• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Homosexuality A Choice?

Is Homosexuality A Choice?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 15.9%
  • No

    Votes: 136 65.7%
  • Maybe/Don't Know

    Votes: 38 18.4%

  • Total voters
    207
By "liberty to avoid public advocacy for others moral lines that I (you) disagree with" do you mean you wish to be free of others advocating a morality that may be different from yours, our even opposite of yours?

And by statement about bi-directional perspective, you think that someone would agree with you.

I am sorry there isn't enough context here to have a conclusion and i prefer not to jump to any.


One example: I'm thinking of the push, especially in California schools, to advocate for moral equivalence between all sexual choices. This type of advocacy has nothing to do with education and has everything to do with indoctrinating children and normalization of non traditional behaviors. If one wants to engage in that behavior its not my business but don't bring your sense of sexual morality in my child's' school.

By bidirectional thinking I mean this: If you teach your children at home that homosexual behavior is equivalent to heterosexual behavior; and institutional advocates force your child to sit in a classroom where they are taught that heterosexual behavior is the only acceptable thing, you would probably rather that preference was removed from the classroom. Just as a parent that teaches in the other direction that heterosexual behavior is the only acceptable thing wants the school not to contradict their moral judgment by teaching sexual preference equivalence.
 
One example: I'm thinking of the push, especially in California schools, to advocate for moral equivalence between all sexual choices. This type of advocacy has nothing to do with education and has everything to do with indoctrinating children and normalization of non traditional behaviors. If one wants to engage in that behavior its not my business but don't bring your sense of sexual morality in my child's' school.

By bidirectional thinking I mean this: If you teach your children at home that homosexual behavior is equivalent to heterosexual behavior; and institutional advocates force your child to sit in a classroom where they are taught that heterosexual behavior is the only acceptable thing, you would probably rather that preference was removed from the classroom. Just as a parent that teaches in the other direction that heterosexual behavior is the only acceptable thing wants the school not to contradict their moral judgment by teaching sexual preference equivalence.

This is a sticky issue as it can be taught from an informational standpoint that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent. For example, why do most heterosexuals want to get married? Love and commitment. Why do most homosexuals want to get married? Love and commitment. Reporting this equivalency is information, not morality. Assigning a value to it could be.
 
My point... is... quite simple. To correct the poster who said it is "normal". Nothing more... nothing less.

Homosexuality is not... "normal". Heterosexuality is "normal."

Just say'in.

I am just trying to understand your response to me.
 
This is a sticky issue as it can be taught from an informational standpoint that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent. For example, why do most heterosexuals want to get married? Love and commitment. Why do most homosexuals want to get married? Love and commitment. Reporting this equivalency is information, not morality. Assigning a value to it could be.

I don't think school should be there to make a value judgment on homosexual behavior if they're going to teach about it in sex ed.

What they need to do is speak facts. Such as, and correct me if I'm wrong... but I recall hearing this from an MD... the male-male side of the equation.

The anus isn't designed for a penis. The angle is not ideally suited for one, and the tissue when compared to a vagina makes HIV risk much greater; hence the greater risk of homosexual males contracting HIV than heterosexuals, which explains why HIV/AIDS ravaged the homosexual community. The risk I recall was 600 times greater. Homosexual males tend to have more health problems than heterosexual males as well. Now, if this isn't 100% accurate folks... correct it, but don't take offense, which brings me to a repetition of my original point...

The straight scoop need be taught, the good, bad and ugly. That's education... spare the kids the promotion or moral judgments.
 
I don't think school should be there to make a value judgment on homosexual behavior if they're going to teach about it in sex ed.

I can agree with this.

What they need to do is speak facts. Such as, and correct me if I'm wrong... but I recall hearing this from an MD... the male-male side of the equation.

The anus isn't designed for a penis. The angle is not ideally suited for one, and the tissue when compared to a vagina makes HIV risk much greater; hence the greater risk of homosexual males contracting HIV than heterosexuals. The risk I do believe was 600 times greater. Homosexual males tend to have more health problems than heterosexual males as well. Now, if this isn't 100% accurate folks... correct it, but don't take offense, which brings me to a repetition of my original point...

The straight scoop need be taught, the good, bad and ugly. That's education... spare the kids the promotion or moral judgments.

Anal sex can create more health problems than penile-vaginal sex, such as tearing and potential HIV contraction. This is what should be taught... however, remember that heterosexuals perform anal sex, also, and are subjected to the same health risks. ONLY mentioning it in context of homosexuality is a value judgment. It is also accurate that HIV is at a higher risk for people who participate in risky sexual behaviors. This pertains to heterosexuals and homosexuals. ONLY mentioning it in context of homosexuality is a value judgment. It is true that homosexuals are at greater risk for contraction of HIV, but that is due to many homosexuals engaging in risky sexual behavior (not using condoms, primarily). This is a reflection of some of culture, not of homosexuality itself. Stating that it is due to homosexuality is a value judgment. This is certainly a complex area, but just reporting the facts is not too hard if you know what they are.
 
I can agree with this.



Anal sex can create more health problems than penile-vaginal sex, such as tearing and potential HIV contraction. This is what should be taught... however, remember that heterosexuals perform anal sex, also, and are subjected to the same health risks. ONLY mentioning it in context of homosexuality is a value judgment. It is also accurate that HIV is at a higher risk for people who participate in risky sexual behaviors. This pertains to heterosexuals and homosexuals. ONLY mentioning it in context of homosexuality is a value judgment. It is true that homosexuals are at greater risk for contraction of HIV, but that is due to many homosexuals engaging in risky sexual behavior (not using condoms, primarily). This is a reflection of some of culture, not of homosexuality itself. Stating that it is due to homosexuality is a value judgment. This is certainly a complex area, but just reporting the facts is not too hard if you know what they are.

Well... how's them apples... there's agreement.
 
Well... how's them apples... there's agreement.

divide3.jpg

:mrgreen:
 
One example: I'm thinking of the push, especially in California schools, to advocate for moral equivalence between all sexual choices. This type of advocacy has nothing to do with education and has everything to do with indoctrinating children and normalization of non traditional behaviors. If one wants to engage in that behavior its not my business but don't bring your sense of sexual morality in my child's' school.
I understand why they talk about it in schools, first sex ed is part of the curriculum, that should include homosexual sex being that it is part of human sexuality.

I think it has plenty to do with education. It really had little to do with morality. Traditional values aren't necessarily correct values either. Of you don't want your kid hearing that if they were gay it wouldn't be a bad thing, home school them.
By bidirectional thinking I mean this: If you teach your children at home that homosexual behavior is equivalent to heterosexual behavior; and institutional advocates force your child to sit in a classroom where they are taught that heterosexual behavior is the only acceptable thing, you would probably rather that preference was removed from the classroom. Just as a parent that teaches in the other direction that heterosexual behavior is the only acceptable thing wants the school not to contradict their moral judgment by teaching sexual preference equivalence.
Your bidirectional thinking is flawed. No school would ever teach that homosexuality is the only correct sexuality. No such thing happens. what you are saying would be the equivalent of me saying just that, that schools should teach that only one sexuality is proper. You are advocating that, you don't want homosexuality brought up.

If it was the other way around you would understand. If schools really said that homosexuality was the only correct sexuality then you would have a complaint. Your values are your business and if you want your kid to think gay people are not okay, our that they are bad our what ever you are afraid the schools are going to tell them about homosexuality. That is your business.

The schools teach that discrimination of things like race, gender, ethnicity, economic background, and yes now sexual orientation is wrong, they always have, that is one of their purposes.

Some people are really poorly educated about gay people and it leads to bizarre notions, discrimination and even in some instances violence. Every kid ought to know that we don't know that homosexuality is a desired, "lifestyle", that lifestyle doesn't really have anything to do with sexual orientation, that is one of the things that needs to be corrected. That perhaps we need to examine the tradition and see if it indeed serves a purpose. If the tradition's result is harm to society in the form of persecution of those that are something that they cannot help being. Of schools don't teach kids to question this "tradition" what are they for? If we didn't question tradition the United states would still be an English colony. After all royal subjects don't traditionally defy their king. How about civil rights movement, in the fifties black people weren't traditionally equal to wrought people. Prior to the womens suffrage act, women didn't traditionally vote.

I am starting to think some traditions have a strong negative impact on our society. Wouldn't you want your kids to have the courage to stand up and buck tradition if it was harmful? Why is your tradition any different than those that thought that women shouldn't vote or that the Jewish religion should not be practiced?

I Don't know why your values deserve any special consideration, certainly nobody is forcing you to give them up, you don't have to enroll your kids in public school, there are plenty of other options, so I fail to see the force. After all parents are their childrens teachers, if you are being forced to teach something you don't approve of, perhaps you should evaluate your fortitude. I certainly wouldn't stand for it. I do have a son and I would die for him, so nobody forces me to teach things i disapprove of. I have gone to his school and fought for him.

Perhaps conservatives wouldn't be loosing the world if they fought for it. To hell with what people think. Do you honestly think the advocates of pro-homosexual indoctrination care if you think they are racists, homophobes, or what not? I guarantee you they don't. Their cause makes them righteous in their quest. Whether you believe they are righteous or not is irrelevant to them.

If you want your school back, take it back.

But dude I am a fag so I don't really care about your values, the fact that they are traditional makes me care less. I don't see that your rights are getting dismissed, frankly from my vantage you have no clue what that feels like. So many of the rights I enjoy were paid for with blood. And there was a time that those rights didn't exist and the men and women that gave everything for me to enjoy those rights are not quickly forgotten. I will fight with all of my life and energy to keep them and to push for more. Liberty is taken, not requested. We didn't ask the British, for independence, women didn't ask men for suffrage and blacks didn't all whites for civil liberty. It was taken by force, those that took it deserve it

There will always be people that want more, Jessy Jackson comes to mind, its up to the populous to say okay, that is enough you are equal now. I guarantee gays will never stop until they are are allowed to marry and be considered equal in couple status to heterosexual couples. The place to start is the schools. If your values were that solid they wouldn't need defending with something as lame as, "they are traditional". You are worried your kids will not continue the tradition. But you are not even willing to fight a pathetic public school, trust me they are weak weak weak adversaries. What makes you think you can win this by talking on dp?

I am not trying to be rude, just real.
 
I think it was clear. Nothing more to add.

Cheers.

You really made no point, so your statement was really not very clear at all. I don't know why you are getting defensive. I agreed with you that homosexuality was not the normal or usual thing.

Then you said that it is not normal, i don't know why you did that. I really dint know why you stated that is was clear

You told me "good try though" this had left me with am obviously unclear conclusion of your statement.

I agreed with you, than you said "good try" as though my "try" in agreement with you was not good enough.

So its perfectly unclear what you were getting at.
 
Last edited:
I understand why they talk about it in schools, first sex ed is part of the curriculum, that should include homosexual sex being that it is part of human sexuality.

I think it has plenty to do with education. It really had little to do with morality. Traditional values aren't necessarily correct values either. Of you don't want your kid hearing that if they were gay it wouldn't be a bad thing, home school them.

Your bidirectional thinking is flawed. No school would ever teach that homosexuality is the only correct sexuality. No such thing happens. what you are saying would be the equivalent of me saying just that, that schools should teach that only one sexuality is proper. You are advocating that, you don't want homosexuality brought up.

If it was the other way around you would understand. If schools really said that homosexuality was the only correct sexuality then you would have a complaint. Your values are your business and if you want your kid to think gay people are not okay, our that they are bad our what ever you are afraid the schools are going to tell them about homosexuality. That is your business.

The schools teach that discrimination of things like race, gender, ethnicity, economic background, and yes now sexual orientation is wrong, they always have, that is one of their purposes.

Some people are really poorly educated about gay people and it leads to bizarre notions, discrimination and even in some instances violence. Every kid ought to know that we don't know that homosexuality is a desired, "lifestyle", that lifestyle doesn't really have anything to do with sexual orientation, that is one of the things that needs to be corrected. That perhaps we need to examine the tradition and see if it indeed serves a purpose. If the tradition's result is harm to society in the form of persecution of those that are something that they cannot help being. Of schools don't teach kids to question this "tradition" what are they for? If we didn't question tradition the United states would still be an English colony. After all royal subjects don't traditionally defy their king. How about civil rights movement, in the fifties black people weren't traditionally equal to wrought people. Prior to the womens suffrage act, women didn't traditionally vote.

I am starting to think some traditions have a strong negative impact on our society. Wouldn't you want your kids to have the courage to stand up and buck tradition if it was harmful? Why is your tradition any different than those that thought that women shouldn't vote or that the Jewish religion should not be practiced?

I Don't know why your values deserve any special consideration, certainly nobody is forcing you to give them up, you don't have to enroll your kids in public school, there are plenty of other options, so I fail to see the force. After all parents are their childrens teachers, if you are being forced to teach something you don't approve of, perhaps you should evaluate your fortitude. I certainly wouldn't stand for it. I do have a son and I would die for him, so nobody forces me to teach things i disapprove of. I have gone to his school and fought for him.

Perhaps conservatives wouldn't be loosing the world if they fought for it. To hell with what people think. Do you honestly think the advocates of pro-homosexual indoctrination care if you think they are racists, homophobes, or what not? I guarantee you they don't. Their cause makes them righteous in their quest. Whether you believe they are righteous or not is irrelevant to them.

If you want your school back, take it back.

But dude I am a fag so I don't really care about your values, the fact that they are traditional makes me care less. I don't see that your rights are getting dismissed, frankly from my vantage you have no clue what that feels like. So many of the rights I enjoy were paid for with blood. And there was a time that those rights didn't exist and the men and women that gave everything for me to enjoy those rights are not quickly forgotten. I will fight with all of my life and energy to keep them and to push for more. Liberty is taken, not requested. We didn't ask the British, for independence, women didn't ask men for suffrage and blacks didn't all whites for civil liberty. It was taken by force, those that took it deserve it

There will always be people that want more, Jessy Jackson comes to mind, its up to the populous to say okay, that is enough you are equal now. I guarantee gays will never stop until they are are allowed to marry and be considered equal in couple status to heterosexual couples. The place to start is the schools. If your values were that solid they wouldn't need defending with something as lame as, "they are traditional". You are worried your kids will not continue the tradition. But you are not even willing to fight a pathetic public school, trust me they are weak weak weak adversaries. What makes you think you can win this by talking on dp?

I am not trying to be rude, just real.

I truly understand where you are coming from, I had a boss for 6 years who was homosexual. We were good personal friends and We spoke at length everyday about all manner of things including sexual preferences. One on one it was a very comfortable relationship, but I'll admit at parties and such when the majority of folks were gay it was very uncomfortable for me. I wouldn't say it was the thought of what type of relationships they had that bothered me, it was the flamboyant displays and the culture that made it uncomfortable. I can imagine that is how some gay fellows must feel in the midst of a sports bar. So I do sympathize, yet I believe that we do have the right to shelter our children from what we see as immoral behavior, without passing judgment on the choices that others make.
 
I am for liberty. Liberty to draw my own moral lines

That's great. I'm with you there.

and to avoid public advocacy for others moral lines that I disagree with.

Wait. What? Do you mean to force public opposition to moral lines you disagree with? If so, then this directly contradicts the above point. No one's saying that the government should advocate for gayness, only that it's not allowed to advocate against it. The government simply doesn't have any place in the discussion. Each individual should make his own mind up about what is or isn't right or wrong. If you want the public (the government) to advocate in favor of your personal moral code, then you lose your freedom to draw your own moral lines.

If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean to avoid public advocacy for other moral lines you disagree with?
 
I truly understand where you are coming from, I had a boss for 6 years who was homosexual. We were good personal friends and We spoke at length everyday about all manner of things including sexual preferences. One on one it was a very comfortable relationship, but I'll admit at parties and such when the majority of folks were gay it was very uncomfortable for me. I wouldn't say it was the thought of what type of relationships they had that bothered me, it was the flamboyant displays and the culture that made it uncomfortable. I can imagine that is how some gay fellows must feel in the midst of a sports bar. So I do sympathize, yet I believe that we do have the right to shelter our children from what we see as immoral behavior, without passing judgment on the choices that others make.

I understand that also, you always want the best for your kids, but sometimes your kids are gay and the things you teach them about sexual morality will damage them.
My folks taught me that homosexuality was wrong and i was sheltered from it, the end result was about two decades of depression and abuse of alcohol. That is the only reason they talk about it atty schools. You can't imagine hire alone you feel, some kids can't take it and they commit suicide. I was strong enough, sometimes I believe by pure miracle. But others aren't. So I think its good to address it in school. How much difference that would have made for me, done of those kids that weren't strong enough. Just think about how hard your teen years were. Thinking about girls constantly as all teenaged boys do, now replace that with thinking about boys and knowing you can't date them and that nobody will ever understand and the guilt you feel because when you go home your folks tell you its a choice and people that choose it are perverts. You were told you're feelings for girls were natural and all boys feel that way, imagine being told that you are perverted and a sicko for feeling those natural feelings.

That is what gay teens go through. I think its okay that we consider them. What I think is immoral is to tell these kids to deal with it themselves and nobody cares.

I have been around gay groups that are really catty, its irritating and frankly a bit uncomfortable to me. I have hunting and fishing buddies, come on, i am a guy. they were my buddies from high school, they were friends from before I was out and it bumpy but they helped me through it. I normally hang out with straight guys, its not at all uncomfortable to me. Sexuality is such a small part of who I am.
 
I truly understand where you are coming from, I had a boss for 6 years who was homosexual. We were good personal friends and We spoke at length everyday about all manner of things including sexual preferences. One on one it was a very comfortable relationship, but I'll admit at parties and such when the majority of folks were gay it was very uncomfortable for me. I wouldn't say it was the thought of what type of relationships they had that bothered me, it was the flamboyant displays and the culture that made it uncomfortable. I can imagine that is how some gay fellows must feel in the midst of a sports bar. So I do sympathize, yet I believe that we do have the right to shelter our children from what we see as immoral behavior, without passing judgment on the choices that others make.

If you really want people to care so much about 'sheltering' your kids, then you're going to have to offer *something* helpful to the kids who are gay, cause they will then have no outlet and no one to speak for them. Aside from that, everything you just described with your boss is exactly why 'sheltering' them is pointless. Some day they'll have to grow up and realize some people are gay, and they'll just have to deal with it. Only they've been kept ignorant of it so long that god knows how they'll react. In reality though, they're going to find out. They have an internet connection? They have a gay friend, or god forbid are gay themselves? Sounds like you're better off taking the kids to Russia.
 
If you really want people to care so much about 'sheltering' your kids, then you're going to have to offer *something* helpful to the kids who are gay, cause they will then have no outlet and no one to speak for them. Aside from that, everything you just described with your boss is exactly why 'sheltering' them is pointless. Some day they'll have to grow up and realize some people are gay, and they'll just have to deal with it. Only they've been kept ignorant of it so long that god knows how they'll react. In reality though, they're going to find out. They have an internet connection? They have a gay friend, or god forbid are gay themselves? Sounds like you're better off taking the kids to Russia.

My biggest question is what if one of his kids turns out to be gay? He has taught them all of this time that they are immoral. You can't teach kids to be gay you can't teach them not to be gay. We dint know why some people are gay, all we know is that they are.

Its almost a if he wants his kids never to accept homosexuality. That is just too bad, the next generation is going to be more accepting if it, in another generation i funny think anybody will have an issue with homosexuality at all. The only thing i can think of is that people talking about passing their morality down to the next generation. That morality must change.

I don't really see that being a right, and I really don't see it being possible
 
My biggest question is what if one of his kids turns out to be gay? He has taught them all of this time that they are immoral. You can't teach kids to be gay you can't teach them not to be gay. We dint know why some people are gay, all we know is that they are.

Its almost a if he wants his kids never to accept homosexuality. That is just too bad, the next generation is going to be more accepting if it, in another generation i funny think anybody will have an issue with homosexuality at all. The only thing i can think of is that people talking about passing their morality down to the next generation. That morality must change.

I don't really see that being a right, and I really don't see it being possible

Well, that's homophobic futility for ya. Acceptance keeps going up with each generation, so clearly an awful lot of parents are failing to instill their 'values' and paranoia.
 
You really made no point, so your statement was really not very clear at all. I don't know why you are getting defensive. I agreed with you that homosexuality was not the normal or usual thing.

Then you said that it is not normal, i don't know why you did that. I really dint know why you stated that is was clear

You told me "good try though" this had left me with am obviously unclear conclusion of your statement.

I agreed with you, than you said "good try" as though my "try" in agreement with you was not good enough.

So its perfectly unclear what you were getting at.
I suggest you click back to the OP with my statement in it, and to the statement the comment was directed at.

Then it should be clear.

I also believe Cap'n Courtesy added to my OP about "normal" in a manner I can leave stand. (LOL... for now)
 
I suggest you click back to the OP with my statement in it, and to the statement the comment was directed at.

Then it should be clear.

I also believe Cap'n Courtesy added to my OP about "normal" in a manner I can leave stand. (LOL... for now)

It still isn't clear. I agreed with you and then you said "good try though", you were arguing against yourself, that is why this isn't clear.
 
Well, that's homophobic futility for ya. Acceptance keeps going up with each generation, so clearly an awful lot of parents are failing to instill their 'values' and paranoia.

I don't really get it, why dies the world have to share values with some people. We are all fundamentally different people right?
 
It still isn't clear. I agreed with you and then you said "good try though", you were arguing against yourself, that is why this isn't clear.

Well, the statement was simple in reference to a statement made by another. It was clear as well, and I cannot make it any simpler.

If you cannot figure out the few simple sentences written, and the comment by Cap'n Courtesy extrapolating on that response, too bad.

I can't help you.
 
That's great. I'm with you there.



Wait. What? Do you mean to force public opposition to moral lines you disagree with? If so, then this directly contradicts the above point. No one's saying that the government should advocate for gayness, only that it's not allowed to advocate against it. The government simply doesn't have any place in the discussion. Each individual should make his own mind up about what is or isn't right or wrong. If you want the public (the government) to advocate in favor of your personal moral code, then you lose your freedom to draw your own moral lines.

If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean to avoid public advocacy for other moral lines you disagree with?

Yea the do. Schools are government agencies, they require sex ed with homosexual studies. By law you must send your kids to school. If you cannot afford private ed, you are in that class.

Another example you might think about would be requiring kids to take Christian religion class in public school. I am not advocating, I'm comparing the Idea of how institutional power has approved one set of moral judgments and removed another.
 
I understand that also, you always want the best for your kids, but sometimes your kids are gay and the things you teach them about sexual morality will damage them.
My folks taught me that homosexuality was wrong and i was sheltered from it, the end result was about two decades of depression and abuse of alcohol. That is the only reason they talk about it atty schools. You can't imagine hire alone you feel, some kids can't take it and they commit suicide. I was strong enough, sometimes I believe by pure miracle. But others aren't. So I think its good to address it in school. How much difference that would have made for me, done of those kids that weren't strong enough. Just think about how hard your teen years were. Thinking about girls constantly as all teenaged boys do, now replace that with thinking about boys and knowing you can't date them and that nobody will ever understand and the guilt you feel because when you go home your folks tell you its a choice and people that choose it are perverts. You were told you're feelings for girls were natural and all boys feel that way, imagine being told that you are perverted and a sicko for feeling those natural feelings.

That is what gay teens go through. I think its okay that we consider them. What I think is immoral is to tell these kids to deal with it themselves and nobody cares.

I have been around gay groups that are really catty, its irritating and frankly a bit uncomfortable to me. I have hunting and fishing buddies, come on, i am a guy. they were my buddies from high school, they were friends from before I was out and it bumpy but they helped me through it. I normally hang out with straight guys, its not at all uncomfortable to me. Sexuality is such a small part of who I am.

Bidirectional thinking: Within your own post Replace the references to "gay" or "homosexua"l etc. with the word "Christian" and any reference to "Sex ed" ,etc. with "religion class", and tell me if you would feel the same way about another protected right. This will determine if this is an emotional appeal based on advocacy or if it is a well thought out and consistent principal for kids of all types. Please give it an honest review. I would propound that families not government agencies should maintain control over certain aspects of their own child's education.
 
Last edited:
I always find it amusing when people project like they do.

People who react with phobic hysteria to homosexuality calling OTHER people emotional? What a hoot.
 
If you really want people to care so much about 'sheltering' your kids, then you're going to have to offer *something* helpful to the kids who are gay, cause they will then have no outlet and no one to speak for them. Aside from that, everything you just described with your boss is exactly why 'sheltering' them is pointless. Some day they'll have to grow up and realize some people are gay, and they'll just have to deal with it. Only they've been kept ignorant of it so long that god knows how they'll react. In reality though, they're going to find out. They have an internet connection? They have a gay friend, or god forbid are gay themselves? Sounds like you're better off taking the kids to Russia.

No, I have a responsibility to inform my kids about moral judgments. I have the responsibility to determine when and to what degree I will speak to them about sexual preferences. In context with all my posts, "shelter" doesn't mean ignoring the issue, it means that the governmental institutions should not impose an indoctrination of equivalency between all sex preferences. Preferences should be left to families to deal with. The helpful thing that I offer is to allow each family to deal with it on their own terms. And to your point that one day they will grow up and have to deal with it... Some things are best left to grown ups. Sexualizing young children is a disaster for society, and quite repulsive. Before you send me off to Russia, Explain to me why Christianity and religion Classes are not taught in schools and why that is different in principal.
 
No, I have a responsibility to inform my kids about moral judgments. I have the responsibility to determine when and to what degree I will speak to them about sexual preferences. In context with all my posts, "shelter" doesn't mean ignoring the issue, it means that the governmental institutions should not impose an indoctrination of equivalency between all sex preferences. Preferences should be left to families to deal with. The helpful thing that I offer is to allow each family to deal with it on their own terms. And to your point that one day they will grow up and have to deal with it... Some things are best left to grown ups. Sexualizing young children is a disaster for society, and quite repulsive. Before you send me off to Russia, Explain to me why Christianity and religion Classes are not taught in schools and why that is different in principal.

Sexualizing children?

I guess if there was time in public schools...there could be one class devoted to the Muslim religion, one class on Judaism, on class on Christianity, one class on Hinduism, and the list goes on....and by the end of the school day kids will know all about religions, but won't be able to count their finger and toes out loud.
 
Back
Top Bottom