I'd like to know just what exactly would be considered "gay and lesbian propaganda". Is it propaganda to avoid teaching your own child that his parents are abominations?

Someone else mentioned the it was OK by them if John was "raising your kids homosexual". What the heck is that supposed to mean? Does that mean that all heteros are "raising their kids heterosexually"?

Does that mean that all heteros are "raising their kids heterosexually"?

Apparantly not successfully. ;-)

Nope, they should be raised NON-sexually, until they have developed reasoning powers able to cope with the concept (I think around 10-11).

The only difference between "my two mommies" and "my mom and her friend" or "mom and her sister" is sex, right? That's where it becomes wrong to start to teach those distinctions to a 7-year-old. Particularly since I'm sure the child was likely taught about it a few years earlier.

"Gay" is absolutely and completely about sexual attraction, not love, in that you can have same-gender love that is not homosexual. Kids understand love naturally. Wait to explain the sex to them when they are older. 10 at the very earliest. There is a Piagetian developmental step where they can start understanding symbology much easier, and that probably has something to do with it.

"Gay" is absolutely and completely about sexual attraction, not love, in that you can have same-gender love that is not homosexual.

That is absolutely not true. There's a difference between loving someone, and being in love with them. I love my family and my friends. I would be (hopefully) in love with my partner. Big difference.

You can have opposite-gender love that is not heterosexual.

How much do straight parents make the distinction to a 7-year-old between "mommy loves daddy" and "mommy is in love with daddy"? (And even if they did, a 7-year-old isn't gonna grasp the nuance.)

How much do straight parents make the distinction to a 7-year-old between "mommy loves daddy" and "mommy is in love with daddy"? (And even if they did, a 7-year-old isn't gonna grasp the nuance.)

Exactly.

..except that you are proving my point. A kid can't grasp that nuance, but that's exactly what you are forcing on that child when you say "my two mommies".
How can it be TWO mommies when everything that is taught in science class says it takes a mommy and daddy to have kids?
Kids don't get the nuance of "in love", sure, but that's immaterial to Mommy and Daddy. There are lots of parents who are not in love but are still married and still parents.
The only possible combination that can produce a child is a man and a woman. Even if they aren't geographically present at the time the child asks. The ONLY thing that makes it "two mommies" instead of "mommy and her friend" is homosexuality. Being "Gay". And that is absolutely and completely about sex, because most 20 year olds can't grasp the difference between "love" and "in love", much less a 7-year-old.
And the kid used it with the full expectation that he would be understood. That's how kids use language. They don't think of synonyms, or connotations, or socialized aspects, they just use the word that seems the most appropriate. Please, please, please consider all the ramifications of a 7-year-old who already internalized the conjunction of "gay" and "my two mommies".
(Erica, btw, I do appreciate your questions...a day of introspection has let me feel like there are ways I can approach this discussion).
Here is the point of agreement:
Sure, I accept that if homosexuality is normal and healthy and equivalent and not at all associated with pain, damage, abuse, resentment, avoidance, etc, then there is probably much less difficulty with full acceptance of homosexuality in our society, including homosexual marriage, etc.
Here is the point of departure:
But with the extremely high correlation of all these negative aspects with homosexuality, it would be extremely naive to assume that homosexuality is that benign.
Yes, some heterosexuals have the same problems. But at nowhere near the same rate. Percentages, statistics: They tend to put the lie to anecdotal information. You can google as easily as I can, but if I do it, you'll complain I'm cherry-picking the data. Do you think you could accept the factual correlations despite your assumptions? If not, we have reached another impasse.

Nathan, how do children know the difference between Daddy's love for Mommy, and Daddy's love for Aunt Susan, Daddy's sister without bringing sex into it?

The answer is that they just know. Have you even talked to a 7 year old recently? They don't have to know exactly what sex is to understand that most adults want to be part of a couple. They are quite clear on the fact that Grandmommy and Poppop, Aunt Susan and Uncle Tim, and 12 year old cousin Lorainne and her boyfriend Matt are all couples, without having to know anything about sexual intercourse, reproduction, marriage law, or the Massachusetts Supreme Court. They know that even if Uncle Tim kisses cousin Lorainne on the cheek, Tim and Lorainne are not a couple. They are also perfectly capable of understanding the concept of a girl kissing a girl without knowing (or usually even wondering) what happens behind the closed bedroom door. It's just another type of couple.

Shell,
Simple: because the child knows he is the child of Mommy and Daddy, which is reinforced by everything else in the world: it takes a Mommy and Daddy to have children.
Their mommy and daddy have their own mommies and daddies. Their friends have mommies and daddies. Their pets have mommies and daddies. They see mommy and daddy animals at the zoo.
Ever seen any studies on the damage to a child's world view when mommy or daddy isn't present? Have you noticed how that damage is lessened if there is a significant reason for it ("Daddy dies in the war" "mommy died in a car accident")?
Kids may not understand the difference between "in love" and "love" through explanations, but they sense the different types of love from their own experience. Their own love for their dog is different from that for their parents, which is different than that for their grandparents, which is different than that for their friend and sibilings.
Honestly, "my two mommies" is an absolutely singular occurance in a child's universe. The presence of a lesbian partnership isn't the problem (in my opinion), it is the way it is presented. It is the imposition of adult nuance onto a child's perspective. The wealth of studies of the difficulty of children whose father is absent but alive should indicate that all the wishful thinking in the world, all the possible tolerance, and all the longing for a gender-blind society isn't going to make these problems vanish for the kid.
Heck, haven't you heard of any of the studies of how kids naturally gender-model, even before they have an understanding of gender markers? Even a father who bottlefeeds a baby exclusively is never going to have the same sort of relationship as a mother who bottlefeeds exclusively.
Children as young as 4 understand complementation: light/dark, up/down, brother/sister, cold/hot, mommy/daddy.
And on top of all of these biological realities, you have a couple who has instructed their 7-year-old enough information to understand the conjunction of "gay" and "my two mommies".
Maybe I should emphasize: I would have much less problem with this if it were "mom and her friend", rather than "my two mommies". All the child needs to know about the situation/relationship is that his mommy has a special friend.
The more we discuss this, the more I am appalled that so many people are willing to experiment with the development of children on nothing stronger than optimistic theory...

No, Nathan, I don't accept those correlations. I have yet to see a rigorously scientific study that proves what you are asserting. I've seen quite a lot that show that children who are abused are more likely to abuse, but none that show that abuse is related to sexual orientation in any way.

Shell,
You are asking for a "rigorously scientific study that proves".
No matter what I might produce, it won't be rigorous enough, I'm sure. Furthermore, correlations are not proved, they are demonstrated. They have already been widely published and disseminated, but you have already rejected them. Causations are proved, but no one has proved any causations, nor was I asserting them.
That's fine. I didn't expect any different response.
The only thing is, to date there is no credible (i.e. replicable) evidence that homosexuality is naturally occurring and benign. What there is hardly rigorous and riddled with problems like lack of control groups, recruitment errors, etc. So if you only accept rigorously scientific proof, what is the basis of the views you currently hold?

So if another 7 year old comes into class and says "I have a mommy and a daddy", should he/she be reprimanded? The only difference here is that the kid has "two mommies".

Schools seem to be notorious for being slower than everyone else in the whole sexual-orientation thing. I remember when I was in school, one time someone called me "gay" and the teacher reprimanded him, saying "that is the worst thing you can possibly call someone." I'm not gay, and the kid should certainly have been reprimanded; but I remember it personally offending me, what the teacher said. What if I was gay? Man, I'd be screwed up for life.

Children understand coupledom and usually equate it with marriage (i.e. marriage = "in love"). They don't necessarily equate it with children. Grandma and grandpa are married, but lots of young kids are pretty fuzzy on the idea that they were somebody's parents.

Well, in Canada it is a hell of a lot clearer. In all likelihood, mommy and mommy would be married. No confusion for children or his friends! The relationship is understood - there may or may not be children, and all biology from the child's point of view avoided.

Obviously the US needs to make a change to the sake of the children!

Keep fighting the good fight, Nathan.

Nathan:
You have made some very good points. Really good.

I have a couple of problems with what you said.

The more we discuss this, the more I am appalled that so many people are willing to experiment with the development of children on nothing stronger than optimistic theory...

Isn't that what parenting is? An experiment of sorts. I don't do all the things that my parents did. I'm adapting and hopefully improving on their method.

Take spanking. Not abuse, not the extreme, but a good old fashion ass whuppin'. My parents did it. The next generation of parents are all about the "time out". That is fine and dandy too. There are countless studies indicating that spanking damages children. Of course, now we have a whole bunch of teenagers that are disrespectful to their parents and on Jerry Springer. Kids that, frankly, could benefit from a serious ass whuppin'.

My point is that parenting is a big experiment. Everytime you have a child you are taking a risk of seriously making mistakes.

You can talk about how those "two mommies" made a mistake by calling themselves both mommy. You may be right and you may be wrong. The problem I have is the teacher and the school undermined that child's family unit, and they knew it. And, they punished him for being honest.

The relationship in question is absolutely and categorically NOT "My Mommy and her friend". It is "My Mommy and my other Mommy". Each woman is the childs mother. Each loves her as a daughter and is loved by her as a mother. Neither woman is a mere "friend". They are committed to each other and committed to raise that child to the best of their ability; whether they are married or not, whether they are sexually active or not, whether either neither or both of them are genetically related to their daughter, whether we as a society decide to help them or hinder them.

I think Nathan misses the mark with the idea that everyone has ONE Mommy and ONE Daddy. He's right in that his idea is biologically sound. HOWEVER, in our culture its now entirely possible through divorce and remarriage and adoption and surrogate-carriers and sperm-donors to have a wide array of mommies and daddies.

"Mom and Mom's Friend" is a horrible solution to this issue. It asks the child to deny HIS personal relationship to one of the adults that he connects to in a mother-child way. You're essentially saying that he should choose one over the other.

There's a lot of interesting speculation about why people are gay, VERY LITTLE OF IT suggests its all the mothers fault. Personally, I think the child is at a significant disadvantage being raises by homosexuals in many ways. (I'm sure all of you realize I think the optimal family unit is one with conservative, Christian, heterosexual parents)

BUT, there are worse things than being raised by homosexuals. Being aborted. Being born crack-addicted. Being abused. Being abandoned. Being neglected. Being French. (Ok, so that last one was a joke :)

This is a very interesting subject. I just wanted to second nathan's caution about using "rigorous scientific studies" language associated with "proving" something. As my research professor has asserted time and again, you never "prove" anything. You establish a high degree of confidence that the thing you observed didn't occur by chance alone, and then you draw an inference that either supports or denies your hypothesis.

This is especially true in the social sciences (where child social development would most likely fall). Numerous studies have shown some connection between violent television and aggressive behavior. But none of the studies have *proven* that one causes the other. Every "rigorous" scientific study conducted in the social sciences suffers from such limitations.

The hard sciences have an easier time showing cause/effect relationships in many instances, because it is easier to control confounding outside effects.

"Classic amnesia. The things I "learned on the playgound" when I was a kid ranged from how people "do it" (not that I had a clue as to what that meant) to the best way to eat an earthworm without tasting it. Kids talk on the playground and the older they get the more "dirty" the talk gets. Think back people it wasn't that long ago was it?"

So you learned about sex when you were 7? thats impressive. Did you learn about gay people when you were 7? Thats impressive. Its not the fact that they found it out from someone rather then the parent but the age at which it happend.

P.S. Its an honor to get you to analyze both my quotes so carefully.

and i like the amnesia and boogey men idea.. lots of giggle from me

Andrew:

Thanks.

I learned about sex when I was 8. I didn't know what any of it meant. But I learned about it.

You remember - make a circle with one hand. Then take your index finger on your other hand and make the "in/out motion".

I had no clue exactly what that meant but I knew it was how we make babies.

Now I can eat an earthworm without tasting it though!

I also learned that my art teacher was a homo - I thought that meant he really liked MILK.

"I also learned that my art teacher was a homo - I thought that meant he really liked MILK."

It was worth reading through all of the comments for that one line. Thanks for the laugh, Rosemary.

For the record, so long as kids are brought up in a SAFE and loving home where both PARENTS (whether it be Mommy and Mommy, Daddy and Daddy or Mommy and Daddy), singular parents included, provide for and support their children emotionally and in a materialistic sense, then all else is secondary.

Children are children - at seven years of age no one (and I mean no one) has a true understanding of sexuality and the different sexual relationships that surround them.

They might be taught the basics of how babies are made, they might be told that uncle Harry loves uncle Jack or that Mommy has a girlfriend and not a boyfriend, but I can promise you this - they don't care. All they care is that both of their Mommies love them and look after them and are there when they need them.

At seven years of age, they haven't discovered that being "gay" is bad, that their parents are widely frowned upon for raising a child in such an "environment" where, heaven forbid, they might be persuaded and/or "forced" to become gay too.

It's us, the adults, that fuck up their innocent view of the world.

Ren:
:-)

I fixed that for ya!

Nathan, I asked for rigorous scientific studies because the ones I've seen are, to use your words, "riddled with problems like lack of control groups, recruitment errors, etc." Perhaps I was being a little careless in my language by saying "proven". You probably won't believe me, but I do have scientific training (1 1/2 years in graduate school before I realized I didn't want to be a scientist) and I understand the scientific method and how to analyze data.

But when we are talking about children and families, we aren't dealing with science. You may be "appalled that so many people are willing to experiment with the development of children on nothing stronger than optimistic theory..." But unless you are advocating a socialist type society where the government raises the children, I don't know what you mean. The standard has always been in this country that families raise their own children and the government intervenes only when necessary to protect the child from harm. I don't have to prove that Mary and Sue are fit to be parents. You have to prove that they are unfit.

As for where I got my views about homosexuality, they aren't informed by scientific studies. They are informed by observation. I see that gay people are just like me. Most of them are ordinary people. Like most people, they wouldn't dream of hurting a child. Like most people, they want an ordinary family life. My attitude is that they should be allowed to do that until such time as it is proven that they are doing something illegal. Just like we allow heterosexual people to do.

It doesn't require scientific study to treat humans as humans. Just ordinary human compassion.

"I learned about sex when I was 8. I didn't know what any of it meant. But I learned about it."
From what I gather from this situation he was explaining what homosexuality was. If it was other wise I'd respond differently.

He wasn't explaining about homosexual sex. He couldn't have, because he was only 7. He was merely pointing out the difference between his parents and those of the other child.

Why is that so hard for people to understand?

Explaining in a very innocent way. The boy was asked about his mom and dad. Marcus responded he had two mothers because his mother is gay. When the other child asked for explanation, Marcus told him: "Gay is when a girl likes another girl".

That was all of it. No extra details or anything.

You know, the funny part is that when I heard this story originally, I thought that he was reprimanded because the school was being ultra-PC in a modern way, not in the old way.

Either way, I find it odd that children are considered so fragile that they can be broken merely by learning about words or concepts. I learned about sex when I was quite young. I think that I learned about being hated by most of my peers at an earlier age. Of the two, I think that I would have been better off to have been liked but to know about sex.

Can anyone explain a manner in which simple knowledge will irreparably damage children? I don't care whether it's learning about sex, hearing the word 'nigger', or learning about the depths of hatred and hell expressed in Ahab's final speech before his death. If a child doesn't understand it, then it's nonsense. If a child does understand it, how will it hurt them? If a child only partially understands it, why not explain it better? And when they can't understand it, what decisions would they make differently because of their partial understanding, bearing in mind that young children get to make precious few decisions on their own. For a child of 7, what can he decide? Whether he wants vanilla or chocolate ice cream? Which kids he wants to play with if his parents will let him?

Sean:
"If he were seven, I don't think it would involve the use of the word gay."

Dean:
"Boogey man! Why wouldn't a kid that is 7, with two mommies, know the word gay? My kid knows the word gay, he is only 6, and we all know I'm not gay."

Sean again:
*Sigh.* Dean, how you could construe that comment as meaning that the parents shouldn't teach the child the word gay within the household, I don't know. But that's not what I meant. You were asking specifically how the child was to explain his family to his classmates, not how the parents should explain the family to the child. One of the very first lessons any responsible parent teaches is that the household and the world outside are separate places, and that speech and behavior appropriate to one often are not appropriate to the other.

I realize that by submitting this to a group of my fellow Americans, I am asking to be told that I Am Not in Touch with My Feelings, that My Mind Is Divorced from My Body, and that I'm Secretly Self-Loathing. Spare me. The idea that children must be spared encounters with any unpleasantness whatever in order to "have a real childhood" is nonsense (to follow up on ctl's point). But it's also nonsense to direct a child to say and do things in public, out of the supervision of the parents, that everyone knows perfectly well are likely to lead to controversy that the child can't address. I realize that I'm being the hard-ass, but I don't think I'm being the cruel one.

Nathan, it strikes me as likely that you've heard this before, but since no one else has mentioned it: the only perfectly clean way to test whether homosexuals are inherently self-destructive is to bring them up in a culture in which messages telling them that homosexuality is sick and evil don't come at them from the first day of kindergarten on. That's probably never going to happen. So allow me just to observe that in my experience, self-destructive gays tend to be (1) those reared in the most virulently anti-homosexual environments, or in households with troubled family relationships in general, and (2) those who, immediately after coming out, fall down the gay ghetto rabbit hole and surround themselves with people who encourage them to follow their instincts willy-nilly at the expense of developing self-discipline. It deeply pains me to have to say that, and I realize that it is just anecdotal, but I don't think the unvarnished observations of others would be too far off.

Sean:

It was Rosemary, not Dean, in this post.

To address your point though. I didn't construe what you think I did. My point is that the kid is 7, has gay parents, has a vague/childish view on the meaning and see nothing wrong with it.

One of the very first lessons any responsible parent teaches is that the household and the world outside are separate places, and that speech and behavior appropriate to one often are not appropriate to the other.

Sure. But again, at age 7, the kid isn't going to really grasp that. He will eventually but at 7 you are asking for a lot.

Sorry, Rosemary. I just figured that you and Dean are one flesh, etc. Besides, don't your posts usually have a parenthetical in the headline? :)

I still don't think that it's very useful only to teach children to practice behaviors that they can understand. I hope it's obvious that I come at this not from the perspective that homosexuality is something that needs to be hidden, or that children should be infantilized. I do recognize that you're a parent and I'm not. But in a society in which lots of types of people are able to coexist openly, everyone has to be willing to compromise sometimes, and teaching this particular compromise seems to me wise.

I first met this girl when she was 7. She is now fourteen, and can't wait to reach legal maturity. She told me a confused story about babies getting pushed back up the birth canal, and a lost twin, and other stuff.

Her mother explained later that the child was the survivor of a pair of twins, the other disappearing between one ultrasound and the next. She also had a condition where a valve between the kidneys and the bladder is not fully developed. Which means it is possible for urine to 'back up' into the kidneys. Which is not a good thing, since the human bladder is home to a number of potentially nasty bacteria. So she had to take medication, wear diapers to bed, and get an examination once a year to see how the valve was 'maturing'.

She still has to take medication, but she has matured to the point the diapers are no longer necessary.

And even after 7 years she still has this crush on me.:)

When a child gives her heart...

Sean:

Yeah, but I thought it would look redundant. Since I titled it after myself.

---

I think we are dancing here. I think that teaching them early and consistently is important. My point was mostly that it takes a while for all that molding and teaching "to stick". I tell Jake stuff all the time like don't tell your friends what Mom tells you. He does. Then he say's "I forgot". It happens.

I'm a parent and that is probably why I was so pissed off. This whole episode was like a knife in my chest. My heart ached for that little boy. A mom hears a story like that and immediately we think of our own kid.

I totally agree with compromising. I didn't mean to sound like I was trashing you - I just thought that you sounded like a hardass. ;-)

We don't know what the two mommies told the kid. But at 7 - they ask questions - they remember crap you'd wish they forget and forget stuff you wished they'd remember.

No, apparently, I'm a nasty man-ass.

And I'm still forgetting things my parents want me to remember and remembering things they'd just as soon forget.

No, apparently, I'm a nasty man-ass.

Yeah. I warned that nasty man-ass the next trollish message is mine to "play" with. Hehehehehe.

Both my parents loved celery. My sister and brother love celery. I was surrounded by celery at every meal as a child. Every time I opened the fridge, celery was there. My mother tried peanut butter, cream cheese etc to get me to like celery, but the fact is, I don't like celery. I was BORN to NOT like celery. That's the fact. Got it?

It has long struck me that gay rights advocates and certain critics--not all the critics, but a good number of them--are so busy talking past each other that they're missing big areas of potential common ground.

A lot, and I do mean a whole lot, of arguments on this subject would end immediately if gay people would just say something like this:

"Yes. I acknowledge that being gay is a choice, in the sense that I an physically capable of heterosexual intercourse. I don't like it, I don't want to do it, but yes, I am capable of it. Just as I am capable of eating foods I find awful, or listening to music that I hate. I am capable of doing all those things. I can also wear clothes I find ugly, and paint my walls a color I find unpleasant. So yes, all these things are choices. Now, will you please grant that I don't choose to like or hate rap music, I don't choose to like or dislike asparagus, and I don't choose to find men attractive or unattractive? Who I'm attracted to is not a thing I control. So I wish you would leave me alone and stop harassing me about this. I have no interest in converting you or your children, I just want to live my life unharassed and unmolested."

Of course, this will give the obsessives who want to "cure" homosexuality some small opening. But my observation is that, on the other side, there are a whole bunch of people--I mean, really, a whole lot of them--to whom "it's not a choice" sounds like, "I can't help it," and which reminds them strongly of people who often excuse destructive behavior (infidelity, drug abuse, dishonesty) on similar "I can't help it" grounds. The pathologization of destructive behavior really bugs the hell out of some people, and by playing the "it's not a choice" card so rigidly, some gays are--unintentionally, I think--lumping themselves in with issues that really should be treated separately.

It wouldn't hurt if some gays would also say, "Great, I get that you think this is a sin. I understand you also think sex outside marriage is a sin, that masturbation is a sin, and a lot of other things are a sin. Fine. I don't hate you for thinking that, but I do wish you'd leave me alone about it."

Again, it has been my experience that, while some on the right will never get over their weird obsession with homosexuality (as if it's worse somehow than other non-violent sexual sins), an awful lot of them back down and lose their hostility when you talk to them the way I just described. Believe it or not, you might even wind up making friends with such people.

I really think some gay people are missing the boat on this. Of course, some of the critics could lose their own rigidity themselves. But again, that's what respectful dialogue is for, right?

But it's also nonsense to direct a child to say and do things in public, out of the supervision of the parents, that everyone knows perfectly well are likely to lead to controversy that the child can't address.

Yea gods. The first thing that came to my mind was some parent in 1936 Germany telling their child to never discuss his religion outside the home, and oh yes, also remember to show your respect for your country.

How many parents are telling their children to hide the fact that they are Muslim, or part black, or...?

Tim:

Your obvious display of vegetable bigotry is disturbing. You need help. The first step is admitting you have a problem.

Celery hatred is not new but it can be helped...

Hey Dean:

I totally hear what you're saying: that if gay and lesbian people could hear out the concerns of people uncomfortable with homosexuality, that a dialogue could begin. You are absolutely correct on that: dialogue can't happen without active listening and trust.

The difficulty is that many of the arguments against homosexuality -- sinful, mental illness, dangerous to children, learned behavior, sexual deviance -- are so shocking to gay and lesbian people that emotion often overwhelms their ability to listen or respond respectfully.

And it isn't even like we have thin skins. In my own experience, I was called a "fag" and a "queer" and a "homo" and a "fudgepacker" by students *and* teachers for pretty much my entire twelve years of primary education. Things were thrown at me from passing cars. I was physically assaulted in school often with no interference from teachers (actually, they'd usually interfere by suspending me for being a troublemaker), and I was physically assaulted outside of school. The only reason for this treatment is that I was gay and perceived to be so.

I can take an insult.

I think that what shocks gay and lesbian people so much about some of the things written in the comments here is the utter callousness of people who can say, with a straight face, things like, "Homosexuality has no purpose or value whatsoever and is a narcissistic descent into hedonism," (Mark Noonan, I believe) or "Homosexuality is a mental or genetic flaw that is harmful to society," (nathan) or "Man ass is nasty." (Gerald) (Okay, the last one doesn't really bother us that much, I think.)

It is shocking and outrageous to us to hear such things said about a part of our lives that, apart from outside interference and public criticism, is a really, really positive thing. My relationship wth my mate is the anchor of my life. Our home life centers me and gives me purpose. The physical and emotional intertwinings of my relationship seem as deep and as fulfilling as any heterosexual relationship I know. Not that you can really measure such a thing: you either look at a relationship from the outside and see love or you don't. You can't reside in peoples' heads.

To hear in blunt speech from someone who doesn't know me that all of this is just a mental illness, a genetic flaw, a passing fancy, or a threat to children, gets me riled up enough that I'm glad we're on the Internet here. A man who said that to my face just might get beat down by a faggot. I'm a gay man, but I'm a man.

If you consider how high *my* passions run -- and I've learned how to field abuse of all kinds -- you can consider how high the passions of others might run as well, who haven't experienced this kind of vulgar language.

If people who disagree with homosexuality were content to say their peace (piece?) and then leave us alone, I think I could respect their beliefs. However, when they talk about taking away our children or criminalizing our intimacy or keeping any mention of our existence out of public earshot, I think that maybe their beliefs aren't deserving of respect. In the same way some anti-gay pundits question the concept of "tolerance", so do I. Perhaps being intolerant of certain beliefs is, in reality, a virtue.

I'm not sure. All I'm sure of is that man-ass looks mighty fine to me; and if anyone out there has a problem with it, I suggest you vent your feelings online, cuz if you call me or my boyfriend mentally ill, genetically-flawed child predators whose relationsip is nothing but a sexual perversion, you're going to get schooled in the consequences of uncivil behavior.

John, good for you for saying that. I feel the same way about my relationship with Lionel. I may not be able to kick ass, but I'd sure want to.

Yeah, John! i'm a monogamous lesbian with a Catholic partner who is the miracle and joy of my life. I totally agree with you.

Though I guess some people might expect *me* to beat guys up... :-D

But jokes aside, I am afraid to be identified as gay for the danger it causes.

Let's see a little Christian LOVE and worry about the poor, the war-torn, and the miserable, 'cause if memory serves me correctly, Christ said a LOT about them -- and nothing about gays.

Another element is the carping generally about children being more and more "sexualized". Well, I wouldn't attend a Jon-Benet style pageant or probably allow my kid in one, but I know I was pretty sexualized as a 10 or 12 year old with no assistance necessary in the parenting realm nor today's access to Britney et al either. It wasn't so long ago folks were married with kids at 16. Right or wrong, I think it is merely fact: Humans are sexual. Kids are human. Weep not.

I don't know that I'm all that shocked at arguments that I'm mentally ill or an incomplete man; like most of us, I grew up surrounded by them. They enrage me, but they aren't a jolt. The jolt to me was finally realizing that I wasn't mentally ill, that what I wanted was nurturing and sustaining (and orgasmic, not coincidentally), and that I had a half-dozen or so friends around me who would have been willing to help me through years earlier if I'd just asked them.

With people who aren't naturally inclined to be that broad-minded, one thing the "it's not a choice" argument can (in a limited way) counter is the idea that all gay people get off on emitting society-disordering shock waves. That's an important issue: whatever people may believe about rights, they're not going to be crazy about living side by side with people who they think are always trying to provoke them. Unfortunately, one-note activism being what it is, that line has been pushed to the point that people are invited to believe that we're sub-adults who shouldn't be left in control of our own lives.

OTOH, Dean, some of us have spent years saying things on the order of, "Great, I get that you think this is a sin. I understand you also think sex outside marriage is a sin, that masturbation is a sin, and a lot of other things are a sin. Fine. I don't hate you for thinking that, but I do wish you'd leave me alone about it." With a lot of people, it works--there's far more goodwill out there than screechy queer activists see. But there are also quite a few people who think that, when in the presence of homosexuals, any behavior short of getting in our faces and telling us how much they think we suck is an expression of "approval."

I think a point that is not being sufficiently discussed is -- DON'T THE INDIVIDUAL PARENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS SEXUALITY WITH THEIR CHILDREN AS THEY SEE FIT?

Especially at the age group being discussed?

I don't let my children (8,6,4) watch PG-13 movies. I try to shelter them. They don't watch the news, or play violent video games. They believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny. You may scoff, but *I* believe it is preserving a magical time in their life.

WHAT RIGHT DO YOU HAVE TO TAKE THAT AWAY?

I am pro-homosexual relationships between consenting adults. I am pro-gay marriage. I would ALSO like to introduce these issues with my children within the context of my VALUES. Which means, I don't want in introduced at 7 years old in school.

The teacher could have simply stated, "There are many types of families -- we're not talking about that right now. It's time to line up for recess."

The teacher and principal handled it extremely poorly.

There ARE people who believe, based upon their interpretation of the bible or whatever beliefs, that homosexuality is wrong. They have the right to teach that to their children, whether or not we agree with that. It simply is not a subject that should be discussed in an elementary classroom.

Again, the teacher and administration handled it in a very poor manner. Much like the recent "news" about the handling of the discussion of Santa Claus.

At that age group, a teacher should realize that their are many different beliefs, and instead of "judging" or "discussing" them, they should have the skills to "diffuse" hot-button topics.

cj, I think a lot of that has to do with the tradeoffs involved in the nuclearization of the family. On the one hand, we don't want clan and village elders of any kind to be strong-arming parents into feeding their children beliefs they don't agree with. On the other hand, if children from lots of different households are in school together, the adults in charge have to make sure that the students get along with others whose home lives their parents would not approve of. Your recommended response strikes me as a very good one: not favoring one over the other, but simply noting that the topic is appropriate to another time. However, I get the feeling that these days, such an approach is considered fairly exotic.

Oh, and one more thing: our relationships aren't just internally supportive. I'm a way better son to my parents since I've had Atsushi around inquiring gently whether I've called them lately. His family doesn't (so far as we know) know that I'm anything but a foreign friend he brings home occasionally, but if I do say so myself, I've managed to convince him not to hold his nephew as if the poor kid were a sack of potatoes. And in overall terms, stupid, risky behavior (not just that kind) looks much less attractive when you have someone who's made you the caretaker of his life and soul. This is one of the reasons, by the way, that even some of us who don't agree with the idea of a "right to marriage" get mad as hornets at the way so many gay-marriage opponents want to "defend" marriage from theoretical destruction by queers but not by campaigning--I mean, seriously campaigning, not just bloviating about--making it harder for flagrantly irresponsible straight people to make a mockery of it.

Allison,
My opinion, too, is based on direct observation and even some personal experience. The population I've observed has been both broader and more personal than many of you might suspect. And yet, our observations lead us to different conclusions. Who, then, is correct? Well, probably neither, if the truth be told, but there are some very clear trends in studies. I've put my main posts about homosexuality on my blog, including three that are almost totally collections of different studies. I don't just post studies that support my views; however, the ones that tend to disagree with my assertions are fairly clearly flawed, and I point that out. I'm not asking you to change your mind, but if you are interested, you can go look there and see some thought-provoking information. It's on the sidebar on the left.
Mr. Kusch,
In these posts, you have gotten an incomplete glimpse of my total view of homosexuals. In response to questions and challenges, I've answered as briefly as possible, to avoid cluttering up Dean's bandwidth. Maybe I should have written more? Dean, which is more disrespectful, using up more space or not providing complete background for assumptions?
Because while I do feel more or less that "Homosexuality is a flaw that is harmful to society," I would not say that it is necessarily genetic or mental. In fact, you could substitute many things for "homosexuality", including 'smoking', 'liberals', 'pornography', 'body piercing', 'gangsta rap', 'larger-sized restaurant portions', 'political correctness', 'zero-tolerance in schools', etc.
I would say that the origin of homosexuality is not at all known, and needs further study. I would say there may be genetic or experiential factors that make it more likely for someone to feel comfortable as a homosexual.
In fact, I think I'm on record (on my site, if not here), that I don't blame anyone for wanting to be homosexual, and I can understand many of the diverse motivations for wishing to experiment with or remain homosexual.
Basically: humans are amazingly adaptible, and can survive under incredible pressures; humans are nearly psychotic in their ability to justify their actions in a manner which satisfies them; humans cannot really survive thinking they are evil/wrong/bad.
I generally try to point out the negatives of homosexual behavior, not of homosexual urges. Heck, everyone just wants to be loved, and both emotional and physical pleasure are incredibly reinforcing. I strongly believe that it is just as easy for a heterosexual to become homosexual as the reverse (meaning, the earlier in your sexual experience, the easier, and under the right circumstances, anyone can change) If I've not made that clear here, it's an oversight, and because it's kind of a pain to always include caveats.
Simply put, I equate homosexuals to liberals, in that while I understand how someone could come to agree with Howard Dean or Carolyn Mosely-Braun, I personally think it is the result of flawed thinking. I don't want my children to grow up voting for people like Howard Dean, and I certainly don't want my children politicized at the age of 7.
So if I castigate you for engaging in homosexual behavior, it shouldn't be any more insulting or shocking than if I castigate you for voting Democrat. Clear?
Rosemary,
re: raising kids under an optimistic theory.
Hmmm...nice point. "The triumph of optimism over experience..." Yeah, I see what you are saying, but I was talking more about the idea that "every family is a good one, and equally helpful, and raising a child in a homosexual-partnership-headed family will have no effect on their eventual happiness". I just don't think there is enough evidence to support that. But then, I guess we won't get enough evidence unless we try, so I'll back off on that point.
I just fear: what if ya'll are wrong? What happens to that (and other) 7-year-old kid? Sure, bad things happen to kids all the time, and being raised in a homosexual-parented family isn't as bad as being raised by a single-parent-crackhead, and may not even be as bad as being raised by a normal single parent. But we do try to reduce the number of kids in drug-addicted homes, don't we? So if, in 20 years, the bulk of the evidence is that children raised in homosexual-parented families are just as well-adjusted as the general population (same incidence of drop-out, drug/alcohol use, violence, criminal convictions, depression, etc), then I'll eat crow and change my stance. Is there anything that could make you people change your minds?
Mr. Kusch (again),
I'm not judging you. You're right, I don't know you. You may not have anything in common with the homosexual behaviors that I consider to be damaging to the homosexual. And please be assured, when I talk about damage to society, I don't envision a raging horde of homosexuals descending on "normal" society like a pack of wild dogs, intent on destruction; no, I see a population that is being decimated by its own actions, a significant part of our human society. And most of the damage to that society is self-inflicted, because they will not face up to certain facts.
The fact is, 40,000 gay men contract HIV every year. The fact is, even the gay men that don't contract HIV are at far higher risk for Hepatitis, and gay men are the most vulnerable population for any communicable disease. This is directly attributable to the behavior of homosexual men, no one else. Moral and responsible behavior on the part of homosexual men could have ended the HIV threat in the early 80s, but homosexual men chose pleasure and freedom. The only heterosexual populations in the US that face the HIV threat are medical workers who treat HIV-positive patients, IV drug users, and their female sexual partners (there have been no proven cases to date of anyone contracting the HIV virus from sex with a woman).
Drug users operate under impaired judgment when high or strung out. Medical workers face the risk out of compassion. With all we know about HIV transmission, with the fact that all it takes is 6 months of restraint (waiting for a test) before having sex with a partner (and minimizing the threat with condoms even then), how is it possible that 40,000 gay men still contract HIV each year? What does that say about the population?
That's just an introduction to the way I approach thinking about the problem. There's more. There's lots more. I look at it from a different angle for lesbianism. I look at it from many different directions, and try to confirm it against my own experiences before I make any assumptions. I don't draw upon my religious beliefs to conclude that homosexuality is harmful to the homosexual, mainly because I don't have to, the evidence is there.
But I understand that you feel like you are fine. I'm sure you are. I'm sure you're a great guy, and we'd have a great time drinking beer together, and the issue would never come up. I wouldn't live in fear of you trying to seduce me. If we got along, I'd most certainly invite you into my home without any fear of corrupting my son.
Dean,
Yeah, I'd be happier if homosexual advocates would admit the "choice" pretty much just as you said it. If people would admit and take personal responsibility for their behaviors, then we could sit down and find ways to minimize the problems and maximize the benefits. Under that sort of discussion, I'm sure I could even be brought around to agree to homosexual marriage. But to me, it seems to be a liberal assumption that the only problems homosexuals have is straights. AIDS is the fault of straights who charge too much for drugs, HIV is the fault of straights who won't allow condoms to be passed out in schools or won't allow needles, depression/substance abuse is the fault of straights who show too much hatred of homosexuality, molestation of altar boys is the fault of a too-repressive Catholic church. I can understand hypersensivity to slurs against homosexuals would encourage a denial of responsibility, and what the Catholic Priests did was certainly not John Kusch's fault (or the fault of anyone except those priests...by the way, I'm talking about the cases where the boys were 13-14 and post- or near- pubescent....that's not pedophilia, that's homosexuality...). But aside from hypersensitivity, homosexuals are certainly portrayed in all recent popular culture as saintly, if not outright cool. Jesse Dirkhising didn't get 1/10th the press Mathew Shepherd did.
Mr. Kusch (again),
I have not and would not advocate any of these things:
...when they talk about taking away our children or criminalizing our intimacy or keeping any mention of our existence out of public earshot....
If you had not read my words here and met me on the street and in the course of our friendship had confided that you were gay, or even made a pass at me, you would not have heard any of these things (unless you asked). I see these discussions as a forum to talk about things, feelings, ideas. I learn from you and many others in ways I could not if we were face to face, probably because your temper would lead you to using your fists for some imagined slight.
In fact, despite my opinion of homosexual behavior, I would do just about anything I could to help anyone in any way I could, because I don't see "homosexual" or "heterosexual" in my daily interactions, I see "person".

Oh, and I'm not saying it should be "mommy and her friend" forever, just until the child is old enough to start asking about sexuality. Something beyond "where babies come from", and if I remember right, they start asking (and are ready to learn) about 10-11, again.
Heck, I think I read a study somewhere that even in the case of heterosexual step-families, you shouldn't force the child to call the step-father "dad". It's "mom" and "bob", or "dad" and "jane" until the child is older.
And if both mommies are present and together while the child is still a baby, it still seems like a good idea to make the distinction, because there has already been a legal battle over a lesbian couple that split and the non-birth mother sued for custody rights (not complete custody, obviously, but partial...NOT just visitation). I can't see it as being helpful to a child if the two women split up to not really understand why one has more of a claim than the other....
But I'm not adamant about this point. Could there be another term developed for lesbian-not-birth-mother besides "mommy"? Because even when a dad bottle-feeds and raises a child from an infant and takes on many mommy roles, he still isn't a mommy. Nor is the nanny who takes on a few of the mommy roles. But a step-mom or adopted mome who takes over when the child is young is, as is the Nanny when a mother totally abandons the child-raising to her.
Yes?

I don't have to prove that Mary and Sue are fit to be parents. You have to prove that they are unfit.

If you're going to cite history, you need to note that homosexual parents are anomalous. So it's understandable if we make above assumption about Mary and Tom or Dean and Sue. But lacking historical experience, and recognizing the importance of the family, IMO it's important that we question Mary and Sue or Tom and Dean wrt being fit to be parents.

As for where I got my views about homosexuality, they aren't informed by scientific studies. They are informed by observation. I see that gay people are just like me. Most of them are ordinary people. Like most people, they wouldn't dream of hurting a child. Like most people, they want an ordinary family life.

Fine. I have gay relatives, and I've posted before about my lack of "gaydar". For all I know I'm a lesbian in a man's body. If someone wants to be gay, fine - it's their life.

But when they start talking about having families and kids, then it's no longer just their life.

Two of the same sex is not yet an "ordinary" family. If they want one, they know what they can do.

It doesn't require scientific study to treat humans as humans. Just ordinary human compassion.

Ah that's it - those on the other side lack "compassion". Where's the compassion for people with traditional values who sincerely fear for the fates of children raised in an environment where being gay is just another lifestyle choice as good as any other? You have no proof that this will be harmless, and the burden of proof rightly belongs on the social innovators.

OK, say the teacher didn't do what she did. A few days later the school is inundated with calls from parents asking why their kids are asking them questions about gays. Why? Because this kid brought it up. Call them troglodytes if you insist, but a lot of people don't care to have this brought up around their 7 year olds, and it's nobody's place to force it upon them.

The teacher had to make a snap judgment. I'm not convinced, based on what's available in the CNN article, that she did the wrong thing, much less that she deserves the kind of abuse she's getting here and elsewhere. If someone else has more information, let's have a link.

And no one seems to be picking up on just how this lesbian woman came to have a boy in the first place. Did she adopt? Did she "switch teams"? Is daddy a turkey baster?.. Anyway, it sounds like Mom is pretty militant or else she has some issues herself.

I'm curious about how the "gay" thing came up in the first place. Did Mom volunteer it? Or did the kid notice that something was unusual about his family?

And exactly what it is that the ACLU and the media can do to deal with any hypothetical harm done to the boy? If making a big deal out of being gay was harmful, surely this can only make things worse.

But it's also nonsense to direct a child to say and do things in public, out of the supervision of the parents, that everyone knows perfectly well are likely to lead to controversy that the child can't address.

Bingo. Unless people think it's OK to raise their kids as political pawns.

Tim the Soldier - if you can't tell the difference between eating celery and gay sex, I know some people who'd like to have lunch with you.

John Kusch - where did you go to school? You were called a "homo" et al for all 12 years of public education? Damn, I didn't hear jack about homosexuality even as an abstraction until high school, and I'm not that much older than Dean.

Dean - I'm gonna get rich quick. I bought stock in your ISP and now I'm posting 1001 things in your comments...