Teaching kids about homosexuality

[101flyboy]

Not everyone is born gay, while people most certainly don't CHOOSE to be gay, that doesn't mean it can't develop because of external stimuli.

BULLSHIT.
http://psychcentral.com/news/2008/06/30/genetics-and-environment-shape-sexual-orientation/2522.html

i accept environmental factors cause it but i still dont believe it to be genetic

And it is. Genetic factors play a major part in why people are gay. People are born gay.

What you believe is irrelevant. Facts are presented, and gay/lesbian folks are telling you themselves what the truth is. Either learn it or don't.

 

[gl1koz3]

I think they should choose by themselves.

(Now, I'm not against all that stuff or anyone regarding this - I believe everyone should choose how to live the life and, believe me, I'm incapable of judging individuals before I know them; But here is me just saying what I REALLY think about this issue; if you feel strongly about it, stop reading)

Spoiler

Firstly, the nature (and us) should get the facts straight: MALE + FEMALE = NOT FAIL. Pointless to argue. Ends all arguments.

Secondly, everyone should decide for themselves. If she decides to do that, then fine. If otherwise, fine too. It's a conflict of nature. No matter how to twist.

nature=homosexual dolphins having blowhole sex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

scroll down to amazon river dolphin

Animals can go against the natural cycle.

Edited for spelling

I was referring to reproduction. All the rest is a byproduct of it.

 

[ninja51]

No, I do not. I don't think homosexuality should be encouraged, unless it actually comes from the child itself, with as little as external influence as possible.

...or the kid might catch the gay?

Hey dont joke about that. I know a guy who caught the gay, oh he may seem happy, comfortable, and perfectly normal like every other healthy person, but I know inside its a crippling sickness thats probably fatal. Once he dies at the ripe old age of 80 or somthing due to his crippling disease "someone" will feel pretty jerkish if you ask me.

*psst* *im being sarcastic by the way, dont tell no one*

 

[101flyboy]

No but i agree with The Hairminator, If you're teaching kids a "rule" about life, like a family is a mommy and a daddy and whatever kids they might have, then you don't go on to immediately tell them about the "exceptions" to that "rule". You let the kid learn the rule and then let them start applying it. when they start to notice that there are exceptions to their rule then they are ready to learn about them and you can have that second talk about homosexuality. I know from experience that when learning something new (and i'm talking about academics now)if i am taught the wrong way to do something first, or how many people do this thing wrong or so on(BTW I am NOT trying to imply that homosexuality is wrong.) then i end up remembering both ways, the right way and the common mistake, and i'm continually confused as to which one was the right way to do this thing from that point on.
Basically you end up confusing the idea that you are trying to teach and making it harder to sort it all out in the future.

But life doesn't have "rules", and homosexuality isn't an "exception". I don't see your point about how learning something that's pretty clear-cut like a maths theorem with a right and wrong way to do things is in any way related to what you're talking about.

Life very much has "rules" or at least we perceive it that way. When we learn something new, ANYTHING new we have to either fit it into our perception of the world (or our rules for the world) or change our perception of the world so that it can now fit this new information that did not have a place before. My point is that when teaching a child about sex and what it has to do with your family you need to make a clear rule. "Your mommy and daddy had sex and that's why you're here and we're a family". Something like that anyways. But the second you add in that "but" as in "but sometimes two mommies or two daddies want to make a family..." you start to confuse the rule and make it seem like homosexuality is just as common as heterosexuality, and again, adding another "but this isn't very common" could clear it up or just confuse the child further. In any case, in this analogy homosexuality is very much an exception to the rule. It is uncommon and i really don't know the stats and i won't bother to guesstimate, but the majority of couples by far are heterosexual.

A majority of people have same-sex thoughts. A majority of people are not 100% heterosexual. And, that is irrelevant as the strength in numbers argument is a fallacy. That doesn't make the minority number not a legitimate thing.

Saying "homosexuality isn't common" isn't necessary. It's just simply not a necessary comment. If you start with "two people who love each other" or "some men like men, some men like women", you have presented a clear statement. And you can branch from there. And if you do so in an appropriate and concise way, there wouldn't be any issues.

But really, what your aim is, is very clear. You want to basically present a straight-only option and take gay off the table as not as legitimate or on the same level as heterosexuality. It would be nice if you were honest about that.

 

[101flyboy]

No but i agree with The Hairminator, If you're teaching kids a "rule" about life, like a family is a mommy and a daddy and whatever kids they might have, then you don't go on to immediately tell them about the "exceptions" to that "rule". You let the kid learn the rule and then let them start applying it. when they start to notice that there are exceptions to their rule then they are ready to learn about them and you can have that second talk about homosexuality. I know from experience that when learning something new (and i'm talking about academics now)if i am taught the wrong way to do something first, or how many people do this thing wrong or so on(BTW I am NOT trying to imply that homosexuality is wrong.) then i end up remembering both ways, the right way and the common mistake, and i'm continually confused as to which one was the right way to do this thing from that point on.
Basically you end up confusing the idea that you are trying to teach and making it harder to sort it all out in the future.

But life doesn't have "rules", and homosexuality isn't an "exception". I don't see your point about how learning something that's pretty clear-cut like a maths theorem with a right and wrong way to do things is in any way related to what you're talking about.

Life very much has "rules" or at least we perceive it that way. When we learn something new, ANYTHING new we have to either fit it into our perception of the world (or our rules for the world) or change our perception of the world so that it can now fit this new information that did not have a place before. My point is that when teaching a child about sex and what it has to do with your family you need to make a clear rule. "Your mommy and daddy had sex and that's why you're here and we're a family". Something like that anyways. But the second you add in that "but" as in "but sometimes two mommies or two daddies want to make a family..." you start to confuse the rule and make it seem like homosexuality is just as common as heterosexuality, and again, adding another "but this isn't very common" could clear it up or just confuse the child further. In any case, in this analogy homosexuality is very much an exception to the rule. It is uncommon and i really don't know the stats and i won't bother to guesstimate, but the majority of couples by far are heterosexual.

Anyway, guess what the main rule of life is? Some men do like men, and some men do like women, and the same for the ladies. That's the basic rules of sexuality. Your perception of the world, and what you're advocating for kids, is that their perception is 100% heterosexually based. That is ignorant and not reality.

 

[101flyboy]

I think they should choose by themselves.

(Now, I'm not against all that stuff or anyone regarding this - I believe everyone should choose how to live the life and, believe me, I'm incapable of judging individuals before I know them; But here is me just saying what I REALLY think about this issue; if you feel strongly about it, stop reading)

Spoiler

Firstly, the nature (and us) should get the facts straight: MALE + FEMALE = NOT FAIL. Pointless to argue. Ends all arguments.

Secondly, everyone should decide for themselves. If she decides to do that, then fine. If otherwise, fine too. It's a conflict of nature. No matter how to twist.

nature=homosexual dolphins having blowhole sex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

scroll down to amazon river dolphin

Animals can go against the natural cycle.

Edited for spelling

I was referring to reproduction. All the rest is a byproduct of it.

Sex is not just for procreation. And for gay/lesbian folk, man+woman is a fail. Because they ain't straight.

 

[101flyboy]

Considering the age of the kid in question from the OP I would think no, for many of the good reasons outlined here. At the heart of the problem is adults meddling in the lives of children to effect social/political change. While this may be done with good intentions you can't actually know the effects, short or long term, on children.

For example, all the apparent 'bi' kids these days. Homosexuals only represent a very small portion of the population (it's more like 1-3% rather than the 10% that usually gets reported), so the large majority of kids will not grow up to be gay. It's just a simple fact. However, to protect those few that will we now often teach them about homosexuality as part of a normal sex-ed and as we see now when they start to develop sexually there's a lot of confusion. So is teaching them young really the best way?

Personally rather than focus on the kids to fix the problem I think it needs to start with us. Kids learn not only through what there parents and teachers teach them but also through observation. If the gay community can exist in our society without prejudice or persecution, kids will naturally pick up on this as well.

Homosexuality is normal. So saying "we're now teaching them about homosexuality in normal sex-ed," that's a positive. It's normal to be gay. Gay/lesbian folk are real. Most people are NOT 100% straight. 100% heterosexuality is not the norm. Most kids do have same-sex thoughts or encounters. These are realities of life that cannot be ignored.

The whole "it's not normal" argument is such a fallacy. Just because something isn't as big in numbers at the majority doesn't make it any less legitimate or any less of a reality or impactful.

This isn't about social change, that's a product of what the main intention is, which is educating kids on things they need to be educated on. Not educating your kids=ignorance. Ignorant kids do ignorant things and think ignorantly.

Bisexuality is NOT A CONFUSION. You are seemingly confused, and projecting that confusion on others, by making this offensive statement. Yes, teaching kids before they are 15 and still not understanding what sex is about, their feelings and the world around them is important. You keep gay silent, you stigmatize gay. You stigmatize gay, you are doing a disservice to ALL children.

The reason the gay community cannot live in society without hostility is because of ignorance, the same ignorance that many so-called gay supporters on this very thread want to continue to propagate because homosexuality "isn't normal." Ignorance leads to hatred, and hatred leads to the destruction of those in the path of it.

 

[BonsaiK]

Do you escapists think that children should be told about homosexuality and homosexual relationships at the same time as they're learning about straight relationships?

I wasn't told about any relationships when I was growing up. My parents simply never discussed that stuff with me - ever. I shudder to think what sort of conversation might have transpired had I ever brought the issue up. Luckily I managed to figure everything out more or less on my own thanks to discovering friend's pornographic magazines. There was no Internet porn back in my day, and to be honest I think the Internet makes sex ed on the basic hetero/homo mechanical level kind of redundant.

Studies show that the best way for kids to develop sexually is having their parents teaching them about it. Learning from a porno mag is not healthy. Because porn is not real sex and it objectifies sex, the human body, etc. And that will give kids a very mixed up view on basically the entire situation. Please do not believe I am saying you're mixed up, but no, that isn't something that should be encouraged or accepted as OK.

Hey, I turned out alright. I never thought, even at a very young age, that porn was anything apart from fantasy. I think even the very thickest kid would still realise that porn isn't an accurate representation of sexuality, nor is it meant to be. However it's still close enough to get the general idea of what goes on at least on a physical level. Besides humans are objects so I think objectification is fine. That doesn't meant that humans aren't people too of course but it's quite possible to be a person and an object at the same time.

Don't worry though, I'm never having children so I guess my views on this don't really matter.

 

[timeadept]

No but i agree with The Hairminator, If you're teaching kids a "rule" about life, like a family is a mommy and a daddy and whatever kids they might have, then you don't go on to immediately tell them about the "exceptions" to that "rule". You let the kid learn the rule and then let them start applying it. when they start to notice that there are exceptions to their rule then they are ready to learn about them and you can have that second talk about homosexuality. I know from experience that when learning something new (and i'm talking about academics now)if i am taught the wrong way to do something first, or how many people do this thing wrong or so on(BTW I am NOT trying to imply that homosexuality is wrong.) then i end up remembering both ways, the right way and the common mistake, and i'm continually confused as to which one was the right way to do this thing from that point on.
Basically you end up confusing the idea that you are trying to teach and making it harder to sort it all out in the future.

But life doesn't have "rules", and homosexuality isn't an "exception". I don't see your point about how learning something that's pretty clear-cut like a maths theorem with a right and wrong way to do things is in any way related to what you're talking about.

Life very much has "rules" or at least we perceive it that way. When we learn something new, ANYTHING new we have to either fit it into our perception of the world (or our rules for the world) or change our perception of the world so that it can now fit this new information that did not have a place before. My point is that when teaching a child about sex and what it has to do with your family you need to make a clear rule. "Your mommy and daddy had sex and that's why you're here and we're a family". Something like that anyways. But the second you add in that "but" as in "but sometimes two mommies or two daddies want to make a family..." you start to confuse the rule and make it seem like homosexuality is just as common as heterosexuality, and again, adding another "but this isn't very common" could clear it up or just confuse the child further. In any case, in this analogy homosexuality is very much an exception to the rule. It is uncommon and i really don't know the stats and i won't bother to guesstimate, but the majority of couples by far are heterosexual.

A majority of people have same-sex thoughts. A majority of people are not 100% heterosexual. And, that is irrelevant as the strength in numbers argument is a fallacy. That doesn't make the minority number not a legitimate thing.

Saying "homosexuality isn't common" isn't necessary. It's just simply not a necessary comment. If you start with "two people who love each other" or "some men like men, some men like women", you have presented a clear statement. And you can branch from there. And if you do so in an appropriate and concise way, there wouldn't be any issues.

But really, what your aim is, is very clear. You want to basically present a straight-only option and take gay off the table as not as legitimate or on the same level as heterosexuality. It would be nice if you were honest about that.

You're only seeing what you want to. I never said anything like "heterosexual relationships are the only kind that do or even should exist" and yes, i know you know that. But I've noticed something I've forgotten to mention. I'm saying to teach the child in question about only heterosexuality FIRST, BECAUSE his(?) parents are heterosexual. This is what he's grown up with all his life and he likely hasn't been exposed to homosexuality yet. If his parents or a relative were homosexual then it would be ridiculous to teach the child only about heterosexuality. Basically i put so much emphasis on homosexuality being uncommon because i doubt that the child has been exposed to it yet. Anyway, when the child is exposed to homosexuality, if they are still around the age when they need the talk(or if they are having trouble handling this new information), then it would be very appropriate to explain the whole story to them.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Not everyone is born gay, while people most certainly don't CHOOSE to be gay, that doesn't mean it can't develop because of external stimuli.

BULLSHIT.
http://psychcentral.com/news/2008/06/30/genetics-and-environment-shape-sexual-orientation/2522.html

I don't think you read you're own article there. It clearly says in the bloody title that environmental factors play a role. Which is what I said, I didn't discount the genetic factor, I just said that a child's environment can play a part. I'm also going to answer all your other quotes here:

I was under the impression that this was purely a discussion about "Where babies come from." Which is something to do with heterosexual relationships. Adding homosexual sex into the discussion with the child could confuse them.

If you read this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.256410.9612144] post you'll see my stance more clearly on the matter. I'm not against explaining it to the child at an early age, I just think it should be explained at a different time so as to avoid confusing. The next day or week, whatever. But not during the same discussion.

But there's a difference between learning about sex and teach kids about sexual orientations. Homosexuality is something for when they're a bit older methinks.

No one is suggesting she start off with "Well some boys like to stick it in other boys' poopers". Simply mentioning that some boys like boys and some girls like girls is perfectly fine.

This "not appropriate yet" makes me think back to reading of parents that were scared of a armless woman appearing on a children's tv show because their children "might be scared" or "wouldnt understand" and, lets face it, because they did not want to answer the question.
"She has no arm, she lost it." and "He likes other boys, some people do." won't cause the kid's head to explode.
They'll take a moment, accept it, then move on with their life. Children are especially prone to just accepting things.

Are you sure? I thought the UK did have same-sex marriage?

"Sort of but not really."

We have a provision called "civil partnerships" which carries the same legal benefits and ramifications as marriage but takes place in a registry and has a different name. I think everyone's glad that gays arnt disadvantaged financially by the law any more but not calling it marriage is very exclusionary still.

I also consider the current term of "life partner" a similar exclusion. Are there any gay or bisexual people here with any reasoning as to why "Husband" isn't used?

You, read my response to the other gentleman I quoted.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

You're missing the point. They haven't even been taught heterosexuality, they've been taught about how the dick goes in the vagina and 9 months later a child is born. No one ever talks about why they do it or if there's any other need for sex other than babies.

That's even worse. Wha's the point of only telling them about the mechanics of how procreation works and leave everything about sexuality out of the picture?

Most teenagers aren't going to and shouldn't fuck in order to "make babies" anyway, so what kind of a moron goes for the biological mehcanics first and foremost but leaves out the emotional aspects of the entire thing?

 

[Saltyk]

First off, you can tell your child or step child whatever you think is appropriate in this situation. It's not for any of us to say.

I don't see any problem with not telling a seven year old about homosexuality. I'm actually surprised that they are telling the child about sex at all. Kids should be kids. We don't need to burden them with our own stupid prejudices or the truth of the world. There's a reason things were better when you were young. Your parents didn't make you face the dirty disgusting reality. Don't steal their childhood. If they ask about where babies come from, give them a very basic understanding of it. Something like "When a man and a woman fall in love, they can create babies. Often times, this process requires the help of doctors." If they ask for details, as a child, don't give them the gritty details. They are not mature enough to handle the facts of life. And what would a seven year old gain from knowing anything about sex or homosexuality? What seven year old would ask?

Even when they are more capable of handling it, I don't think there is any pressing need to tell of homosexuality. Not for fear of the catching teh gay, but to avoid overload. Sex is a lot for a young person to deal with. Adding to that with homosexuality or bisexuality is unnecessary. And when you do inform them of what it means to be homosexual, tell them in a non-biased way. Something like "Some people are attracted to others of the same gender. It is not very common, but there is nothing innately wrong with it."

Have some sense, people.

Kids should be kids is a cop out. It's not acceptable to keep kids ignorant. And that's what you are doing when you intentionally ignore and hide certain facts of life from your children.

The thing that is wrong in intentionally not discussing homosexuality to your kids is the fact that most kids have same-sex thoughts. Most kids will see a gay/lesbian couple, most kids will notice not everyone is straight. Life is not 100% heterosexual. That's the problem. Teaching them otherwise is effectively lying to your kids.

One thing about children is that they are always wanting to learn. They are always available to teach. Most young kids feed off of being educated. You think kids at 7 are NOT discussing sex? You would be completely wrong. At 7, I'd venture 50% of kids, at the very least, have heard about the word sex, or know that sex is a physical act. Don't pretend as if kids are stupid, they aren't. There isn't anything "disgusting" about the reality of their being gay people in the world. Or that not everything is about having babies. I understand the age appropriateness factor. But, is that an excuse to lie? No, it isn't. Kids deserve honesty, and hiding a reality of life from them is doing kids a disservice.

Teaching a kid "some men like men, some women like women" is not unnecessary, because, guess what, many of those same kids will eventually be with men. And be with women. Most kids have same-sex thoughts. Hiding a MAJOR part of what human sexuality is, is what is unnecessary. There isn't anything overt about it, no need to be in-depth. Some people like the opposite sex, some like the same sex. Period.

Having sense would be teaching kids the basic realities of life in an appropriate way, not a whitewashed version.

I'm sorry, I must be really stupid. Where did I say lie? Where did I say anything about hiding the facts of life from your kid? When did I say that homosexuality is wrong or disgusting?

And when you do inform them of what it means to be homosexual, tell them in a non-biased way. Something like "Some people are attracted to others of the same gender. It is not very common, but there is nothing innately wrong with it."

(Yeah, that one actually got under my skin.)
I didn't? Didn't think I did.

There's a difference between explaining what something is or means, and giving them all the information in detail. Do you think you need to explain exactly how sex works to a child? You want to explain how erections and semen and eggs work to a young child? I didn't think so. It's much better to just explain in a dumbed down version. The old cliched "when a man and woman fall in love" concept. At seven, there is no need for them to know exactly how they came to be. They just need to know enough. Later in life, like when they start to develop, tell them in more detail.

You're right, children are curious. They do like to learn. Hell, I still like to learn. But that doesn't mean you need to sit down with 7 year old Johnny and explain to him about homosexuality just because it seems like a good time. Better to look for a "teachable moment". A moment when they see two men/women that are obliviously gay, and explain to them what is going on. Once more not in deep details, but enough that they understand what is happening and that it is not wrong.

Keep in mind that a child is still growing. They are still developing. Mentally and physically. You may think that they can handle anything that you can, but that is far from true.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

no, homosexuality is filled with political bs that kids just wont understand, keep it simple with what most people know, if she encounters it then explain it but otherwise thats a topic for later on.

The only reason for that is because assholes fill it with politics. It's simple to explain, just look at page 1.

I can see what you mean, but in the edit of the post you quoted, which I put in after you quoted me, I said that usually this talk come from a child asking where babies come from.

Oh duh, trust me to misread a post on my second day on these forums. XD Yeah, if it's just a straight case of where babies come from, then certainly in that discussion it would be wise to just discuss heterosexual sex.

Personally, I'd still probably explain homosexuality in proximity to that talk at a later date, though. From my own experience at school kids pick up on homosexuality quite early on (unless I was just in a really weird area or something - IIRC the first mention of homosexuality I heard at school was in Year Six, aged 11) and can be incredibly biased/abusive towards it. I'd hate for my kid to pick up that negative viewpoint before I had a chance to explain what homosexuality is really all about.

Oh I totally agree with you, but as long as you speak to the child at a different time. You don't want the kid thinking you can have babies by stickin' it in the pooper.

No, I do not. I don't think homosexuality should be encouraged, unless it actually comes from the child itself, with as little as external influence as possible.

The same goes for the opposite- The kid will learn soon enough, and probably ask her parents about it- then they should tell her, naturally, as unbiased as they can. If she later finds out she is indeed actually queer, it would be better if she does not have any subconscious issues with it inherited from her parents.

But still, they should not be handled equally, as heterosexuality is still the norm- and the natural way to reproduce. If the children are gay, they will probably find it out themselves. The important thing is to then make sure they are neither ashamed or feel otherwise repressed.

I agree with this 100%.

It all comes down to the parent's decisions though, and they chose to have the child so its their burden and their choice on how to act on these matters. And it really isn't anyone else's business

Edit: This was a rant that highlighted the bigotry of the first quoted poster, but I realized that I may have been quite harsh. 1. Don't say queer. It's offensive. 2. PEOPLE ARE BORN GAY SO STOP WORRYING ABOUT A CHILD CATCHING GAY. 3. If you don't explain the mechanics of sexuality to a child before puberty you're psychologically abusing them.

Not everyone is born gay, while people most certainly don't CHOOSE to be gay, that doesn't mean it can't develop because of external stimuli.

I choose to believe that everyone is born bi with a preference but pushed to be 100% something. However, no sexuality can be CHOSEN or developed because of external stimuli.
5

Wait a minute, if you just said nothing can influence it, what pushes the person's preference to 100% something? And why does everyone seem to be thinking I said that homosexuality is something that is chosen? I know double negatives are tricky for some people, but this is ridiculous! Re-read my post, if you work through it carefully I'm saying people don't choose to be gay. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[timeadept]

No but i agree with The Hairminator, If you're teaching kids a "rule" about life, like a family is a mommy and a daddy and whatever kids they might have, then you don't go on to immediately tell them about the "exceptions" to that "rule". You let the kid learn the rule and then let them start applying it. when they start to notice that there are exceptions to their rule then they are ready to learn about them and you can have that second talk about homosexuality. I know from experience that when learning something new (and i'm talking about academics now)if i am taught the wrong way to do something first, or how many people do this thing wrong or so on(BTW I am NOT trying to imply that homosexuality is wrong.) then i end up remembering both ways, the right way and the common mistake, and i'm continually confused as to which one was the right way to do this thing from that point on.
Basically you end up confusing the idea that you are trying to teach and making it harder to sort it all out in the future.

But life doesn't have "rules", and homosexuality isn't an "exception". I don't see your point about how learning something that's pretty clear-cut like a maths theorem with a right and wrong way to do things is in any way related to what you're talking about.

Life very much has "rules" or at least we perceive it that way. When we learn something new, ANYTHING new we have to either fit it into our perception of the world (or our rules for the world) or change our perception of the world so that it can now fit this new information that did not have a place before. My point is that when teaching a child about sex and what it has to do with your family you need to make a clear rule. "Your mommy and daddy had sex and that's why you're here and we're a family". Something like that anyways. But the second you add in that "but" as in "but sometimes two mommies or two daddies want to make a family..." you start to confuse the rule and make it seem like homosexuality is just as common as heterosexuality, and again, adding another "but this isn't very common" could clear it up or just confuse the child further. In any case, in this analogy homosexuality is very much an exception to the rule. It is uncommon and i really don't know the stats and i won't bother to guesstimate, but the majority of couples by far are heterosexual.

Anyway, guess what the main rule of life is? Some men do like men, and some men do like women, and the same for the ladies. That's the basic rules of sexuality. Your perception of the world, and what you're advocating for kids, is that their perception is 100% heterosexually based. That is ignorant and not reality.

i said pretty much everything i needed in my previous response (post 535)