest that someone who has clearly said he does not want his children to grow up to be bigots is, because he holds a different view from you, going to do that or perhaps even WANTS to do that.

There is a lot of things we want in life, and it's not because we <I>want</I> them that we necessarily get them. mjgates is free to express his/her opinion. Anyone is also free to raise their child as they see fit.
And I am free to express what I believe, based on knowledge that may not be widely known (or even well communicated, and I plead guilty to that) regarding diversity and how to present it to children <I>if our goal is to counter-balance the bias present in the society.</I>

Because, whether you want to admit it or not, <I>not talking</I> about a discriminative issue with a child <U><I>is already taking a stance</I></U> that communicate your tacit acceptance of the stereotypes and discrimination present everywhere, everyday around your child, in a very invisible yet invasive way.

You don't want to tell your child that gays are born gays, because "there are no definite scientific proof of it" ? Okay. Your choice. But don't come and pretend you do not because you try to be "neutral" and are trying not "presenting false information" to your child under that excuse. First, because the info exists: all it takes is to ask the very people concerned by it. Funny how simple such a solution is, when you think of it?

Second, because not saying anything is already allowing your child to integrate and accept all the false information he sees on TV, hear at school, and already think without even knowing he does.

You can of course disagree with the above. It's your right.
But it still is mine to express it.

I agree this forum belongs to everyone, which is why a person should be able to state a different point of view and not be accused of being a bad parent and a bad person.

MomoJA, you DO realize I have not, have never even written anywhere in this forum, ever, that anyone is a "bad parent" - even when we spoke about spanking - and <I>certainly not</I> in this thread?
At the most, I will clearly say when some parenting practices and actions can be detrimental to a child - and that, yes, I will do.
You may <I>feel </I>like a bad parent when you read what I write. I don't know, I am not in your head. If you do, then at least have the courage to <I>own it. </I>Don't pretend it is what I wrote, or even what I intend to imply.

(And as this is a parenting forum, any time you start using "bad parenting" to support your argument that has nothing to do with parenting, you are hitting WAY below the belt, and I would consider that to be the hurtful statement in all of this.) I feel it is important that when any of us see that sort of thing, we point it out and stand up for the parent.

So, basically, you felt bad for mjgates because you felt that if you were in his/her shoes, you would have <I>felt </I>as if I had said it was "bad parenting"? :err:

 

[parentastic]

Parentastic. Read posts 6-8 on this thread. I did not have any hidden agenda as you stated.

I am not saying that you have an agenda that you are not telling us, mjgates. I am saying that it's hidden <I>from you</I>.
I am saying that when we deal with diversity (people different from us, and trying to understand it) we act from a place of assumptions and these assumptions are invisible to us unless we become sensitized to them.

in post 8, I gave some reasons for my beliefs and tried to bring it back on topic a bit to no avail. This is an unproven subject matter on either side of the isle, so it is natural there will be differing opinions. I accept that, can you?

But that's the thing, mjgates.
It's "unproven" in your definition, because you decided that in order to "prove" it, you need some sort of quantitative study with some sort of link between genetics and gays (you are the one insisting on genes here).
Or, you could also simply ask the people concerned. Educate yourself on what the gay community says they feel, live, experience. Shouldn't that count? Isn't that actually much more important to tell your child than whatever point a scientific quantitative study has proven or not proven? In science, there are also qualitative studies, you know?

It doesn't mean either approach is necessarily wrong, as long as there is a common goal of tolerance and understanding of minority groups, including the homosexual community.

mjgates, I am going to state it as simply as I can say.
Until you listen to the people concerned, you are not acting in understanding. You are acting as a dominant group casting your assumptions on the minority group.
This is rule #1 of diversity.
Respect starts with listening to the point of view of these who live it everyday. <I>Tolerance </I>is not enough. The goal is <I><U>acceptance</U>.</I>

I was not born with any understanding of sexual behavior. I have only really heard this gay orientation argument from the gay community.

So why don't you listen to them? Do you think they are lying to you?

Who knows, in 2, 5, 10 years from now, maybe we have more data supporting one side of the isle more than another. Until then, there will continue to be opinions on both sides.

So let's see....
The entire LGBTQ community all agrees, across all countries and all groups, that they are born with their sexual orientation.
For hundreds of years, they get marginalized, bullied, we prevent them from loving, marrying; they get insulted as they walk hand in hand with a loved one; in some country they get prison, whipping or even death for their "choice" and "perversion" - yet with all that, they still cannot, will not "change" and "decide" to be attracted to someone else...
But you still want to wait another 10 years, just in case something new turns out?

Do you see what I mean?
Can you see your invisible bias?

 

[MomoJA]

There is a lot of things we want in life, and it's not because we <I>want</I> them that we necessarily get them. mjgates is free to express his/her opinion. Anyone is also free to raise their child as they see fit.

Who wants what? I don't know what you are referring to here. Mjgates wants to be treated with positive presuppositions? I want to be treated with positive presuppositions? Mjgates wants his children to grow up to be accepting of everyone, regardless of their "differences" from themselves? Which "want" are you talking about a person might have that we don't necessarily get them? I honestly don't know what you mean here.

And I am free to express what I believe, based on knowledge that may not be widely known (or even well communicated, and I plead guilty to that) regarding diversity and how to present it to children <I>if our goal is to counter-balance the bias present in the society.</I>

Please do express what you believe, but please don't accuse people of not being capable of raising their children well if they disagree with you on a scientific point that has nothing to do with whether or not someone can be "tolerant" (I hate that word in this context but it is what is being used on this thread and so I'll use it in the spirit in which it is meant, not the basic meaning) of homosexuals.

Because, whether you want to admit it or not, <I>not talking</I> about a discriminative issue with a child <U><I>is already taking a stance</I></U> that communicate your tacit acceptance of the stereotypes and discrimination present everywhere, everyday around your child, in a very invisible yet invasive way.

Who said anything about not taking a stance? I think mjgates has said that he would address the issues as they arise.

You don't want to tell your child that gays are born gays, because "there are no definite scientific proof of it" ? Okay. Your choice. But don't come and pretend you do not because you try to be "neutral" and are trying not "presenting false information" to your child under that excuse. First, because the info exists: all it takes is to ask the very people concerned by it. Funny how simple such a solution is, when you think of it?.

Actually, I don't think this is how you determine if there is a "gay gene." I don't think it is simple solution. I think it is bad "science." But, again, what does this have to do with being "tolerant."

Second, because not saying anything is already allowing your child to integrate and accept all the false information he sees on TV, hear at school, and already think without even knowing he does.

You can of course disagree with the above. It's your right.
But it still is mine to express it.

Again, this is what you assume will happen just because a person doesn't believe the "gay gene" has been proven to exist, but it is not what the person you are accusing of doing this has said will happen. It is the opposite. But because you are so concerned about the "gay gene" having been proven beyond any argument, you don't see that or perhaps don't believe it is possible to be "tolerant" without accepting that, and don't believe that a parent can raise his children to be "tolerant" if he doesn't believe that. And that's where you are saying, "either you believe this, or you will raise your children to be bigots, and you already are a bigot."

MomoJA, you DO realize I have not, have never even written anywhere in this forum, ever, that anyone is a "bad parent" - even when we spoke about spanking - and <I>certainly not</I> in this thread?
At the most, I will clearly say when some parenting practices and actions can be detrimental to a child - and that, yes, I will do.
You may <I>feel </I>like a bad parent when you read what I write. I don't know, I am not in your head. If you do, then at least have the courage to <I>own it. </I>Don't pretend it is what I wrote, or even what I intend to imply.

No, you didn't use the words, "bad parent," but you did by the words below, the words above, and the words you have used in another post to mjgates since the post below say that he can't raise his children to be "tolerant" or without prejudice unless he presents them with the "fact" that there is a "gay gene." I completely disagree with this stance. I don't care if there is a "gay gene" or not. Why should we be intolerant of people who "choose" to be gay if such a thing exists? If the only way you can be tolerant of gay people is because they are born that way, then I'm sorry for you.

But the point is, by saying he can't raise his children to be tolerant, or he WILL raise his children to be intolerant because he disagrees with you on this one matter, you have called him a bad parent.

What is your goal as a parent, under simply "answering a question" ?
Do you want your children to develop acceptance of a different reality than your own? Or to perpetrate stereotypes and discrimination?
Do you want your child to respect diversity or do you seek to mold your child to believe that homosexuality is abnormal?
Do you want your child to feel free to be true to themselves if one day in a few years they realize they are gay, or do you want them to feel awfule and abnormal and terrible and push them to hide it from you and the rest of the world?

I'll come out and say it if you won't. If you want to perpetuate stereotypes and discrimination to your children, you are a bad parent! And if mjgates had said that's what he wanted to do, I'd either ignore his statements all together, or make a very pointed comment in response. But he has said the OPPOSITE, which is why I commented on this in the first place.

So, yes, you have called him a bad parent. Sorry if you can't see that, and I don't think you can because you have since responded that he has an agenda that is hidden even from himself because he doesn't agree with you. (By the way, that's classic bullying techniques, though I'm not accusing you of doing it on purpose.)

So, basically, you felt bad for mjgates because you felt that if you were in his/her shoes, you would have <I>felt </I>as if I had said it was "bad parenting"? :err:

No. You did say it was bad parenting in other words. And I want everyone on this forum, including myself, to be able to express his honest opinions, or in this case, understanding of scientific studies, (and we can always find scientific studies that support our opinions -that includes you) and not be accused of being a bad parent.

And so what if that's what it had actually been. So what? I wouldn't have the right to express that? :err:

 

[parentastic]

Who wants what? I don't know what you are referring to here.

I am referring to what you just wrote.
You said that Mjgates does not want to raise his child in stereotypes and discrimination.
I responded that there are a lot of things people <I>want</I> (or does not want) but that it's not because you do that it happens.

Please do express what you believe, but please don't accuse people of not being capable of raising their children well if they disagree with you on a scientific point that has nothing to do with whether or not someone can be "tolerant" (I hate that word in this context but it is what is being used on this thread and so I'll use it in the spirit in which it is meant, not the basic meaning) of homosexuals.Who said anything about not taking a stance? I think mjgates has said that he would address the issues as they arise.

The point about whether gays are born that way or whether their sexual orientation can be "changed" is a critical issue for the LGBTQ community and a key point that has perpetrated centuries of discrimination and bullying for them, MomoJA.

<I>Can you understand that gays and lesbians have been repeatedly bullied, tortured, killed, scored, and marginalized because straight people, good intended people like you and I and MJgates thought that they could "change" their "ways", that they did this as a "choice", on purpose? And that it lasted hundreds of years of oppression because these straight people, they taught that to their own children and so on from generation to generation?</I>

Can you understand this?

Actually, I don't think this is how you determine if there is a "gay gene."

I am not talking about a "gay gene". I don't know why you seem obsessed with this. MJGates talked about the presence or absence of a gay gene and how science does know this. I did not.
What I said, is that human beings are born with their sexual orientation.
Whether this stems from genetics or from hormones and fetus transformation during the fetal stages of growth under the action of various hormones, and how it happens, is still unknown to science.
MJgates is using this uncertainty of science to avoid taking a stance, purposely ignoring the minority group's own stance on the matter.
Which perpetrates discrimination against them.

But, again, what does this have to do with being "tolerant."

If you can't figure it out after all I wrote about it, I suggest you re-read the text above a few more time.

because you are so concerned about the "gay gene" having been proven beyond any argument, you don't see that or perhaps don't believe it is possible to be "tolerant" without accepting that, and don't believe that a parent can raise his children to be "tolerant" if he doesn't believe that. And that's where you are saying, "either you believe this, or you will raise your children to be bigots, and you already are a bigot."

See above in italic.

No, you didn't use the words, "bad parent," but you did by the words below, the words above, and the words you have used in another post to mjgates since the post below

Let me be <U><I>really</I> clear</U> here.

MJgates said: "<I>I would actually explain this is the lifestyle this couple has chosen for themselves and they have the same rights and freedom as everyone else to live how they choose.</I> "

If you are not telling your child about gays what they themselves would want you to tell them for their discrimination to stop, that does not make you a bad parent. It simply does not make you someone that opposes discrimination, even if you <I>think</I> it does.

The rest - the judgment about parenting - it is all in your head.

I'll come out and say it if you won't. If you want to perpetuate stereotypes and discrimination to your children, you are a bad parent!

No. You are a not a bad parent. You just are acting as a dominant member who isn't understanding what is really going on with a minority group.

So, yes, you have called him a bad parent. Sorry if you can't see that

I didn't, Sorry if you can't see that.

 

[MomoJA]

I am referring to what you just wrote.
You said that Mjgates does not want to raise his child in stereotypes and discrimination.
I responded that there are a lot of things people <I>want</I> (or does not want) but that it's not because you do that it happens.



The point about whether gays are born that way or whether their sexual orientation can be "changed" is a critical issue for the LGBTQ community and a key point that has perpetrated centuries of discrimination and bullying for them, MomoJA.

<I>Can you understand that gays and lesbians have been repeatedly bullied, tortured, killed, scored, and marginalized because straight people, good intended people like you and I and MJgates thought that they could "change" their "ways", that they did this as a "choice", on purpose? And that it lasted hundreds of years of oppression because these straight people, they taught that to their own children and so on from generation to generation?</I>

Can you understand this?


I am not talking about a "gay gene". I don't know why you seem obsessed with this. MJGates talked about the presence or absence of a gay gene and how science does know this. I did not.
What I said, is that human beings are born with their sexual orientation.
Whether this stems from genetics or from hormones and fetus transformation during the fetal stages of growth under the action of various hormones, and how it happens, is still unknown to science.
MJgates is using this uncertainty of science to avoid taking a stance, purposely ignoring the minority group's own stance on the matter.
Which perpetrates discrimination against them.


If you can't figure it out after all I wrote about it, I suggest you re-read the text above a few more time.


See above in italic.



Let me be <U><I>really</I> clear</U> here.

MJgates said: "<I>I would actually explain this is the lifestyle this couple has chosen for themselves and they have the same rights and freedom as everyone else to live how they choose.</I> "

If you are not telling your child about gays what they themselves would want you to tell them for their discrimination to stop, that does not make you a bad parent. It simply does not make you someone that opposes discrimination, even if you <I>think</I> it does.

The rest - the judgment about parenting - it is all in your head.


No. You are a not a bad parent. You just are acting as a dominant member who isn't understanding what is really going on with a minority group.


I didn't, Sorry if you can't see that.

I completely disagree with everything you have said, including that you are not saying that someone is a bad parent when you say they are teaching discrimination. That's not in my head. You believing that saying someone is teaching discrimination is not saying they are a bad parent is in your head.

Your mind is closed on this matter. You can see only one way to not teach discrimination. "Gay gene" "born that way" "fetus transformation", etc. IT DOES NOT MATTER. Accepting a person for who they are no matter why or how they are that way is true acceptance. If you can't accept someone for who or what they are no matter what science or revelation may eventually prove one way or the other, your "acceptance" is conditional. I'd rather have unconditional acceptance.

Your whole argument that you can't teach acceptance without teaching it the way the target group wants it to be taught is BS, excuse me. I want you teach acceptance of me and my beliefs the way I want you to teach them. But we don't always get what we want, do we?

I happen to believe that gays are "born that way," but I can totally accept that mjgates can teach his children unconditional acceptance while not having that belief. I find the veiled and not so veiled accusations of bigotry offensive.

And now I step out of this debate, because it is going in circles, I can see. You will only accept one perception of the reality of this matter - yours and you'll continue to make broad assumptions about the "hidden agendas" and results of methods of anyone who does not see things the way you do.

 

[bssage]

Clearly were beyond the OP. Thread belongs here.

 

[parentastic]

I completely disagree with everything you have said

I am not surprised. If I was saying the sky is blue you'd be disagreeing.

Your mind is closed on this matter.

Kettle, meet pot.

Accepting a person for who they are no matter why or how they are that way is true acceptance.

Oh, but MomoJA, that's <U><I>precisely</I></U> the point.
You cannot truly accept a person for who they are unless you accept <I>their definition</I> of who they are - not your own biased one.

Here is a example, and I hope it will clear the matter once and for all.
For decades, many people believed that black people were inferiors. Some thought they were less "intelligent" and some would even try to "prove" it through science. In a very real way, black people even today still feel this perception around them from the white people.
The definition of "acceptance" you provided above is like telling a child:
<I>"I don't know if black people really are less intelligent than white people, because science has not clearly stated so. But it doesn't matter, because you have to accept people the way they are, no matter why or how they are!"</I>

It's exactly the same. You want to teach acceptance? Tell your child what these people want your child to learn about them. Not what you think you know.
My acceptance is not conditional. It's unconditional. But it's also based on opening my mind to their reality.

I happen to believe that gays are "born that way," but I can totally accept that mjgates can teach his children unconditional acceptance while not having that belief.

mjgates can teach whatever he wants to his children.
And he certainly can teach unconditional acceptance.
But if he doesn't teach his child what they are and experience, he still is perpetrating the oppression.

I find the veiled and not so veiled accusations of bigotry offensive.

You find a lot of what I write offensive, dear.
You could also not read it, you know?

Clearly were beyond the OP. Thread belongs here.

Thank you for moving it, Bssage, it clearly belongs here instead!

 

[MomoJA]

IOh, but MomoJA, that's <U><I>precisely</I></U> the point.
You cannot truly accept a person for who they are unless you accept <I>their definition</I> of who they are - not your own biased one.

Clearly, you know very few people from oppressed groups. If you had any REAL interaction with a range of people from oppressed groups you would know that if you were to poll them on their definition of who they (their group) are and what they want others to know about their group, you'd get contradictory results. PLEASE, PLEASE, try that before you come back here with a counter argument. I know this for a FACT!

And while I have never "polled" a range of gay people about this subject, because they are humans and not machines and do not share the same mind, I'm sure there is some small percentage out there who would contradict the majority on this matter as well. And unless you have asked every gay person in the world how they define themselves, you are making an ASSUMPTION about every single one of them - bias.

So whose definition do you go with? The majority? "GROUP SPEAK" So how are you being "accepting" of those others in that group? As I said, your argument is BS. And by the way, your definition AND their definition of who a group is is just as biased as anyone else's.

So either we give up here and now on people ever being accepting of "different" groups of people, or we start accepting them as individuals, each with his own differences, and not as groups with definitions. But you do it your way, as long as you are "tolerant" of others.

And DO NOT INSULT me and every Black person and gay person by making that analogy. Again, you are missing the point. If, by some chance, a person "CHOOSES" to be gay, it DOES NOT make them inferior. They are free to do that and not be judged. Being born gay is not what makes it okay.

As for my mind being closed, yes, it is closed on there being ONE way to teach your children right from wrong, good from bad, open-mindedness, acceptance. It is closed on there being only one acceptable way to be gay.

I've said that I believe that gays are born gay. I've said that I believe that a person who does not can still be accepting of gays. My mind is OPEN about both of those possibilities. Yours is CLOSED. That's what close minded means.

By the way, the sky is blue.

 

[MomoJA]

You find a lot of what I write offensive, dear.
You could also not read it, you know?

I find insulting other people you know nothing about, bullying them by casting aspersions about them for disagreeing with you, to be offensive. (By the way, I've only responded to you on three matters including being an "ederly parent" in which there was no argument. I guess that's a lot.)

I have two choices, I can bury my head and look the other way, or I can stand up to the bullying. I have always stood up against bullies, (you know, for those oppressed people) even when I knew it wasn't going to make me popular with the popular crowd.

 

[NancyM]

MomoJa

I feel the same way you do about bullies but, and I've seen what I would consider plenty of bulling on this board, as well as other message boards but, really, I don't see Parentistic bullying anyone, if I did I would say so.

Maybe it's just a personality clash you have with him which is possible and ok, but it seems to be getting worse.

As an active member of this message board, I'd like to suggest that you try not to respond to his remarks and he not respond to yours just so you can catch your breath and continue to add your valued and respected opinions to other members posts.

Even if we despise what someone is saying, we still have the option to choose our words carefully when we respond as to not accuse them of being something they claim they.re not, or we can just ignore them and not respond at all. We have that choice and control.

Have to run to work just wanted to add my few cents.
Have a good day.

 

[parentastic]

Clearly, you know very few people from oppressed groups. If you had any REAL interaction with a range of people from oppressed groups you would know that if you were to poll them on their definition of who they (their group) are and what they want others to know about their group, you'd get contradictory results. PLEASE, PLEASE, try that before you come back here with a counter argument. I know this for a FACT!

This is true for many issues and many oppressed groups; clearly you know very few people from the LGBTQ community.
That's ONE issue they are 99.9% agreeing on.

But you miss my point. I reacted to mjgates because he was clearly stating he didn't care what the community had to say, he only cared for the scientific "proof" he cannot get.
You can't talk to your children about oppressed people the way you perceive them yourself when you are part of the majority and expect to stop the oppression. If you sincerly do not know, then you could teach your child to ask them.

I perfectly understand what you are saying, momoJA, you just don't seem to get what I say.

And unless you have asked every gay person in the world how they define themselves, you are making an ASSUMPTION about every single one of them - bias.

MomoJA, my best friend works in a non profit organization whose mandate is to go into schools and talk to kids about being gay and lesbians and teaching them how to accept them and understand them, and she has been doing this for 15 years.
I know what I am talking about.

If, by some chance, a person "CHOOSES" to be gay, it DOES NOT make them inferior. They are free to do that and not be judged. Being born gay is not what makes it okay.

Of course not, it does not make them inferior.
But if you teach your kid that they can chose to be gay, you still perpetrates the oppression for 99.9% of them.
This thread is not about judging them for their view. It's about teaching children the proper knowledge so that the oppression stops.

As for bullying? Please re-read your responses to my posts.
If someone is bullying here, it certainly looks more like you than me. I suggest we both stop responding to each other.
I for one, have not called you names. Nor have I called anyone a bad parent, despite all your claims.

 

[alter ego]

What you will do when your little boy (or girl) tells you after school:

"Daddy/Mommy, a boy (or girl, insert same gender here) was touching me today. Why they do that?"

Insert your creative, politically correct answer here.

"But Daddy/Mommy, what should I do?"

What will be your answer?

NOONE touches us if we arent comfortable!
(And this includes me - if my child doesnt want me touching them, they have the right to say no - THEY own their body)

 

[bssage]

You may think this is ducking the issue. But when the issue comes up around here I stick with. " Choose you friends based on how they treat you and others around them. Everything else is BS designed only to exclude." That includes race, sex, sexual orientation, social status, income level.

The answer for "Where kids come from?" does not change because your gay, does it?

We will see when it will happen but what worries me more is how to avoid not being biased if the second question is: But if all the lions turn gay how they will have cubs?

Simple answer. They wont.

As an active member of this message board, I'd like to suggest that you try not to respond to his remarks and he not respond to yours just so you can catch your breath and continue to add your valued and respected opinions to other members posts.

Well put Nancy.

Many time's when we assume people dont understand what we are trying to say. We are incorrect.

They understand, they just dont agree. And thats OK.

 

[parentastic]

To further continue this debate related to homosexuality and whether sexual orientation is something human beings are born with, I refer you to this article in the globe and mail: The gay wild kingdom.

In this article, the author refers to several scientific studies conducted on animals to try to understand why some of them - about 10% - seem to be "gay". I quote :

"There is homosexual behaviour throughout the animal kingdom, documented all over the place," ranging from lesbian macaque monkeys in the forests of Japan to gay penguins at the Central Park Zoo in New York, noted Prof. Perkins, who is now chairwoman of the psychology department at Carroll College in Montana.

When conducting these experiments, they noted that :

And the sheep at the experiment station in Idaho are continuing to provide evidence that sexual preference is biologically determined, possibly before birth. (...)
Prof. Roselli thinks that the brain differences in the sheep, and possibly in humans, arise during fetal development. Various studies indicated that the testes of the male fetus release testosterone at a critical period of brain development when sexual preference is being established.
"The testosterone exposure helps to maintain more cells in the area [governing sexual preference], so that later in life they can function in their adult capacity," Prof. Roselli said.

And:

What all the new research does suggest is that sexual orientation is established very early in development -- and, once it is established,<I> it is set for life</I>. "I don't think you could find a scientist who would say it's a learned behaviour -- we are so past that," Prof. Perkins said. The hot new fields of research involve factors that might influence the developing fetus - including genetics, diet, chemical exposures and even maternal stress during pregnancy.

Read the original article.
<URL url="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-gay-wild-kingdom/article937756/">Source: The gay wild kingdom
Paul Taylor
Published Saturday, Apr. 24, 2004 7:33AM EDT

The notion that "there are no scientific proof" is, frankly, a bogus claim out of either ignorance, homophobia, or a lack of honesty in the debate. The idea that "the only people claiming homosexuality is set at birth are from within the LGBTQ community" is also false.

Give whatever information you want to give to your child, it's your right to do so. Just don't pretend you don't do it in the name of scientific proof and fairness.