I definitely see why that could be a inappropriate subject for 7 year olds but it was handled completely wrong. Maybe having the kid talk to a counselor about why he should talk to other kids about this or something. But, this is my conservative Christian biases speaking.

...well, if you misunderstood me, I'm not saying he shouldn't talk about. I'm saying it inappropriate to talk about it to a 7 year old. He should have a counselor to talk to about it if he feels awkward in his family situation.

I don't suppose it's ever occurred to any of these people to teach the children not to ask personal questions in class? It wouldn't work perfectly: children are curious creatures. But there's no time like childhood to learn that not minding your own business can land you in trouble when you least expect it. Of course, the sort of adult who is so thrown for a loop by gay that he refers to it as "a word so bad that he didn't want to repeat it over the phone" is likely to have a different opinion from mine about who deserves detached civility.

Andrew from the story that I read at Fox News the boy didn't seem uncomfortable at all. In fact the only ones that seemed uncomfortable (and acted inappropriately) were the female teacher and male principle.

Look on the bright side: at least it gives the ACLU something productive to do, for a change.

How about we wait and see if the story is true? It strikes me that there is nothing in it...who would seriously say that "gay" is a dirty word? Alternately, the word was used in a different, insulting context and that is what the child was punished for....

S3 thank you for telling me that. I still think the boy should be told why some people say it is bad subject to deal with at that age but don't punish him. (Again thats my conservitive Christian viewpoint)

What this illustrates is something I keep trying to get through to the gay marriage opponents, that keeps failing to sink in with them.

Gay people are having children, in greater and greater numbers every year. If you live near a big city and don't have any such parents in your school district yet, you will soon.

Furthermore, both Sean and Andrew are making a fundamental error. You cannot expect 6, 7, 8 year old children not to talk to each other about their families. Kids do that all the time, and it's ridiculous to expect them not to. Even if you try to forbid it, all they'll do is whisper about it amongst themselves, and develop a complex about it.

In the coming years, we should expect to see more stories like the one Rose linked to. It's going to happen more and more often. Your kids are going to hear more and more about it, too.

You may, if you wish, decide that homosexuality is icky. You may believe that, according to your religion, it is sinful. You may even, if you wish, disapprove of gay people having children.

Your approval is irrelevant, because they're doing it anyway. Therefore, you are going to have to face some tough choices. As I see it, they are as follows:

1) Grunt about how America is going to hell in a handbasket and retreat into isolated communities where you exclude everyone who doesn't share your values.

2) Clap your hands to your ears, sing, "Lalalala, I can't hear you, lalalalala!" and let your kids discover this stuff on their own.

3) Tell your children that these other children are the product of sinful and disgusting families, and assume that your kids will tell the children of gay parents the same thing.

4) Get behind efforts to accomodate such folks' need for protection for their families, and encourage gay people to form stable families to raise their children so that, at minimum, your kids will see that stable families are the best way to raise kids.

Find it disgusting and perverse and sinful all you want. You must deal with it. Now, how do you plan on dealing with it?

By the way, last I checked, the Bible considers divorce to be at least as sinful as homosexuality. Would you, therefore, try to encourage the children of divorced families not to talk about the fact that their moms and dads live apart from each other?

How about kids whose parents are merely living together and not married? Are the kids of those unions supposed to be counseled not to tell their playmates about it too?

Christian hypocricy on this point is really getting pretty irksome to me. I am a staunch defender of Christians and Christianity most of the time, but I've got to say it bluntly: You people are being ridiculous. You are acting as if one type of sexual sin is "worse" than the other, you're actually encouraging children to not talk about their lives with each other, all so you can get away from confronting the reality that there are queers in your midst who just won't shut up and go away.

They're here! They're queer! Will you finally for once freaking get used to it?!?!?

No one said you had to approve. But you are going to accomodate it, one way or the other. Your only question is HOW, not IF, because these people are not going away. Our affluent, high-tech society makes it too easy for these folks to hook up and mutually support each other. The toothpaste is not going back in the tubes and the dykes and fairies are not going back into the closet. So I'd suggest you start to find ways to be rational about it, and show some of that compassion you Christians are so famous for in so many other areas.

(And by the way, I'm not being sarcastic when I say that Christians are famous for compassion. They are. Modern day Christians' blind spot on this issue, and their obsession with homosexuality as if it's worse than divorce, adultery, etc. is simply making them look stupid.)

Ok... heres another splur by me... I did not mean to make homosexuality seem superior and much worse then other sins but I was saying that I sure as heck if I had kids wouldn't want them to learn about homosexuality from a 7 years old. There is a proper way for me to tell my kid(if i had them) about homosexuality and a improper way and I have a gut feeling that the seven year old(who is most likely brain washed with gay and lesbian propaganda) would choose the incorrect way. I tried to make that clear but failed to do so.

I realize that we live in a fallen world and yes their is homosexuality and unlike those "foot-washing baptists" I am not going to deny the fact that their being gay is just as bad as the fact that my parents are divorced, that I lie, that I lust, etc... My biggest beef with homosexuals is with the "Christian" homosexuals who deny the fact that homosexuality is a sin and don't try to "stop being homosexual"(in quotes for a reason). I strive for the day that I will not sin and I realize that that day will be at my death but right now by eliminating as much sin as possible from my life I will be brought into greater intamacy with the Lord.

Anymore? Bring it on.

"Furthermore, both Sean and Andrew are making a fundamental error. You cannot expect 6, 7, 8 year old children not to talk to each other about their families. Kids do that all the time, and it's ridiculous to expect them not to. Even if you try to forbid it, all they'll do is whisper about it amongst themselves, and develop a complex about it."

I said it wasn't going to work perfectly. If you'd like that changed to "going to work very imperfectly," fine. We don't give up on teaching kids to pick up their toys just because we know they'll stop doing so the minute they aren't being watched.

I mean, Dean, look--I'm grateful daily to straight people like you who really like gays and want us to live free and happy lives. I'm also grateful to those who don't approve of homosexuality but don't think we should be ostracized or worse for practicing it. I wish I didn't have to be, but reality is reality. Children who are ruthlessly schooled to treat others courteously in public, and, in turn, to judge others by their public behavior rather than by what their mothers did with whom Saturday night, will have an excellent foundation for dealing with lots of different types of people as they mature. If we put teachers in the position of refereeing in conversations about household arrangements, someone's beliefs are going to have to trump the others', and children will get the message that other people's private lives are legitimate subjects for public inquiry.

Okay, fair enough, but look guys: if a 7 year old has two mommies at home, what exactly do you plan to tell him to say about it? Or not say about it?

The kid's there. He's got classmates. Kids in school talk about their parents. They do. We're going to have to confront this sooner or later as a society.

"Okay, fair enough, but look guys: if a 7 year old has two mommies at home, what exactly do you plan to tell him to say about it? Or not say about it?"

If he were seven, I don't think it would involve the use of the word gay. Surely the important points are (1) Mommy Jennifer and I love you very much--you can always come to us about anything; (2) there are other children in your class who don't have both a mother and father living at home--if anyone asks you about it, remember that we're all very happy together as a family, even if other people don't understand why.

It's entirely possible that I'm missing something, since I'm not a parent myself, but I think I'm pretty faithfully adapting from how my parents told me to deal with our weird Sabbatarian Christian religion when I was little. You just can't insulate children from all possible hurts.

Dean, to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what he should say. I don't know. but I think that there should be a way of dealing with this. I don't want the government to force my kids to go to school and then end up in a place were homosexuality and secular humanism(i'll save that for another time) are served up on a platter. Maybe if the teacher would have alerted the families by saying,
"hey, I know most of you probably think its to early to tell your kids about homosexuality but one of the kids in our class happens to be gay so if you don't want them to learn about it from him then you better educate them now from your point of view."

Thats kind of harish and slightly ackward but I think thats a decent way of doing. I'm not a guru on the situation so I don't know much about kid's with homosexual parents but thats what I think should be done.

It's clear that mommy 1 and mommy 2 explained the birds and the birds to this child (if the story is true). They could've explained further that perhaps some of his classmates might not be ready to understand and therefore, lets not discuss this yet.

As a single parent, I've had to discuss these and other issues with my son (his father's absence, his aunt's rotating boyfriends, boyfriend vs. husband, rape, drugs, pedophilia). Thing is, I got to decide when I thought by son was ready for the discussion and act accordingly. I'm not coming from a Christian stance, as I am not especially Christian. But if the boy is involved in open conversations in his family unit (which is appropriate) they could have suggested he avoid the subject at school. Kid could've said, "I don't have a daddy" and left it at that as per his mothers' mentoring. He wouldn't be the only one.

cbk

And this issue highlights some of the logical problems in the pro-homosexual arguments.
1) More and more gay people are having children all the time. Hmmm... Seems like a non-sequitor to me. Gay... still having children...
Apparently, being gay isn't anything more than a preference for a certain sort of mechanical (i.e., friction, not machines) stimulation.
2) Supposedly it doesn't hurt a child to have gay parents. But should a 7-year-old already be sexualized to the point that they know and understand the concepts and terms of homosexuality as demonstrated by this boy? That is sexual abuse, as well, in the same way that words can "create a hostile work environment" that constitutes sexual harassment.

Furthermore, "gay" started out when homosexuals co-opted the word for themselves, then became a perjorative, and recently has become accepted again. The teacher could have been reacting in a misunderstanding in the same way "black" was a perjorative while "negro" was preferred, then "black" came into style, and now I think it is marginal, with the preferred term being "african-american" or "person of color" maybe.
So it isn't as simple as you might assume.

Furthermore, divorce isn't really referred to as a sin (I thought you knew your Bible, Dean. What other misunderstandings are you harboring?) Jesus says you should not divorce, but it is acceptable in the case of infidelity. Paul says you can divorce if one of the couple is a believer and the other is not, because you should not be yoked to an unbeliever. Although not stated, I'm currently trying to determine whether it would be acceptable to add physical/sexual/emotional abuse to the list of acceptable reasons, as well.... I don't want to add to the Bible, of course, but someone who physically abuses a spouse seems as bad as someone who is unfaithful, and they certainly aren't acting as a believer...
And yet, I don't remember the Bible offering any circumstance in which it was okay to engage in homosexual behavior.

I think this is an unfortunate instance of a double standard set by gay activists biting them in the behind. There are many organizations, like GLSEN, who work to make school a safer and more accepting environment for gay and lesbian youth; and in their zeal, they try to take words like "gay" out of common parlance, labeling them "bad" or "hateful" words.

However, while "gay" is still a common insult or derogatory term (I hear it at work about 1,000 times a day from coworkers who really and honestly like me and just don't know better), I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with a child being honest about his parents' relationship. If a child said that his parents were married and were a man and a woman, and even that they sleep in the same bed, that would carry little if any sexual connotation. I hear kids saying things like that all the time with zero inappropriate connotations. To say that his parents are gay and are two women also carries zero sexual connotation, except in the minds of people unused to hearing about it. That's yet another double-standard I don't like.

Attempts to solve the problem by forcing the child to never talk about his family life at school or forcing other children to never ask personal questions only propagates the sense of alienation that is the *real* threat to civil society.

Nathan, cbk, and Andrew: I'm a little puzzled as to how a child saying that gay is when a girl likes another girl is somehow "sexualized". Children are exposed to fairy tales where the boy "likes" the girl long before they understand what happens to make "happily ever after" so happy. The definition the child gave to his classmate is exactly what I would say to a child that age if he asked me what "gay" meant. It's not a sexual explanation, any more than telling a child that a baby grows in mommy's tummy is a "sexual" explanation.

If someone was explaining about the actual mechanics of sex (of any orientation), then I could see the concern. But who exactly is being harmed by such an innocent answer?

1) More and more gay people are having children all the time. Hmmm... Seems like a non-sequitor to me. Gay... still having children...

Point being there are more and more kids with gay parents, and situations like this are more likely to occur.

Apparently, being gay isn't anything more than a preference for a certain sort of mechanical (i.e., friction, not machines) stimulation.

Now where's the non sequitor?

2) Supposedly it doesn't hurt a child to have gay parents. But should a 7-year-old already be sexualized to the point that they know and understand the concepts and terms of homosexuality as demonstrated by this boy? That is sexual abuse, as well, in the same way that words can "create a hostile work environment" that constitutes sexual harassment.

It's completely possible for the kid to know that he has two mommies because they're gay without introducing any sexual details into it. How many 7-yr-olds understand the concepts and terms of heterosexuality? Looks to me like the "hostile work environment" was created when the teacher sent the kid to the principal and subsequently punished him when he commited no/had no knowledge of wrongdoing.

Nathan, you are missing something here.

1) Lesbians often choose artificial insemination.

2) Sometimes lesbians choose a gay male donor just to have a man involved in the equation. Or, interestingly enough, the lesbian who gets pregnant will use the sperm of her partner's brother. There are other possible combinations that are also sometimes used.

3) Sometimes gay male couples seek out a woman (lesbian or non-) to have a child with.

4) Sometimes gay couples adopt.

5) Sometimes gay people have children from heterosexual relationships that happened before they decided they were unsatisfied with heterosexual relations.

Once again, the issue here has nothing whatsoever to do with your approval. It's what's happening, now, and it's happening more and more all the time.

My question, again, is: what are you going to do about it?

You have no choice but to deal with this.

You can deal with it by shutting your ears and screaming "lalalala, no, no, not happening, lalalalala!"

Or, you can deal with it by teaching children that it's somehow especially more shameful and awful than divorced or unwed parents.

Or, you can deal with it constructively.

Or, I suppose, you can support laws that forcibly remove children from gay people.

Which will it be, man? You have to make a choice. Make all the snarky comments you want about how gay people are just after perversion and friction. Let's say you're right about every word of that. They're perverted. They're disgusting. They're sinners and they're going to hell. Great. We'll grant you every bit of all that.

So. They're having kids. Now what? Have the cops rush in and rip the kids out of their parents' arms? Ignore it and pretend it's not happening? What's your choice, dude?

Oh, Nathan, I forgot to answer this:

Furthermore, divorce isn't really referred to as a sin (I thought you knew your Bible, Dean. What other misunderstandings are you harboring?)

Christ specifically said that a man who divorces his wife has committed adultery.

Adultery is a sin.

What did I miss? And, in any case, even if you argue that divorce is not a sin, the fact is that there are tons of unwed parents out there these days. If you have kids in school, they have classmates who are bastards. I guar-on-tee it. Even if the kids are in religious schools, the issue is there. Why is that worse than children of gay couples? From a Christian perspective, please enlighten me, why is having two daddies at home worse than having no daddy at home?

It's amazing how resilient and flexible families are, and how strong and resourceful children are. My father was hardly a male role model for me, so I found my male role models elsewhere. I have two nephews-in-law who have two mothers (their father took himself out of the picture due to mental illness and addiction), and they look to my mate and I for male bonding.

Families adapt to survive, and people find what they need wherever they can find it. It might not be what you think it should be, and it might not be perfect, but I detect a note of whining in the plaintive question, "Why can't we just have two-parent households with one man and one woman?"

The answer to that question is more economic than cultural.

I strongly condemn the use of involuntary medical and psychological treatment of homosexuality. Lobotomy is a true horror. I strongly support voluntary medical and psychological treatment of homosexuality, including via parental demand for minor children. I strongly condemn counseling which pushes adoloscents towards homosexuality.

I used to attend a church which was very conservative. Homosexuality was condemned once or twice but it was rarely talked about, because it was not a problem. Divorce (except in cases of adultery) was strongly and frequently condemned, as was adultery. People were kicked out of the church for both sins. That church was too conservative for me, but they did walk the talk.

My next church has a little too liberal, with not enough emphasis on the Bible. They were supportive of divorce and some sister churches were noticeably supportive of homosexuality.

My current church has lots of divorced people as members, including some who were kicked out of my previous church. I have never heard adultery, divorce or homosexuality discussed.

Christians are caught between a rock (God, the Bible and the sexual commands in it) and a hard place (the culture and the commandment to love the people who live in it). Francis Porretto has some very good commentary on the subject. I believe that exclusive sex within a marriage between a man and a woman is the most ideal arrangement, and that we should strive for it. I want this said often, and to become the social norm again, but through persuasion and social pressure, not legal enforcement.

Yours,
Wince

Dean,
Read the Bible, it says just what I pointed out: Jesus says that divorce in the case of infidelity is acceptable, but not required. Joseph was going to divorce Mary quietly, remember?
Paul, spreading the Word of Jesus, also said that it is permissible for a believer to divorce a non-believer, because being yoked to someone with different beliefs may lead you into non-belief as well.
And if you thought it through a little, you'd remember that a repented sin is forgiven. If someone divorces, they can be forgiven; but someone who continues to engage in sinful behavior and does not attempt to change isn't repentant, are they?
So it's not the quality of the sin that makes the difference, because all sins ARE equal, but it is the quality of the repentance and submission to God's will that makes the difference.
Erica,
If this was only a kid saying, "I have two Moms", that would be different. But he said, "They are Gay". That means he is familiar enough with the term to use it naturally, expecting his peers to understand it. He also knew perfectly how to define the term. The only way he could know that is through a precocious understanding of human sexuality. There is no way that will not have an effect on that child.
My moral standards say that imparting that level of sexual understanding to a 7-year-old is damaging, in that it tends to result in negative behavior as an adult, including an increased chance of divorce, promiscuity, or homosexuality. I know that many people these days don't consider those negative consequences, but I still do.
Dean (again),
What will I do? Talk about it, discuss it in forums like these and others. That doesn't mean I'm covering my ears and going "Lalalalala, can't hear you." It means that when I see people attempting to erode moral standards, I respond, I challenge, and I argue. It may make zero difference, but it doesn't make the attempt unworthy.

et al,
As far as my "friction" comment is concerned, I admit with some sheepishness that I was drawing in some points from other discussions. I apologize.
My general understanding of heterosexual relationships are:
-people are drawn together in a complementary fashion
-sexual attraction is based on emotional and physical conditioning
-gender markers are varied enough that no one is compelled to be attracted to a certain look; thus, gender attraction is also conditioned/socialized. Perhaps on a level so deep most people don't realize...

When you put those together, the inescapable questions arise: if homosexuals are just like heterosexuals, why don't they have a desire for a complement? Alternatively, if they are different from heterosexuals, then why are the drives to marry and have children similar?
This is not to start a new argument, just to explain where I was coming from. So I retract the "non sequitor" comment.

Isn't the real problem here, "hate speech" and "zero tolerance"? this is no different than the kid getting suspended from school for haviing aspirin in his bag and offending the "zero tolerance against drugs" rule. Prohibitions do not work. This is the left gone wild, and I say that as a middle-ground liberal.

Thanks, Dean, for pointing out the essential problem of the people hung up on the -- who put it this way -- "ick" factor-- denial is a river in Egypt.

(The fact is, I have just as big an "ick" factor if I think of straight sex. I'm sure some straights have an "ick" factor if they think of some of the variations of straight sex. get over it, people. Some of you are SO hung up on sex!)

My partner and I are raising two great kids to be loving and tolerant, and to recognize that the biggest sin is not loving "inappropriately" by someone else's rules, but lacking the care and concern and forgiveness that makes real Christianity--something a lot of "Christians" seem to have missed out on. Our kids are straight, but not narrow.

Let's remember Christ hung out with lepers and prostitutes, and not with the self-righteous priests in the temples. There's a reason for that, folks. Of all the concerns in this big, troubled world, why on earth are some of you so focussed on denying our loving relationship than on the killing and pain and poverty that is going on around us???

"Christians are caught between a rock (God, the Bible and the sexual commands in it) and a hard place (the culture and the commandment to love the people who live in it)."

Yes, that is true. We as Christians are told that we live in the world but are not of it(morally and eternally). It does present an interesting situation especially since we are suppose to hate sin but not the sinners. So I have come to a point were I can hate homosexuality without hating homosexuals(you follow me there?).

"Let's remember Christ hung out with lepers and prostitutes, and not with the self-righteous priests in the temples."

Ok, there was a reason for this beside for the obvious. He realized the wickedness of their hearts and the pride in that lay within them. He wasn't going to work with the "good" people of the time because they were to prideful to realize they were sinners. But the "bad" people realized that they were sinners.

"Thanks, Dean, for pointing out the essential problem of the people hung up on the -- who put it this way -- "ick" factor-- denial is a river in Egypt."

The Ick factor is deffeniately a big part of "gay hate." But for me I have to wonder were this think that homosexuality is abnormal came from. I think that we are natural born knowing that a man and a women are meant to be together. I believe that homosexuality is abnormal.

Andrew,
You believe that homosexuality is abnormal.

I believe that it is a normal human variation in the species.

What makes you right and me wrong?

Homosexuality recurs in the human species throughout cultures and throughout history. Evidence is clear that there is a genetic component, but far more complicated than the blue/brown eyes Mendelian genetics we all learn in high school. (In fact, very few traits are that simple and if you need a lecture in quantitative trait loci in genetic analysis to prove it one can be forthcoming.) Let's remember that if evolution ruthlessly selected only a few best traits we would all look identical.

Homosexuality is also found in many animal species with complex behaviors--not so much hardwired animals, like insects, but vertebrates like birds and mammals. Yup, some aniimals pair bond with the same sex. And you can induce homosexuality in the hardwired creatures by simple gnetic mutations. (cf Bruce Baghemil's book on Biological Exuberence).

Gay people exist, raise families, and our kids know the word "gay" and may use it, for once not as an insult (which I guess you have no problem with) but as an accurate description: girls who like girls. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM???

If this was only a kid saying, "I have two Moms", that would be different. But he said, "They are Gay". That means he is familiar enough with the term to use it naturally, expecting his peers to understand it. He also knew perfectly how to define the term. The only way he could know that is through a precocious understanding of human sexuality.

Tell me what "when a girl likes a girl" has to do with sex. As I said before, his understanding of homosexual sex is no greater than his (or other 7-year-olds) understanding of heterosexual sex. He didn't know "perfectly" how to define the term, he knew how to define it in 7-year-old terms. It's perfectly reasonable for his moms to say, "You have two mommies instead of a mommy and a daddy because we're gay and gay means a mommy likes another mommy instead of a daddy."

My moral standards say that imparting that level of sexual understanding to a 7-year-old is damaging, in that it tends to result in negative behavior as an adult, including an increased chance of divorce, promiscuity, or homosexuality.

You're saying homosexuality is on par with adult "bad" behaviors like promiscuity, as a result of being "damaged." I'm not even gonna touch that.

And early knowledge of sex leads to increased homosexuality? That one I just don't get.

Erica,
I'd like to respond to you point by point, but it's not worth it. It's Dean's Blog, and you have a vastly different moral code than I do. It would take about 3 pages just to get you to understand the starting point for my conclusions, because our starting assumptions are too different.
Simply put, we aren't speaking the same language. I wish a good day to you and yours. I bear you no ill will.

They're here! They're queer! Will you finally for once freaking get used to it?!?!?

No. I won't.

You have no choice but to deal with this.

You can deal with it by shutting your ears and screaming "lalalala, no, no, not happening, lalalalala!"

Or, you can deal with it by teaching children that it's somehow especially more shameful and awful than divorced or unwed parents.

Or, you can deal with it constructively.

Or, I suppose, you can support laws that forcibly remove children from gay people.

Okay, I choose answer "D".

The Mohhameddans are going to force civilized people to exterminate them within 20 years.
Blackglass north africa, middle east, france, indonesia, mindanou.

Civilized people will also have to exterminate the christians, for the same reasons. they are murdurous barbarians, and we cannot tolerate their existence now that they might manage to attain the capability of exterminating us.

ALL people who have faith are dangerous delusional psychotics.

S3:

I can't really tell because you didn't lay it out in clear multiple-choice format: Do you support laws that would take the children of gay people away from them?

I can NOT be the only parent on the planet that manages to teach their child the difference between hating the sin and the sinner. And its not about just homosexuality. What about smoking? or cursing? or any other sin? Children are going to see examples of "wrong". They are going to know people that do "wrong" things and make "wrong" choices sometimes. There is no way around it. But I most certainly DON'T have to accept those "wrong" choices as OK. I can still teach my child that those are "wrong" choices.

Plus, I see absolutely nothing wrong with what that child said. You should be so lucky thats the worst your child hears. As the mother of a six year old that leads a VERY sheltered life, you'd be shocked at some of the things he's exposed to from other children ... Don't bet money that a seven year old doesn't know about sex. Either they or their chatty friends at school watch cable. There are some VERY bad parents and their children go to school with yours. I'm not talking about the gay mother. I'm talking about the loon that allows their seven year old to stay up until 3:00am watching adult television on a school night. Or the ones with older siblings doing drugs in the living room. Or the ones who are dressed like hookers and thugs because their parents think its "fashionable". Yeah. There are worse things than a kid with two mommies.

But, that isn't what this news story is about. People are a little side-tracked with the homosexuality issue, which hides the real point. SOME TEACHERS ARE IDIOTS AND THEY ARE IN CHARGE OF YOUR CHILDREN. Yeah, yeah. There are good teachers and bad teachers, just like there are good babysitters and bad babysitters. Remember that you should check out the teacher just as carefully as you would a sitter/nanny. NEVER assume the school checked out the teacher. I think the real story is: what other stupid things has this teacher done, cause you just know there has to be more?

Allison, you are absolutely correct.

John, the answer to your question is yes.

Yes, I think S3 has just made it clear that he would prefer to tear children screaming away from their tearful gay parents and place them in foster homes.

That tells us all we need to know about how hideously ugly his soul is, doesn't it?

Oh, very nice, Victor. You should form a "Haters Club" with S3.

Yick.

Allison, you have hit the nail on the head. The real problem is that there is no procedure that effecively gets rid of these idiots.

S3, as much as I loath gay politics, you are absolutely wrong.

Dean wrote:

made it clear that he would prefer to tear children screaming away from their tearful gay parents and place them in foster homes

I never said that Dean.

Steve wrote:

as much as I loath gay politics, you are absolutely wrong

Maybe.

What I think is that people, any people, gay or otherwise, should not be allowed to create children outside of a normal (meaning heterosexual) family. I include in that group so called feminists that don't want to marry the father of their child.

For those gay men or women that already had children in a heterosexual relationship, I think that the children, in most cases, would be better off with the parent that is heterosexual.

This thread is about a little boy that is in a family of two "mommies". Notice that I said the people that seemed to be the most uncomfortable were the teacher and principle. The little boy can't do anything about what his mother is doing with another woman. It may not be right but that is no reason to make him pay for it. But I think that it is the height of hubris on the part of the mother to place her child into this situation in the first place. Her son has to pay because of her lack of self control.

Even if I tolerate gay behavior, I don't have to tolerate abuse to children. And that is what I consider it to be. If you don't like what I think, too bad.

And, just for the record, I haven't set foot in a church in over 25 years.

S3, I asked you what you'd do to deal with the fact that gay people are raising children. Because they are, in greater numbers all the time. You said you'd support laws that forcibly remove children from gay people.

Did you mis-speak? You're saying you would NOT support laws that forcibly remove children from these people?

But, you would support laws to criminalize unwed motherhood?

I think the real problem here, S3, is that you have not thought this issue through sufficiently. It's already been acknowledged that you don't have to approve of families that don't match the nuclear ideal. Hell I probably agree with you that the nuclear ideal of a monogamous mom and dad are best.

But the fact is that people are having children outside that ideal. Whether you like it or not, they're doing it. Now, on a LEGAL basis, do you plan on criminalizing that, and forcibly removing children from such people? Or do you not?

I would support laws that would prevent their having children in the first place, whether they are gay or unwed.

Whether or not they are already doing it does not lend credibility to the practice. Or change my mind, and, yes Dean, I have thought it through.

In a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent society, we'd take all the kids away from the bad parents and somehow raise them in perfect little bubbles. Of course... are there really any perfect parents? I doubt it.

Parents lie, cheat, steal, abuse, and do all sorts of rotten things. I think homosexual behavior is a sin, but so is prosiscuous hetersexual behavior, and lots of other things our society acclaims. If we take all the kids "away", who's going to take care of them?

As with every other sin, the "solution" to homosexuality isn't increased legislation and discrimination, it's in the power of Jesus Christ. Only when hearts are changed will behavior be changed.

Dean: I agree with every word you're saying here. I'd say I hate to have to keep saying this, but, no, actually I LIKE having to keep saying this: Thank you. You and Rosemary are terrific.

Nathan is right. Those who start from opposite value-premises will find it difficult if not impossible to communicate with each other, much less arrive at the same conclusions. My premise is that homosexuality is good for the same reason that heterosexuality is good. Others start with a premise that homosexuality is a sin, sickness, or crime. We end up arguing past each other. Yet Dean manages to hold this discussion together and leads it to some fruitful conclusions.

Hey S3:

We're far past the point in our society where we can go back to the days when gay people could not live freely and with dignity. We're far past the point where totalitarian laws like the ones you propose would pass.

Gay people who are aware of our history know how we've suffered under such laws. We will not tolerate a return to those times. You'll have to kill us all, starting with me. Desecrate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments for the sake of your parochial morals and you may find the Second invoked to stop you.

That's strange, Ellen Degeneris never got scolded for saying gay on primetime tv every other word.

"That's strange, Ellen Degeneris never got scolded for saying gay on primetime tv every other word. "

Is her primary audience 7 year olds? Didn't thinks so. Try again

S3:
"I would support laws that would prevent their having children in the first place, whether they are gay or unwed."

Gosh, S3, why not just go the whole way and figure out, actuary-like, which vital statistics and character traits are likely to correlate with bad parenting later and sterilize the people who have them? It shouldn't be all that hard; I can't be the only person who's ever sat at a wedding and thought, I feel sorry for their future kids, and been proven right later.

Actually, I can think of someone right now who I hope isn't in charge of children.

John-
Since the state already regulates numerous types of behavior, tell me how the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments have any bearing.

I think the Supreme Court has been rather clear on that, S3. Don't bore the class by asking me to give you a lecture on Constitutional law.

However, your response makes a larger point that I'd like to expand upon:

You act as if it's my responsibility to prove to you why you shouldn't be able to legislate my love, home and family life. I know better. It's *your* responsibility to prove to me why you should.

You have no proof other than your personal moral code. Whether it's backed up by one or 1,000,000,000 people, by a pamphlet or by the oldest religious book there is, all it comes down to is this: you think it's wrong, and I think it's right. The Constitution was designed to make it exceedingly difficult for people like you to bring the hammer of the law down on people like me.

As things stand, you get to live the way you want, and I get to live (for the most part) the way I want. The fact that things you disapprove of are allowed in society is something you're going to have to learn to live with.

There are a lot of people who worry about an anti-gay backlash. I say that I feel very sorry for people who think they can turn back the clock.

Don't like a society in which same-sex couples can rear children, S3? Get the fuck out of America, then. You're needed in Zimbabwe.

John: I know it's hard, but calm down please.

S3: I would support laws that would prevent their having children in the first place, whether they are gay or unwed.

Okay, so then you DO support forcibly removing children away from their gay parents?

Or is it that you plan to criminalize all out-of-wedlock births?

If you have thought all this through carefully, you certainly are not expressing yourself very clearly. You seem, in fact, like you're dodging the question. So let's try to get some clarity:

Do you support laws to imprison or otherwise punish people who have children out of wedlock? Yes/no, please.

Do you support forced sterilizations of people who attempt to reproduce out of wedlock? Yes/no, please.

Do you support ripping children out of their parents' arms by force if they defy your will and have children out of wedlock anyway? Yes/no, please.

Dean-

This is what you wrote:

You have no choice but to deal with this.

You can deal with it by shutting your ears and screaming "lalalala, no, no, not happening, lalalalala!"

Or, you can deal with it by teaching children that it's somehow especially more shameful and awful than divorced or unwed parents.

Or, you can deal with it constructively.

Or, I suppose, you can support laws that forcibly remove children from gay people.

Of those choices, I chose the last one, but none of your choices are acceptable. The only one that seems to be reasonable, the third, isn't really because there is no common ground there. In all subsequent posts you (and others) have tried to put words in my mouth.

I am not going to play your game by answering your silly questions. But only because you aren't looking for a discussion of principle. You are deliberately engaging in histrionics and demonization.

Actually, yes!! A lot of her audience was underaged children hince the word "primetime". Her show wasn't canceled because she said gay. Her show was canceled because it got old fast and everyone stopped watching. To assume that no seven year olds saw her show would put you in the homes of 300 million people.

I'm going to skip the standard "bible" argument that entraps so many people with morals. I would take the obvious scientific approach. If same sex relationships are normal, how the hell can they reproduce and why aren't animals homosexual? If there were no heterosexuals and the world was left to same sex, how long would the human race last? 1 generation. If you believe homosexuality is fine, that's your right I won't put you down for it but to teach my children of it I will put you down for. It is not up to the Liberal, Christian haters to teach my children about sex at all. I will have the talk with them and I will tell them that, in my opinion and the bibles, that same sex relationships are wrong. The whole reason for sex is to reproduce. If it weren't the reason for it, we would reproduce by budding.

Gerald, the little boy in the story wasn't *teaching* kids about homosexuality, he was talking about his *family*. If you want your children in schools where they never encounter anything you disapprove of and where they never have to learn that there might be kids who live differently than they do, you might want to avoid public schools.

Gay and lesbian people pay taxes -- sales, income and property taxes -- and as such, if they have kids, those kids can go to school. The little boy didn't say, "My one mommy eats the other mommy's pussy and they don't shave their armpits." He said that his two Moms liked each other and lived together. These are two fundamentally different statements, and if the differences are blurred it's because you think homosexuality is immoral so it's all the same to you. But it isn't the same to us, and we live in this country.

Of those choices, I chose the last one, but none of your choices are acceptable.

I also gave you the opportunity to explain what other options you would care to describe, if you didn't like my options. You have yet to describe any.

In all subsequent posts you (and others) have tried to put words in my mouth.

I don't see how I've put any words in your mouth. I have asked you questions, and asked you for clarifications. They are straightforward, and if you have a well-thought-out position, you should be able to articulate a response.

So far you haven't. This is disappointing.

I am not going to play your game by answering your silly questions. But only because you aren't looking for a discussion of principle. You are deliberately engaging in histrionics and demonization.

God. It's like arguing with a right-wing Ara Rubyan.

I ask you again: please articulate, clearly and distinctly, how you plan to deal with the issue of gay people having children. I see four possibilities. If there is a fifth, or sixth, or seventh, I give you open opportunity to explain what they are.

Pointing that out isn't demonizing you, it's the simple truth.

At this point, I will assume you have not really thought this issue through, and have no firm position on what to do about the issue of gay people having kids. And that what's really happened here is that you are embarassed to admit that someone's noticed that you don't have a serious position.

Am I wrong? Then simply articulate your proposal. Maybe I'll like it, maybe I won't like it. Maybe it'll make me mad. Maybe I'll gasp in astonishment at its brilliance. But at least have the guts to say what you want done, and do it without evasion.

Gay people. Having babies. What. Do. You. Propose. To. Do. About. It?

Gerald:

Prepare to get fisked.

This is really tiring, but if you've been reading Dean's site for any length of time and you're still asking such nuance-free questions, then you need a crash course:

"I'm going to skip the standard "bible" argument that entraps so many people with morals."

People who are not religious also have morals. I have morals.

"I would take the obvious scientific approach. If same sex relationships are normal, how the hell can they reproduce and why aren't animals homosexual?"

Homosexuals are "normal" because they occur at a consistent level and without the need for "education". People often realize they are homosexual before they learn that there are any other homosexuals in the world. Your approach is obvious, but not scientific. This is an "A is A" thing: homosexuals exist, independent of culture, education, race or background, and homosexual relationships have occurred with regularity throughout human history. Uncommon? Yes. Abnormal? I think you need to define your terms more clearly there, Herr Doktor Keppler.

As for animal homosexuality, you need to read more. Things aren't as clear-cut as you think. And besides, we are a different species with a larger brain. It stands to reason that our behaviors -- like driving, for instance -- would hav evolved in new directions.

"If there were no heterosexuals and the world was left to same sex, how long would the human race last? 1 generation."

But there *are* heterosexuals, and you seem to miss the point that heterosexuals *create* homosexuals. You breed us. We do not breed ourselves. If there is "blame" to be laid for homosexuality, it lies firmly at the feet of heterosexuals. (Of course, I see nothing desserving of blame.) The level of homosexuality doesn't seem to be increasing (inasmuch as we can measure such things), and even if everyone *were* homosexual, the urge to parent would remain. Lesbians undergo artificial insemination or just bite the bullet and have sex with a man to get pregnant (imagine having it off with another guy to ensure continuation of the species!), then raise that child with their female partners. Gay men adopt children or co-parent with willing females. There is no shortage of children in the world, Gerald.

You're assuming here somewhere that gay people have no drive to reproduce, which is laughable on its face. Many of us want children as much as you do, and we find ways to have them. So much for your survival of the species argument.

"If you believe homosexuality is fine, that's your right I won't put you down for it but to teach my children of it I will put you down for."

You poorly define "teach". Am I "teaching" homosexuality by living openly in a relationship with another man? If homosexuality could be learned, by your argument, there would be more homosexuals. Maybe it seems that way to you because there are more *open* homosexuals, but those homosexuals were always there. They're just more comfortable living openly now.

Quoting my hero Dan Savage, here's another "blow" to the "teaching" theory: is there any argument I could make that would convince you to put my penis in your mouth and leave it there until I have an orgasm? I rest my case. Just as I could not "learn" heterosexuality (despite a couple of old college tries), heterosexuals cannot "learn" homosexuality. Except maybe in prison -- and in that case it isn't homosexuality. It's rape.

"It is not up to the Liberal, Christian haters to teach my children about sex at all. I will have the talk with them and I will tell them that, in my opinion and the bibles, that same sex relationships are wrong."

Liberals are not all Christian haters. Most of them are Christians, actually. Your thinking gets muddier and muddier and I don't like it one bit. As far as hating Christians go, my negative feelings about Christians stem from the way they've treated me. That's just my personal experience. Don't paint liberals with such a wide brush, or you might find yourself in the same position, Aristotle.

"The whole reason for sex is to reproduce. If it weren't the reason for it, we would reproduce by budding."

The result of unprotected heterosexual coupling is reproduction. Sex has other uses, and those uses have been exploited throughout time. You seem to fear that if sex isn't used for one strict purpose that the human race would perish. If your argument had any merit whatsoever, we would have perished thousands of years ago, because take it from me, sex feels damn good and you'd have to shoot me to stop me from using it for pleasure.

If you want to teach your kids what you believe, go ahead. They're your kids. But if you want to stop other kids from talking about what *they* believe, then you're opening a can of worms I don't think you're prepared to deal with. If you know any gay people, I shudder to think of what kinds of people they are, if these are the ideas you've gleaned from them. And if you don't know any gay people, then why don't you start talking about something you actually know something about?

If same sex relationships are normal, how the hell can they reproduce and why aren't animals homosexual?

In point of fact, homosexual behavior has been observed in literally hundreds if not thousands of species of animals. Including, as it happens, such common household pets as dogs and cats.

I would propose to you that, in the human animal, if there is a genetic basis for homosexuality (which seems likely), then we should view it as a harmless biological error, such as being born with two different colored eyes, webbed toes, or missing a nail on your pinky-toe.

By the way, I'm totally giving it to you dude. Homosexuality seems weird. It's ucky. Two hairy guys kissing and fondling each other--nasty! Blech! You think about it and you want to gag.

And yes, every gay person, if he or she wanted to, could renounce gay sex and force themselves to have strictly heterosexual relations. They are almost all physically capable of that. It'd be a bit easier for the lesbians, but the gay men could do it if they really wanted to.

If you are religious, I'll even fully accept that you have every right to believe that homosexuality is sinful and unGodly. I say homosexuality does not require your approval at all, and that you've got every right to disapprove. I'll even say, flat out, that that does not make you a bad or evil person. I think it makes you wrong, but we can argue about that some other time.

But now, to the question of "normal": Is having webbed toes normal? Well, no. Is it normal for there to be people born with webbed toes now and then? Yes it is.

In any case, I am continually waiting for someone to answer my earlier questions in a straightforward fashion: there are gay people in every major metropolitan area today who are having children. You are going to have to deal with it, because it is happening as we speak, and in greater numbers all the time. If your kids aren't going to school alongside such children, then your grandkids will be.

In short, it simply doesn't matter what you think. It is happening anyway.

So my question for you is: How do you think society should deal with it?

I await a straight (no pun intended) answer to that question.

I think the point, Dean, is that they don't *want* to deal with it. It will only be dealt with when it becomes unavoidable, which is what I think gay activists are after: bring it to the point where it must be dealt with. Make it impossible to ignore. Get through the ugly part and move forward.

Growing up among straights didn't make me any less gay. Living alongside gay people shouldn't make straights any less so. I work with a shitload of straight guys who all know I'm gay, and not one of them has made a pass at me. Go figure!

Of course, I could just be ugly.

John: So let me get this straight, you don't like Christians because of the way some of them have treated you? Isn't that generalizing and puting all Christians in the same category? It's like saying all homosexuals are child predators (I know it's not true). I could also say that I don't like African Americans because everyday as a youth I got jumped by 6 of them, got the crap kicked out of me and usualy went home bleeding. But I don't dislike them. It doesn't bother me that homosexuals go to school and have their beliefs. I don't want the government getting involved and telling me that I have to tell my children that they don't have to be hetero. If my children wind up as homosexuals, I will still love them but to be honest, my son likes girls too much and my daughter likes boys. So it looks like this hetero did not breed any of you. As far as raising your kids homosexual, go for it.
Are you saying it's genetic? I think it is learned to an extent. If they have never had it in their family history how can it be genetic.

In defense of Gerald's point, I've been in neighborhoods where being white just might get your ass kicked by the brothers.

Sorry, but I have.

Also have met women who've been raped who are subtly afraid of all men, most of the time.

Then again, am I defending Gerald's point, or John's point, by pointing all that out?

All I'm going to say to you, Gerald, is this: genetics ain't a simple thing. But let's just give you your side of the argument. Let's concede the whole thing to you. Homosexuality is learned. Somehow, you have these 19 year old boys, and someone taught them to want to fondle other 19 year old boys. If they *really wanted to*, they could stop doing that, and *learn* to like girls.

Maybe you're right. Let's grant you your whole point, and just throw out ANY evidence of genetics, or brain chemistry, or any of that. If they *really wanted to*, they could stop being gay.

Okay. Now. What if they don't want to? And what if they decide to form families and raise kids?

And let me ask you this: you just said you've got a daughter who likes boys and a son who likes girls. Great. That's pretty normal, that's pretty healthy. Are you honestly afraid that evil bastards like John Kusch can somehow persuade your son to stop liking girls?

I mean really man, just ask yourself that. If I wanted to, could I seduce your boy into liking other boys? Do you honestly think I could do that? Or that John could do it? Is this some sort of drug-pusher thing--"here kid, the first taste is free?"

Come on man. Do you really think it's that simple?

John:

Of course, I could just be ugly.

I've heard about those feet of yours. [shudder]

JOHN KUSCH

I disagree with practically every position you've ever articulated at DeansWorld. That said, you are SUCH a good writer! "You're needed in Zimbabwe." LOL!

Allison, I think that's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me here. Thank you.

I've got a few things to say on the subject. I'm gonna write a fresh post for your afternoon viewing pleasure. Gimme an hour...gotta tajke the boy to school. 1/2 days are a pain sometimes.

I mean really man, just ask yourself that. If I wanted to, could I seduce your boy into liking other boys? Do you honestly think I could do that? Or that John could do it? Is this some sort of drug-pusher thing--"here kid, the first taste is free?"
Dean,
Sometimes, yes, it is just that simple.
A common technique (I've had it tried unsuccessfully on me, personally, and know at least 3 other guys who have it tried on them, as well as hearing from others who have it done) is to attempt oral sex on a guy who is drunk enough to not object but sober enough to remember, and then keep reminding them afterward that they are gay because they let a guy gratify them.
In other cases, just like some guys prey on girls who are naive or lonely, I've known 3 guys who tried homosexuality because they were unattractive enough to not get attention from girls. Did it force them into it? No.
But consider the reinforcing power of pleasure, and consider that due to the primacy/recency principle, if the first sexual experience is homosexual, it is going to be very influencing on future behavior.
Consider that the teenage years are filled with self-confidence problems, almost every teen feels like they are different are don't belong in some way at some point.
Consider the number of girls who become prostitutes or "sluts" because of a man who is deliberately manipulative in sex.

Sex is powerful, like a drug. The younger an individual is for their first experience, the more powerful the sensation is. That's one of the reasons pedophilia is wrong: it warps the child's view of sexuality as they develop.

Consider that while no causation has been proven (yet), there is an extremely high correlation between being physically/sexually/emotionally abused as a child and becoming a homosexual.

So. Is homosexuality wrong, evil, bad, a sin?

Wrong? No. It is a way someone is attempting to find happiness. Evil? Kind of hard to answer without a moral stance to start with...but evil is usually defined as deliberately harmful, so no.
Bad? Bad, how? Impossible to answer that. Sin? Well, the Bible is pretty clear on that. If you don't accept the Bible, its words won't matter to you.

The word I choose to use to describe homosexuality is: harmful.

The behavior of homosexual men in relation to HIV, AIDS, and AIDS treatment shows that, as a population, they place sexual gratification above health, and far above the health of their partner. Homosexual men have the highest rates of communicable diseases of any population. But rather than implementing controls on themselves, they expect society to solve it from without. If we had placed half the controls on HIV+ people in the 80s that we placed on those who caught SARS, it would have died out before the 90s.
Harmful? Clearly.

Female homosexuality also has an extremely high correlation with with rape, physical/sexual/emotional abuse, and also with substance abuse as an adult. Far beyond any other population you care to name except prostitutes. Although the behavior doesn't seem to give rise to physical diseases like those that ravage homosexual men.

So another word I would use to describe homosexuals is "damaged".

But I understand very well the impulses that give rise to homosexual behavior, so I condemn no one for acting on them. On the other hand, I don't think we do homosexuals any favors by refusing to engage the issue and saying "ok, let us help you maintain your behavior".

So, you ask what I will do? I will keep encouraging people to demonstrate more moral behavior, I will continue to call harmful behavior "harmful", damaging behavior "damaging", and enabling behavior "enabling". Like I've said, it may make no difference, but I see no reason to lower my standards of morality.

Nathan:

I don't get it.

You're equating homosexuality with isolated sexual incidents.

You're equating homosexuality with low self-esteem.

You're equating homosexuality with prostitution.

None of these comparisons would ring true to the vast majority of self-identified homosexuals.

I've had sex with women -- been rather craftily manipulated into it, in fact -- and while it was pleasurable, it didn't make me stop desiring men. I know a few straight guys who have had dalliances with gay men (mostly with the gay men servicing their sexual needs); and while they found it pleasurable, it didn't make them desire women any less.

While I think it's possible to use persuasion or manipulation to make a person go against their innate gender preference, I don't think it changes those preferences.

As far as guys who couldn't get sex with women and so dabbled with homosexual conduct: that's very similar to what happens in prison. It's a combination of surrogate sexuality and male dominance: prison bitches are used for sexual release *and* to reinforce the pecking order. None of that has anything to do with homosexual desire. These guys didn't *desire* other men. They just made do with them.

You don't understand homosexual desire. The emotional and physical responses I have to men are as powerful as the emotional and physical responses a straight man would have for women. Men are not merely sexual objects for me. I fall in *love* with men. Your moral framework in which homosexuality is simply a perversion of normal sexual behavior simply cannot accommodate the reality of the situation. I can't help you with your hobbled world view -- I live outside it.

And to equate prostitution with homosexuality is . . . it's just intellectually dishonest. My emotional response is similar, I think, to the way you would feel if I called your wife a whore.

If you think I am both damaged and harmful, then I think this conversation would have to be over, since I can't adequately demonstrate to you that your beliefs about me -- which are based on no empricial evidence or first-hand observation of *me* -- are incorrect. There's really nowhere to go from here.

Your arguments are what an Objectivist would call "floating abstractions". You theorize about high-level sexual ideas without anything grounded in reality. You're promoting public policy ideas about people you do not understand.

A common technique (I've had it tried unsuccessfully on me, personally, and know at least 3 other guys who have it tried on them, as well as hearing from others who have it done) is to attempt oral sex on a guy who is drunk enough to not object but sober enough to remember, and then keep reminding them afterward that they are gay because they let a guy gratify them.

I have two (snarky) questions:

1. How far into this 'program' did you get before you caught on...
2. Where the fuck are you hanging out? The Tool Box?

Female homosexuality also has an extremely high correlation with with rape, physical/sexual/emotional abuse, and also with substance abuse as an adult.

So... lesbians grow up damaged, because someone else abused them, and so instead of blaming the abusers, they should just not be lesbians...?

I know you didn't just blame lesbians for being damaged because they were asking for a raping just by being lesbians. Somebody please tell me I read that wrong.

For the millionth time, correlation is not causation. Even if it is true that a higher percentage of homosexuals has suffered abuse in their lifetime, it wasn't the abuse that caused them to be gay. Good chance it was the other way around.

Erica,
You read that wrong. I do not, and would not, blame someone for being raped or abused.
You seem to think I'm blaming homosexuals for their urges. I'm not.
However, you are going to have a tough time finding any credible evidence for the assertion that being gay caused the abuse.
John,
You are making a huge number of assertions about what I understand and don't understand. Interestingly, you are asserting that you are able to understand perfectly that I cannot understand. A very curious train of logic, don't you think? Especially since that implies a heterosexual is absolutely incapable of understanding homosexuality....unless they agree with you. Convenient.

I am not equating homosexuality with prostitution. I am not equating half the things you say I am.
I am communicating to you that there are high correlations between certain experiences and behaviors, and making assumptions based on those correlations. I am asserting that similar experiences can result in different behaviors. I am asserting that many of the idiosyncratic behaviors of homosexuals is very similar to the idiosnyncratic behaviors of population groups that we do clinically determine as having self-image problems
You want to deny the correlations? Fine. No one can make you face reality.
You want to provide an alternate explanation for the correlations? Better. We can discuss the likelihood of how to interpret human nature.
Unfortunately, your strongest argument is only "But I really, really, really think so!" The current clinical evidence just doesn't support your position, and the few studies that do have been unreplicable and clearly suspect (only advertising in homosexual publications, relying on self-election).
That doesn't mean that more study won't prove you right. But I'm not going to make assumptions based on wishful thinking. I'm going to make assumptions on the evidence that exists, backed up by philosophy, religion, and the experiences of both myself and homosexuals with whom I've had deep conversations.
I admit I'm no PhD in psychology. I have studied in a program that emphasized behavioralism. Behavioralism cannot explain/solve everything, no. And it leads to certain conclusions that are probably different than one would get from cognitive therapy, or abnormal psychology, or Greek philosophy.
But Politically Correct assumptions of moral equivalence doesn't convince anyone who isn't already convinced.

I didn't say it is completely learned, did I? I said to an extent. Please stop taking my point out of context. I know brain chemistry is envolved. I also know that when other abnormalities of the brain occur, such as Schizophrenia, bi polar disease and major depression, they are treated as a problem. The people have to seek help. I'm not insinuating that this should happen to homosexuals, I'm just showing what you call brain chemistry is not always good.

I do think it is that easy to seduce an average person. Hitler did it. He made average Germans hate Jews. His may be a more extreme case but it can happen. It has all started with tolerance. Heterosexuals are told that if they don't except the other lifestyles and learn about them, that they are intolerant. It seems to me that educating my children about the other lifestyle is another way of breaking down people who choose not to live that way. It is also becoming the cool thing to do amongst high school and college kids (in some regions). How many people have you heard use the term bi-curious? It is not called homosexual as long as it's the cool thing to do and you have at least one partner of the oposite sex (by social standards not mine). So yes, it can be taught, to an extent.

I think it's time to challenge people to come up with studies that show that there is an increase in avowed homosexual activity that correlates with increased visibility and tolerance for homosexuals. As an awkward adolescent, before I knew any better, I had crushes on my straight classmates. Some I even pursued, trying to talk them into messing around with me.

It never worked. Not once. And I'm a persuasive guy.

Those experiences, contrasting with Nathan's experiences, showed me that sexuality is largely immutable -- that while a heterosexual can be *tempted* into *trying* homosexual activity, the success rate is very, very low, and the outcome is that while the straight guy probably gets a blow job out of the deal, he moves on with his life as a heterosexual. The teaching/recruitment theory doesn't hold water in my experience and in the experience of just about every gay or lesbian person I know.

Conversely, I've been tempted by women many, many times, and have occasionally succumbed to such temptation; and while it was fine, I guess, I moved on with my life and continued to emotionally and physically desire men. I was successfully tempted into *behavior*, but my *orientation* did not change.

I think we're misunderstanding cause and effect here. Greater knowledge of and tolerance of homosexuality will not manufacture homosexuals. However, it will give existing homosexuals the revolutionary idea that maybe there's nothing wrong with them and they can just move on and live their lives.

Gerald wrote:
"If same sex relationships are normal, how the hell can they reproduce and why aren't animals homosexual?"

If religion is normal, then why aren't animals religious?

And:
"The whole reason for sex is to reproduce. If it weren't the reason for it, we would reproduce by budding."

No. For humans, _one_ reason for sex is to reproduce. Sex for humans is also to experience beauty, to stimulate the imagination, to express love, to commune with the Divine in oneself and in another man or woman. Sex for a human is more like listening to music than like eating.

Maybe you and John should get together and make a two man hairy thing of beauty. 2 men together is not beautiful, sorry but it's just not.

Okay, Nathan. Let's say we accept your assertion that homosexual behavior is harmful and damaging. Let's say it's equivalent to a mental illness like depression, only without any "anti-homosexualant" pills to make them all nice and straight.

Even given all that, shouldn't homosexuals be free to live their lives? We don't lock up diabetics who engage in harmful eating behaviors. We don't stop people with depression from having children. We don't forbid bipolar children from telling their classmates that they are bipolar.

Why do you think gay people should be treated any differently?

Man ass is nasty. I can see why girls turn out to be lesbians because man ass is disgusting. How about a hairy fudge pop?

"Maybe you and John should get together and make a two man hairy thing of beauty. 2 men together is not beautiful, sorry but it's just not."

Gerald, just because your ideas about my sex life are disgusting doesn't mean that my sex life is disgusting. Your imagination is disgusting. If you can't see beauty where it is, then it isn't there for you. I don't think it's reasonable for you to be the arbiter of taste in the gay world.

My sainted aunt. The things that go on in the opposite hemisphere while my boyfriend and I are in dreamland. Erica, John, and shell, you all should be receiving medals from the spirits of Sappho and Allen Ginsberg themselves. Sheesh.

What the HELL is going on in here?

Turn my back for a minute and some dork has to get all trollish.

Gerald:

That is some pretty crude, uneducated and uninformed commenting coming from a guy that just yesterday said:

The more I read of this failed attempt at a left-right blog, the more I get upset at how uneducated and uninformed most of you are. Anyone can cut and paste articles. I can find a dozen websites, articles, and newspapers that support my reasons and at the same time, I can find a dozen more that contridict my reasons and ideas. Give up the website cutting and pasting and inform yourselves through true sources. If you think for a moment that you have more insight to politics than myself, think again. Let's just say, I work in a Senior Senator's office and my sources are always correct.

Don't start pissing ME off with nasty talk. Bad enough you implied that Dean and I are uninformed morons. I will not put up with bigoted, perverse tripe on top of it.

You are warned.

"Maybe you and John should get together and make a two man hairy thing of beauty. 2 men together is not beautiful, sorry but it's just not."

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not inclined in that direction.

"Man ass is nasty. I can see why girls turn out to be lesbians because man ass is disgusting. How about a hairy fudge pop?"

I can see that, too, extremely well. Smooth, curvaceous faces and bodies are much more beautiful _to me_ than rough, hairy, angular ones. So, don't preach that it's immoral for women to prefer women if you and I prefer women, too, for the same reason. And, therefore, by the same token, it's unjust to condemn John for his preferences.

Rosemary: I wasn't refering to you and Dean. There is a point at the beginning where I said..."most of you"...I was commenting on, what seemed like, high school people saying they didn't like Bush because he's stupid. Nothing to back their claims up and if you say something against them they get all hostile. I never once saw anybody warned for calling me a redneck (which I'm not). The bad language that comes out of some of these mouths is astounding. But I understand, I am new, I get to use less profanity or none.

John: As for your life, do what you want. I was only trying to illustrate the way it looks to me. I'm sure you have similar views of a man and woman together. Just don't expect me to teach your ways to my children under the guise of tollerance.

Steve: I could have misjudged you, I do that sometimes. I am human. I apologize for anything that I may have said that offended you.

Everybody: I get very defensive and lash out irrationaly when I am tol that I am wrong. I do the same thing when people tell me how I should live and teach my children. This doesn't mean I am uneducated, it means that I get pissed off (sorry for the potty talk). I guess none of you do that.

Gerald:

I don't bother dressing down trolls. The people you were arguing with in that other thread are trolls. We have a rule - don't feed the trolls. I only stumbled across that because i was updating. Normally, I don't monitor Dean's threads.

I don't mind profanity. I thought the "man-ass" comment was beneath you and not contructive to an open dialogue.

I guess I thought you were referring to us when you called this a "failed left-right blog".

Gerald:

I don't expect you to teach your kids anything, frankly. The world will teach them more than you can -- it's the way of the world.

I think I speak for a lot of gay people when I say that my parents didn't teach me about it. Nobody taught me about it -- I had to actively come out, make myself known, and seek out other gay and lesbian people. I did it all on my own. There were youth groups, discussion groups, online groups -- all kinds of organizations that were there for a single purpose: to show us we're not alone. By the time my parents were ready to deal with my homosexuality (and one of them still isn't ready), I was already quite comfortable with it.

You act as if homosexuality is this influence that reaches kids in their homes, right under their parents noses. Homosexuality, in my experience and in the experience of dozens and dozens of actual living gay and lesbian people who I actually know, is something that flowers inside a person and compels them to make sense of it.

It's a lot like hitting puberty and having strange feelings you don't understand. Straight people have peers to help them make sense of it. Gay people generally have to figure it out on their own. I'm not saying that's fair or unfair. I'm just saying it flies in the face of this "teaching" theory.

Nathan: It isn't that I will only listen to heterosexuals who agree with me. It's that I think we -- including you -- do not have the tools to scientifically study homosexuality in the way you claim. In your attempts to be scientific about it, you leave out relevant factors that cannot be measured, like societal disapproval and ostracism, as well as ambient cultural values surrounding gender. We have no empirical way in which to correct for such influences.

And no matter what your scientific data, your perspective directly conflicts with my own personal experience and the personal experiences of the people I know. Do you honestly think I'll abandon my own life experiences and just get on your bandwagon just because you can quote a study? I trust my own human values more than I trust the pseudo-science of someone whose foregone conclusion is that homosexuality is undesirable.

If you had great data on the health dangers of persimmons, I'd engage you in dialogue. However, when the topic at hand is *me*, perhaps you need to cultivate your social skills a bit. You aren't likely to be heard given your current approach.

John: You're not getting my point. I guess you are unaware of the battle going on over sex ed. When I say"you" it is not you personally, but you as a collective. "You" meaning anyone who is for converting through the political correctness system. I don't understand it I guess. How can people push their thoughts and beliefs onto me using terms like "political correctness and Tollerance". I am not a racist, hate monger or anything else that modern society has deamed conservative Americans. I do not understand how people can push their beliefs through politicians while other groups are silenced for their beliefs. In the area I live in, the KKK has put a cross in town square every Christmas. Even though I don't believe in the KKK or any of its reasoning, I do think they should be allowed to speak their beliefs because they have the same rights as every one else in this country. How can gay pride parades be permitted, while groups with different beliefs are not allowed to speak their minds because they are seen as having the non-popular view. If it's good for one it should be good for all. Don't use tollerance to silence people, it does take away their first ammendment rights. Again, I am not for racist groups and I wish they didn't exist (any of them) but the fact remains that they do and if you are allowed to speak publicly about how happy you are to be gay, they should be able to say what they feel as well.

Rosemary: The "man ass" comment is beneath me and like I said, I was in a foul mood. I'll try not to let it happen again. My apologies. Thanks for the heads up on the trolls. Their ignorance just pushes my buttons.

Gerald: I think sex education should be taken out o the schools and put back on the shoulders of those truly responsible: parents. If school districts want to make information available to parents to use at their discretion, fine. But as a parent, I wouldn't trust any teacher to teach my kids about sex. That's a parent's job.

Getting that out of the way, I think it's perfectly fine for people who disapprove of homosexuality to say so. That being said, there will be conflict. If kids at school are allowed to say "I have two Dads," then other kids should be allowed to say, "My Mom and Dad said that's wrong." The role of the teacher is to step in and make sure nobody's being abused and that everyone is learning. The earlier you teach kids to handle conflict, the better.

I'd say much of the problem we adults have with gay issues stems from the fact that we were never really allowed to talk about it openly and *factually* as children.

Gerald: I appreciate your apology, but I wasn't offended in the least. Just pointing out a fact. I've been called many worse things than homosexual. There are many worse things and I don't want to be one of them.

Gerald: I think I'd better also state again just for the record that I am totally opposed to all Political Correctness, censorship, and thought control, both from the Left and from the Right. John has the right to say "I'm in love with Matt and I want to marry him" and you should have the right to say "Ugh! That's disgusting!" if that's the way you feel. And I have the right to say what I feel, which I've already said enough already for now, I think.

Hello all,
I am from the same town that this happened. As usual there is another part of the story. This lady has a history of filing wild lawsuits against the school board, and the child has a history of behavior problems. It was the behavior of the child that initially got him disciplined, he say the word while misbehaving. He was written up because of his behavioral problem and not solely on him using that word.

Nothing in that note suggested a behavioral problem.

What behavior was he punished for besides not keeping his mouth shut? And where is that part reported?

They don't report it because then you don't have as big a story. My wife is also a teacher of children that age, and she told me she would have handled it differently, and believe me, what 7 year olds are saying these days blows me away. My mouth drops at what these children are saying these days. One of her children was telling her a story yesterday about how her aunt and uncle were arrested she was using street language that she didn't even know about.
As far as what behavior it escapes me at the moment, just thinking about what some of my wife's students pull in class and I can only wonder. Someone told me what he was doing and it was typical of some of my wife's stories. This child has had behavorial problems in the past. But the child is put out there by the mom who is making yet another suit against the school board.
When you know the whole story, you realize how blown out of proportion this is.
This is sorta like that woman who got trampled in Wal-mart and it turns out she has pulled 10 other stunts in that store.

Full disclosure: I work at the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, and am part of the team working on the situation in Lafayette. I handle our youth and schools outreach efforts as well as some public education work, have been involved with this situation from the beginning, and have spent time with the child and his two mothers.

I ran across the posts and commentary here while searching online to find out what sort of public reaction it's getting. I don't really have the time to get very involved all the discussion going on here, and I do realize that the post I'm responding to is several days old, but having said that I feel I have to say something regarding Lance Richard's comments, because I find his attempt to attack a seven-year-old child and his mother in this fashion to be completely reprehensible.

We do check out people before we get involved with their cases. Were what Mr. Richard is saying here true, we probably wouldn't have agreed to represent this family in the first place.

> This lady has a history of filing wild lawsuits
> against the school board, and the child has a
> history of behavior problems.

This is an outright lie. Ms. Huff and her son have only lived in Lafayette for six months, three of which were during summer vacation. He's only been at the school this year, and she has never any problems with the school before or filed any sort of lawsuit against the school before. Nor have there been any such problems or lawsuits with Marcus's previous school. The mom is a waitress. The ACLU doesn't charge its plaintiffs but regular attorneys most certainly do - how do you think she's paying for all these supposed "wild lawsuits"?

As for Marcus's "behavior problems" - before this he'd had one other unrelated, minor disciplinary problem - I can't go into it for client confidentiality reasons, but it was pretty insignificant kid stuff.

> It was the behavior of the child that initially
> got him disciplined, he say the word while
> misbehaving. He was written up because of his
> behavioral problem and not solely on him using > that word.

That's in direct contradiction with the school's own forms, signed by school staff, that ONLY focus on the content of the child's speech and say NOTHING about his misbehaving in any way.

Mr. Richard obviously has made his mind up about this thing, and is willing to attack a seven-year-old child and his mother in an attempt to make people agree with him. Judge for yourself - you can look at PDF's of the forms online:
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=14478&c=104
and
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=14480&c=104

We deleted two phone numbers that were written on the forms, but aside from that, what you're looking at on this is *all* that the school has ever sent Ms. Huff about this incident.

Hope that clears some things up. I expected some people to misconstrue a kid saying "gay is when a girl likes a girl" as some sort of horrible sexual comment. I expected some people to react poorly just as they always do with anything having to do with lesbian and gay people. But I feel I have to say something when someone spreads outright lies about this child and his mother. You do realize that only makes your side of this thing look worse than it already does, don't you, Mr. Richard?

Chris Hampton
Public Education Associate
ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project