Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/14/07 04:32 PM, Bolo wrote:

Gays have a LOT to be afraid of, in coming out to the world; How are they going to be accepted when the biases against them are so heavy? If they're in the military, will they lose their job, their livelihood? Only recently have they gained enough respect to be recognized and protected under the laws. Don't pull out that card about them not coming out because society will "accept them with open arms". That's often NOT the case, at all.

Exactly my point. If being gay is still a bit taboo in certain areas of life, why should children be taught about it. I know you make the point that you dont think it should be taught to young kids, and i commend you for that. Acceptance - yes. Teach children who are a bit older that gys should not be hated as different, but do not teach them that it is normal.

I guess that comes across as bigoted, but thats not how I intend it.

At 3/14/07 03:26 PM, Bolo wrote:

Biologically, it's been found to be exhibited in monkeys, and even the ancient Greeks engaged in sodomy.

So what are you saying? Animals can't do it?

It does occur naturally in many species, and although they are in the minority (mainly because it isn't possible for them to produce children, biologically.)

There, you just proved my point. Now shut the fuck up.

At 3/13/07 11:21 PM, fli wrote: AND I said that you were, are, will be... wrong.

Sorry. I got the impression you were trying to be sarcastic in your post. I probably should of read it instead of saw a few words and decided on something.

Because the legal rights of maritial equality far outweighs popular belief of a majority who,

de·moc·ra·cy /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-mok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

Sorry. If the will of the people are against it then it's legal, but you could always attempt to usurper the role of government and impose gay-marriage on the nation.

if it weren't checked, would overwhelm the minority.

Basically, all this post lets me know is liberals only care about democracy when the majority is with them.

The majority back 50 to 60 years ago believed the very same thing... it's illegal to force the popular consensus to give the legal right of Blacks to marry Whites if both wanted to do so.

Legal and illegal are relative terms. I don't know if the majority actually believed all non-whites are subhuman, but if they did then so be it. I'd have to move out of this nation, but to trample on the beliefs of the people is equivalent to a dictatorship.

Strawman... my ass.

You seemed to of misrepresented my view, so I guess we'll just disagree here.

At 3/14/07 03:03 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/14/07 02:30 PM, fli wrote:

all they need to know about homosexuality is, as "Daddy's Roommate" once put, "is a different kind of love."

If that's the case, we should also tell and show 4 year olds how Homosexuality is also not normal biologically.

It's only fair after all since biologically it isn't the norm.

Whatever...
An already complicated issue for adults, although-- my point is to introduce the subject... not delving into it altogether.

But then again,
it's an all together different tagent of the homosexual debate.

And in all sincerity,
we might as well tell what daddy does to put the little baby in mommy's belly. (Sex.) "It's only fair."

At 3/14/07 06:18 PM, fli wrote:

we might as well tell what daddy does to put the little baby in mommy's belly. (Sex.) "It's only fair."

With your logic at teaching kids at the age of 4 when they will not remember nor comprehend what you are teaching... yes.

At 3/14/07 03:17 PM, Boltrig wrote: Take this situation:
Your four year old asks you, "whats a relationship?" You tell them that theyll find out when theyre older. So why then does the PC crown feel the need for them to know about homosexual relationships at that age?

Is that how you plan to treat your 4 year olds? "Wait till you're older?"
You tell the truth... but not all of it.

"Relationship is a love."
How simple and truthful that quetion is...

Perhaps my parents were modern... I remember my sister asked, "What's rape?" When she was 7 years old. After they asked where she heard that word, my dad gave a really simple but truthful answer. "Rape is bad touching by a bad guy in your private places." Nothing happend my dad...

I remember when I was 6, and I asked what a virgin was... because we were Roman Catholic and I didn't know what "Virgin Mary." Meant. They didn't go into sex and all that... "It's like your sister who hasn't had a baby by another man."

Heck, when I asked, "What's sex?" They said, "It's a type of love people make together." And so when I asked, "Do you make sex with mom?" My dad said, "Yes." And after that, it was okay.

Now...
Kids don't really need to know anything. We're trying raise them as adults, and such... we need to introduce the things that make them grow up.

To wait would make the issues much more difficult to comprehend... and much more difficult to handle. They have less of a chance to handle adult issues with maturity when compared to a person who through out life was given the issues bit by bit.

Despite what you have said,
homosexuality is a norm. It's certainly not an underground thing, and it's taboo is signficantly less than compared decades ago. A kid will pick up on that easily if they watch TV. There's so much homoexual reference in their lives and yet, we don't assume, "Oh, they're innocent. They don't know any better."

That's only part of the truth.
Yes, they're "innocent" but... they "know" things accordingly to what they've observed. And without a mature adult, we don't know how that will lead up in their lives.

God bless these children books.
They open a dialogue without raising too much questions. It helps the parents to lessen the blow of harsh reality and difficult issues so that when kids start to ask when they're older, "What does it mean to be gay..."

It won't be an issue that will suddenly take parents by suprise.

And yet we could be teaching kids important information.

No wonder the American Education System is failing. We keep getting rid of useful stuff for this crap.

At 3/14/07 06:06 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/14/07 03:26 PM, Bolo wrote:

Biologically, it's been found to be exhibited in monkeys, and even the ancient Greeks engaged in sodomy.

So what are you saying? Animals can't do it?

What the fuck are you talking about? I just said that animals have been observed to engage in sodomy, as well as heterosexual relations. I don't really see how my statement could be misinterpreted.

It does occur naturally in many species, and although they are in the minority (mainly because it isn't possible for them to produce children, biologically.)

There, you just proved my point. Now shut the fuck up.

And yet, it occurs in nature. Without human provocation / intervention.

And it has been for as long as sexual reproduction has been in existance. That's about 1 billion years, according to the evolutionary clock,

At 3/14/07 07:23 PM, Bolo wrote:

I don't really see how my statement could be misinterpreted.

It wasn't. I was rush typing. OMG!

It does occur naturally in many species, and although they are in the minority (mainly because it isn't possible for them to produce children, biologically.)

There, you just proved my point. Now shut the fuck up.

And yet, it occurs in nature. Without human provocation / intervention.

That's like saying Chernobyl was normal when the odds of something like that happening are extremely slim.

Are you also willing to say that the next meteor to "maybe" hit earth is normal when it has a 99.7% chance of missing?

Maybe I should refer you to Dictionary.com

First definition: "conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural. "

And it has been for as long as sexual reproduction has been in existance. That's about 1 billion years, according to the evolutionary clock

And yet that doesn't make it "normal" because it's not "common".

Try again you little shit.

At 3/14/07 09:43 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/14/07 07:23 PM, Bolo wrote:

I don't really see how my statement could be misinterpreted.

It wasn't. I was rush typing. OMG!

Zomg.

It does occur naturally in many species, and although they are in the minority (mainly because it isn't possible for them to produce children, biologically.)

There, you just proved my point. Now shut the fuck up.

And yet, it occurs in nature. Without human provocation / intervention.

That's like saying Chernobyl was normal when the odds of something like that happening are extremely slim.

How does that apply to the situation? Chernobyl was a human-created disaster.

From a human-created nuclear reactor.

Homosexuality is a nature-created situation.

Are you also willing to say that the next meteor to "maybe" hit earth is normal when it has a 99.7% chance of missing?

One out of every ten animals is supposed by experts to exhibit homosexual tendencies. 10%. That's a higher percentage than the Libertarians and the Green Party garnered COMBINED in the last presidential election. Hardly as miniscule as you suggest.

Maybe I should refer you to Dictionary.com

First definition: "conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural. "

I'm not going to argue that they aren't a minority, because they are. But there a just so many of them (there's more in the US than the population of some small countries), that it can hardly be considered as "abnormal".

And it has been for as long as sexual reproduction has been in existance. That's about 1 billion years, according to the evolutionary clock

And yet that doesn't make it "normal" because it's not "common".

Try again you little shit.

Such anger! Why are you perpetually getting your panties all bunched up?

At 3/14/07 10:46 PM, Bolo wrote:

Homosexuality is a nature-created situation.

Tada!

One out of every ten animals is supposed by experts to exhibit homosexual tendencies. 10%. That's a higher percentage than the Libertarians and the Green Party garnered COMBINED in the last presidential election. Hardly as miniscule as you suggest.

Still, that's not normal. C'mon, you have to do better.

I'm not going to argue that they aren't a minority, because they are. But there a just so many of them (there's more in the US than the population of some small countries), that it can hardly be considered as "abnormal".

And yet by definition... and considering homosexuality is opposed to what the human body is suppose to do in reproduction...

Such anger! Why are you perpetually getting your panties all bunched up?

I'm purposefully getting you to do the same. Insult!

At 3/14/07 06:51 PM, Memorize wrote: And yet we could be teaching kids important information.

No wonder the American Education System is failing. We keep getting rid of useful stuff for this crap.

*Pomp and Circumstance plays*

Hokay, Barbie...

We know you're the expert on blonde...
We know that the American Education System is failing soley because we have gay fairy tales... and nothing else.

At 3/14/07 11:25 PM, fli wrote:

We know you're the expert on blonde...
We know that the American Education System is failing soley because we have gay fairy tales... and nothing else.

Sure, you could say that.

At 3/14/07 06:40 PM, fli wrote:

At 3/14/07 03:17 PM, Boltrig wrote: Take this situation:
Your four year old asks you, "whats a relationship?" You tell them that theyll find out when theyre older. So why then does the PC crown feel the need for them to know about homosexual relationships at that age?

Is that how you plan to treat your 4 year olds? "Wait till you're older?"
You tell the truth... but not all of it.

Umm... Yes. Why would my four year old need to know, not even the mechanics, but the concepts of relationships. They will not be able to comprehend the full depths of it

"Relationship is a love."
How simple and truthful that quetion is...

Perhaps my parents were modern... I remember my sister asked, "What's rape?" When she was 7 years old. After they asked where she heard that word, my dad gave a really simple but truthful answer. "Rape is bad touching by a bad guy in your private places." Nothing happend my dad...

I remember when I was 6, and I asked what a virgin was... because we were Roman Catholic and I didn't know what "Virgin Mary." Meant. They didn't go into sex and all that... "It's like your sister who hasn't had a baby by another man."

Heck, when I asked, "What's sex?" They said, "It's a type of love people make together." And so when I asked, "Do you make sex with mom?" My dad said, "Yes." And after that, it was okay.

And there we have it, telling part of the truth but not all of it. You are condeming the way you were raised while trying to praise it.

Now...
Kids don't really need to know anything. We're trying raise them as adults, and such... we need to introduce the things that make them grow up.

No we're not. If i ever have kids I will raise them as such. I will not rob my offspring of the precious times of innocence. Its taken away all too quickly these days, and Im not going to accelerate it.

To wait would make the issues much more difficult to comprehend... and much more difficult to handle. They have less of a chance to handle adult issues with maturity when compared to a person who through out life was given the issues bit by bit.

So in the same vain if your child asks what America is at war for, then you should explain to them all the politics and scenarios behind it, because otherwise they arent getting the whole truth.

Despite what you have said,
homosexuality is a norm. It's certainly not an underground thing, and it's taboo is signficantly less than compared decades ago. A kid will pick up on that easily if they watch TV. There's so much homoexual reference in their lives and yet, we don't assume, "Oh, they're innocent. They don't know any better."

Homosexuality is not the norm. It is accepted but untill >50% of the population is gay it is not the norm. The reason that TV makes so many refrences to it is that it is still considered edgy, due to its taboo status.

That's only part of the truth.
Yes, they're "innocent" but... they "know" things accordingly to what they've observed. And without a mature adult, we don't know how that will lead up in their lives.

I dont think you qualify as a mature adult. Rasiing your kids as adults? Rasing them to BE adults yes, but kids should be kids for as long as possible. There is no need for them to be taught about gay relationships that early. teaching them even about the existence of them puts a slant on their view because theyre so impressionable at that age.

God bless these children books.
They open a dialogue without raising too much questions. It helps the parents to lessen the blow of harsh reality and difficult issues so that when kids start to ask when they're older, "What does it mean to be gay..."

Do you realise how retarded (and yes i know its a stron word) that statement is. God condemns homosexuality, so why the fuck would he bless it.

I think, Boltrig,
you believe that if children read a story about gays... that they will turn gay themselves.

And this is the crux of all your problems.

In fairy tails, there's a lot of death.
The prince kills the hag.
The dragon dies.
The wolf eats up grandma.

Yet... they simply don't need to know about this. Yet, we expose them to these rather violent deaths all the time to their impressionable minds. And since when have you've heard someone blame a bad childhood because of this.

The gay children's literature genre is there to preserve an child's innocence, unlike what I'm senseing what you believe.

Have you ever read one of those books? (I'm thinking no...) Most of them are beautiful and very light hearted for such a serious subject.

What it all boils down to is that you don't like the idea of kids having a view of homosexuals in which they don't condencend gays like you. This isn't to say that they're accepting it because all that gay children's lit does is explain what gay means without the political or religious connotations. It doesn't try to "establish" the norm so that they can become gay when they grow up... but explain what's already there and what they have already seen on TV.

Coming from a Mexican family, I had to do my part to raise my cousins.
As early as 2, they already know what gay meant. And now that they're around 5 to 7... they're okay. They know that gay means a different kind of love, and I don't see them wanting to be gay. For them it's, "Oh... okay."

Despite what you believe, homosexuality isn't a deviant behavior. It's a way of life for most open homosexuals, and as more gays are starting to come out... people will start to notice this. So will the children. And how do you best explain them? You don't tell them everything. Give them piece by piece. Not even trying to persue them to either end of the argument. God bless these books. One of them at least has made my life easier.

At 3/15/07 01:17 PM, fli wrote: but explain what's already there and what they have already seen on TV.

If it's on tv, then what's the point on taking out a kid's education to teach them this?

At 3/15/07 01:30 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/15/07 01:17 PM, fli wrote: but explain what's already there and what they have already seen on TV.

If it's on tv, then what's the point on taking out a kid's education to teach them this?

Kids watch sex on TV all the time. I think most of us grew up with it if most of us watched day time TV.

Does this eliminatate a parent's duty of explaining what sex is?

TV is hardly a substitute for good parenting.
I would prefer to give a mature and as neutral view on the ANY mature topic.

At 3/15/07 01:38 PM, fli wrote:

TV is hardly a substitute for good parenting.

Good. Then the school has nothing to do with it. Congrats.

At 3/15/07 01:43 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/15/07 01:38 PM, fli wrote:

TV is hardly a substitute for good parenting.

Good. Then the school has nothing to do with it. Congrats.

I recall that you're an ID proponent and other religious things for schools.
Good. Then schools has nothing to do with it. Congrats.

At 3/15/07 02:08 PM, fli wrote:

I recall that you're an ID proponent and other religious things for schools.

ID can shove it.

When that rolled around, all I said was that I have no problem making it an elective class and that I didn't care one way or the other because ID won't be mandatory. Unlike you, who wishes to take out the proper education to teach them things you said that they already have seen.

Unlike the ACLU who wishes the Islam Religous History be taught in schools. A tad hypocritical eh?

Now quit assuming things.

At 3/15/07 02:11 PM, Memorize wrote: ...I said was that I have no problem making it an elective class and that I didn't care one way or the other because ID won't be mandatory.

Oh... I see...
No wonder the American Education System is failing. We keep getting rid of useful stuff for this crap.

At 3/15/07 03:02 PM, fli wrote:

At 3/15/07 02:11 PM, Memorize wrote: ...I said was that I have no problem making it an elective class and that I didn't care one way or the other because ID won't be mandatory.

Oh... I see...
No wonder the American Education System is failing. We keep getting rid of useful stuff for this crap.

;
Fli ,why are you bothering?
I've read this thread and anyone who believes that a child who reads a story, in this case a made up story, where the hero picks someone of their sex to be happily ever after with.

I think the real problem with these types of stories (gay ,straight whatever) is the 'happily ever after' that isn't going to ever happen. but these types of stories promote that ideal.

If you truely believe this will make your child gay, your an idiot.
That kind of 'logic' would mean if they read a story about turning into a monster, that's what would happen. c'mon that's just nuts.

I'm more for honesty with your child , I have several friends that are gay.
My daughter has pretty much been around them her whole life, so far she seems like a regular kid. When Lisa & Gracie got married last year she was happy for them, so was I.
You can't keep your child in a bubble for 10,15 + years and then suddenlye xpect a well adjusted person, you will probably end up with a basket case.

At 3/15/07 03:02 PM, fli wrote:

Oh... I see...
No wonder the American Education System is failing. We keep getting rid of useful stuff for this crap.

It's funny how that doesn't apply to me.

And that would be adding, not 'getting rid of' as you wish for your pathetic opinion on teaching 4 year olds.

Come back when you quit being such a dumbass.

At 3/15/07 03:39 PM, morefngdbs wrote: When Lisa & Gracie got married last year she was happy for them, so was I.
You can't keep your child in a bubble for 10,15 + years and then suddenlye xpect a well adjusted person, you will probably end up with a basket case.

Quoted for truth.
I don't know. Memorize, You seem like a smart person (most of the time)... but if anyone lives in a bubble, it has to be you. And this is the reason why introducing the topic bit by bit instead of waiting and suddenly dropping it all at once is better.

At 3/15/07 03:40 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/15/07 03:02 PM, fli wrote:

Oh... I see...
No wonder the American Education System is failing. We keep getting rid of useful stuff for this crap.

It's funny how that doesn't apply to me.

Obviously... since we know how it's so important to probably think that there's a being who's made stuff instead of learning what is already scientifically tested... even if it's an elective. *eye rollie*

Obviously because it's better to learn how from people who will say, "You don't believe in a maker? Look at this banana and tell me there isn't... dumbass."

Because heavens knows that progressively and adjusting young children to be mature people able to handle mature topics isn't as important than ID's answer to life: "Banana."

Come back when you quit being such a dumbass.

At 3/14/07 12:34 PM, Boltrig wrote: So your against religious freedom then? Your all for stripping religious organisations of the right to practice their faith, in favour of making same sex couples more able to pretend they are a regular family.

No, I'm saying that it's an issue that requires more consideration and debate, because there are children involved, and those children aren't property, they are people who are seperate living entities from the adoption agency.

By trying to fit this under the umbrella of "religious freedom" you're going to deny children adoptive parents on the basis of religious beliefs which those children may or may not share.

Kids aren't property, and adoption agencies aren't businesses. Normally, I'd be on the side of the private organisation, but in this case, what I'm saying is that the issue is more complex than it first appears because of the fact that they're dealing with people, not goods.