Teaching kids about homosexuality

[thiosk]

..except that there's a world of difference between "It's ok for a girl to love another girl" and describing something as graphic as S&M. I'm not talking about going into detail on the physicality of homosexuality with a kid, just to let her know that some people like people of their own gender and that that's fine.

I don't think there is. I mean, at age 7, almost all children would qualify as homosexual under that simple definition-- minus the sexual part. Ask a little boy or a little girl who they love, its usually mommy, daddy, brothers and sisters, grandma, and their best friend at school. Boys and girls tend to have cooties, if you recall, and its not until they get a tad older that true sexuality starts to come out of the woodwork. A seven year old isn't really prepared to handle what sex is all about, let alone "other" kinds of sex.

Children should be taught to be open and accepting of everyone. And the community that wants to teach children that homosexuality is normal and wonderful should really watch out for unintended consequences. There should not be anything that could be misconstrued as homosexual indoctrination in school, as the blowback from that would set the gay rights movement back 30 years. Teaching seven year olds that hoohoos go in the poopoos and its natural and OK is exactly the kind of thing that gets social conservatives elected en masse with 60+ percent of the vote. Not the good fiscal conservatives, the crazed religious ones who would like to reinstate sodomy laws.

 

[xdom125x]

I think children should be educated on homosexuality a little bit after learning about heterosexuality. Or when the child starts asking about it. Whichever comes earlier.

 

[Adam Green]

If homosexuality is taught to kids of a young age, then it may reduce homophobia by quite a bit. The more people are aware of the subject, the more open minded they'd be. It's not like gay people are brainwashing kids to their side as if it were a shitty Star Wars sub-plot

 

[Riff Moonraker]

Yes, they should absolutely be informed of both at the same time.
The way I see it, what's the fucking difference?

Its not like giving them information about something will make them more interested in it.
However, it has been proven over and over and over time after time after fucking time that withholding information makes something more interesting to people. We want to know why we're not being told something. Don't make a big deal out of this kind of thing, because it isn't a big deal.

And I'm sorry to OP, but your sister sounds like a bigot to me if she's trying to set heterosexuality up as the "norm". Because that is exactly what all of the bigots do, regardless of what they are prejudiced against: they set their own situation up as the "norm" and devalue everything else or at least whatever they deem to be the "opposite" or "abnormal".

This all stems from how I view the issue as a whole: it doesn't matter if sexuality is biology or if its a choice; neither case is a valid reason to deny someone their human rights.
And encouraging ignorance in children is a step towards encouraging bigotry and hatred in children.

But thats the point, isnt it? It all stems from how YOU view the issue. Which is fine, everyone has opinions. But his sister doesnt view it the same way, nor do I. How does that make it right to call us bigots? No, you didnt call me a bigot directly, but a blanket statement like that certainly includes me.

That all depends. Why do you view homosexuality with a negative connotation, personally?

I simply do not believe it is right, personally. However, I wouldnt treat anyone any differently because of it, just like I wouldnt treat anyone differently because of their skin color, or political differences, etc. etc. As per my earlier post, I believe in treating others how you want to be treated, and do so.

I understand that, but your justification is still one of irrationality. Why do you not believe it is right? What makes it "wrong"? What qualifications do you have to decide whether or not an individuals sexuality is "right" or "wrong"?

Also, opinions on this subject can be wrong. If you find homosexuality is wrong just.. because, then your opinion is quite frankly worthless. If you have a reasonable justification for why you would think so otherwise, then please do share.

Simply put, I was raised in a strongly christian home. So my beliefs are that its wrong. You live in your world, with your beliefs, and I live in mine. My children, that my wife and I are raising, feeding, loving, and caring for, are OUR children, and are being raised in our world. I will not teach them that it is wrong, I will let them make that decision on their own. However, I will teach them to treat people with respect, and I will teach them about sex when the time comes.

My children will be raised believing in the bible. My children will be raised to believe in God. My children will be raised to treat other people with respect. My children will be raised to respect the American Flag. They go to a school where they still say the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. This is my world, this is how I am raising my children, and I am very happy with that, and very content with that.

Fair enough. I do not believe anyone has said you could not do such, otherwise. While I disagree entirely on the "validity" of viewing sexuality through the lenses of the Bible (considering the time frame most of the authors wrote the ideals in), you are free to do as you wish. It is at least good to hear you are following the Golden Rule, in which so many of your faith tend to discard as soon as bigotry is convenient.

As it is your right to disagree, and thats fine. I'm not going to get all up in arms about that, like it seems some people do in these and other forums. Our views are just different. Its what makes the world go 'round.

I will say, though, that its not a majority that discard the Golden Rule as soon as bigotry is convenient, its just a very vocal group. The loud overshadowing the rest, so to speak. I really do believe that as long as you are good and decent to other people, then everything else will fall into place.

 

[UnwishedGunz]

i believe that parents shouldn't teach kids about that kind of stuff but if a child happens to be curious then the parent should, and should accept them

 

[emeraldrafael]

I think so. If not, you get things where people look at it as wrong.

I mean, yeah, hetero marriages are "the norm" but when things are "the norm" they have a bad habit of being "the right" especially when you bring god into it. And anything other then "the norm" is "the wrong" and evil.

So I think that you should, just to show that its oka. Sure, its not the common thing, but its not bad either. I've been teaching my cousin it (and he's young) and his parents are cool with it, but they've gotten calls already from his teacher because he siad its oka for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to be married.

 

[The Hairminator]

If she later finds out she is indeed actually queer,.

Please don't use the word queer when talking about homosexuality. I find it offensive just use homosexual or gay, I see "queer" as a derogatory word.

So? I find a lot of words offensive, but I don't act like a diva and ask everyone to stop using them. There are too many opinions in this world to satisfy everyone.

 

[JanatUrlich]

Of course kids should be told about homosexuality! It's a completely natural thing and I don't understand how telling kids that you can love anybody you want can is a bad idea.

 

[RandV80]

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

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

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

 

[timeadept]

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

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

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

Yes because informing them about it is so "encouraging" it, they're going to learn about it eventually why not tell them in a completely unbiased way so they can make up their own decision when they're older about whether they think it's right or wrong.

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

 

[Terminal Blue]

So? I find a lot of words offensive, but I don't act like a diva and ask everyone to stop using them. There are too many opinions in this world to satisfy everyone.

Gasp.. A white, straight boy comparing his experience of being insulted with that of other people.. I never saw that coming!

(BTW I am NOT trying to imply that homosexuality is wrong.)

You are however managing to do so pretty substantively.

 

[VGStrife]

My pregnant sister has a 7 year old step-daughter who's in the process of learning about the birds and the bees. I was a little rattled to learn that my sister is only teaching her about hetrosexual relations, saying that it would be 'inappropriate' to tell her about homosexuality at such an early age as the step-daughter might discuss it at school and awkward phone calls from the teachers might follow. Since my sister is in a hetrosexual marriage she argued that it's what her step-daughter encounters on a daily basis, and thus is what she should be taught as the 'norm'.

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

Well when I was taught about the birds and the bees, I was learning about how babies were made, not relationships. As far as I know, when a pair of homosexuals have a physical relationship, it doesn't end up producing a baby.

The birds and the bees is inherently discussing relationships. A sexual relationship. Without a sexual relationship, there are no birds or bees.

True, no sex no baby but sex does not equal love. While I would agree that kids should be taught about test tube babies and artificial insemination, what point would there be in adding a blurb saying something along the lines of "Gays are okay and have sex too", when we're teaching kids about the biology part of making a baby?

The whole discussion is about sex. So, if you are teaching kids about sex, just say "when 2 people love each other"............then discuss the fact that a woman and a man come together, and they can have babies. Then say some men and men/women and women come together, and then discuss test tube/IVF/adoption etc, that while two people of the same-sex don't have kids in the same way two people of the opposite sex do, there are plenty of other ways for them to be parents.

I can understand not doing it all at one time, but since it's a reality of life, it needs to be discussed.

Proof that sarcasm on the internet does not work.

OT: I am very much of the opinion that if they ask (where babies come from/what is sex) answer the question asked. So where do babies come from, mummy and daddy bonk and a baby pops out.
What is sex, 2 people love each other they bonk.

I like the word bonk

 

[spartandude]

well im not sure how "apropiate" teaching a child her age about sex is to begin with. however i think homosexuality is no more inapropiate then hetrosexuality.

 

[Lieju]

The whole idea of "birds and bees" talk is odd to me. I grew up on the countryside and always had the fascination for biology, so I always knew how reproduction worked, I think...
I recall asking my mom what "gay" meant when I was 6 (as I was called one by bullies who didn't know what the word meant either). My mom told me, and I recall wondering why people would use it as an insult.

One definitely shouldn't treat homosexuality like it's a secret. If relationships, marriages and that stuff come up, it should be mentioned, I think.

But, just like heterosexuality, it's not going to be particularly important to the kid before they hit puberty.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Just tell her that this love can apply to almost anyone and let her connect the dots and feel special for a few years, eh?

 

[Thespian]

I think everyone should account for the possibility of the child in question (any child, not this specific girl) being gay one day. Being fairly sure that you are something but knowing nothing about it is frightening, let me tell you that. I knew nothing about homosexuality (bless my innocence... But I don't mean solely about sex) and could not even conceive of how two men could be romantically involved with each other. Now, it is one of the most natural things to me, and I live a considerably more healthy, wholesome existence. Telling children about it can't hurt at all, no more than telling them about any sort of sex. There are gay people in the world. Whoops, some people are gay. Quite a few, actually. Gay people have their own culture, and a large part in our world. Kids will run into it eventually, is it not better for them to know about it? At what point did less Knowledge help people be better prepared for the world?

I'm not sure how this could be considered a troll...I'm serious. Homosexuality is on the same level as bestiality and necrophilia. They're all wrong, wierd things that shouldn't happen but do, but only among the strange and confused. Kids don't need to know about any of that weird stuff until they're old enough to understand crazy people.

Wow, you're incredibly mistaken here. I mean, sure from an ethical point of view what you said is pretty unsavoury, but simply on a scientific level your claims are erroneous.

Firstly, Homosexuality is not a mental disorder in that it does not hinder people from forming thought processes in the same way as heterosexuals. Thus, homosexual people are not crazy people.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with having desires of bestiality or necrophilia. People cannot choose what fetishes they have. That's just how their mind works. They are more uncommon, but no less healthy, than preferring apple juice to orange juice. Acting on these impulses however, are negative, as they harm people. Just like a heterosexual male "acting on an impulse" to have sex with a woman without her consent is wrong. Desiring the woman because she is beautiful is not unhealthy, however, so long as you don't act on it impulsively.

Thirdly, "wrong" is very subjective. Homosexuality hurts no one. If you want to bring up something about homosexual sexual abuse, I might remind you that the most common perpetrator of sexual offense is a heterosexual male aged between the years of 20-40. FACT.
And so, if Homosexuality does not harm anybody, all that remains is that it is different. In fact, not even that different, considering 1 in 6 people are gay. So slightly different and quite common. That's a funny definition of "Wrong" you have.

Also, if you look at people who consider themselves members of gay culture, or a gay community, we are anything but confused, and only strange to people who don't get out enough.

 

[mumakurau]

If she later finds out she is indeed actually queer,.

Please don't use the word queer when talking about homosexuality. I find it offensive just use homosexual or gay, I see "queer" as a derogatory word.

So? I find a lot of words offensive, but I don't act like a diva and ask everyone to stop using them. There are too many opinions in this world to satisfy everyone.

While some people have "thicker skin" than others, you aren't helping your argument by willing insulting other people. Please, show some integrity and respect the user's request.

 

[The Hairminator]

Whether the user meant it or not, I can't help but feel a sort of homophobic vibe from this post. To approach homosexuality in a retroactive fashion only helps the stigma. To make it known that it "isn't right" even though that besides sexual preferences, gays and lesbians are people like everybody else.

Trust me, it's not like that. My sister was a lesbian through the ages 15-17, and even I had my moment.

Furthermore, to say heterosexuality is the norm is like saying that being right-handed is the norm. Sure, their may be more right-handed people than left-handed people, but that doesn't mean left-handed people are abnormal. Like a person's handedness, many forms of sexuality have been around since the beginning.[/spoiler]You don't give a presumed right-handed kid left handed toys and tools, now do you? That's the point I'm trying to prove. Why even open the possibility to them getting to think they are something they are not. I am speaking from my own experience.

Naturally, you shall in no way hush about it should the kids ask about homosexuality at some time, and should attraction to the own gender be shown it shouldn't be shunned.

Yes, heterosexual intercourse is the only way for new life to be born. However, encouraging everybody to do so will only create problems. Whether people believe it or not, the world is overpopulated. With overpopulation comes scarcity in resource (just because it isn't happening to you, does not mean it isn't happening elsewhere). Homosexuals are actually doing the world a grand favor in the long run. They cannot produce new life (in most cases*) and many are willing to give homes and a family to children in need of both.

You have a good point. But as I said, I have nothing against homosexuals. Letting them raise a child is also something I'm not entirely sure off I approve in all cases. A child is a fragile thing, and even though two men or two women may be the most wonderful parents in the world together, society and peers are bound to react on it and treat the kid unfairly. Once again, the problem is not with the actual homosexuals, but with the world. [/quote]

My point: Yes, we should teach children about homosexuality. We should teach them because at the end of the day sexuality doesn't matter and that we should love our children despite their preferences.

All I'm saying is that they should not be too encouraged. You can see the side effects of that, just as well as I can.

On an unrelated note; I got about 30 quotes on the 2 posts I made in this thread up until now. There was a lot of critique, and an equal amount of praising, sorry for not having the time to address all of you. It would take up important sleep time, and I would just repeat myself.

 

[Susano]

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

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

Whether the user meant it or not, I can't help but feel a sort of homophobic vibe from this post. To approach homosexuality in a retroactive fashion only helps the stigma. To make it known that it "isn't right" even though that besides sexual preferences, gays and lesbians are people like everybody else.

Trust me, it's not like that. My sister was a lesbian through the ages 15-17, and even I had my moment.

If this is your explanation about the "insecurity" or "people often aren't the sexuality they think they are", I will again say that I think that sexuality is a bit more than these stupid labels we have.

My point: Yes, we should teach children about homosexuality. We should teach them because at the end of the day sexuality doesn't matter and that we should love our children despite their preferences.

All I'm saying is that they should not be too encouraged. You can see the side effects of that, just as well as I can.

On an unrelated note; I got about 30 quotes on the 2 posts I made in this thread up until now. There was a lot of critique, and an equal amount of praising, sorry for not having the time to address all of you. It would take up important sleep time, and I would just repeat myself.

Encouragement? Side effects?
Sorry if I seem like I'm questioning things that seem fairly obvious, but I'm trying to not jump to conclusions about what people mean.

 

[Krantos]

OT: It's a tough call to make. On the one hand, portraying homosexuality on the same plane as heterosexuality is important, imo. On the other hand, the social issues and everything surrounding society's gradual acceptance of homosexuality is a little much for a 7 year old to handle.

I think that I would just teach them the procreation stuff (heterosexual), and leave the rest for later. When you think about it, our society primarily uses sex for recreation (heterosexual and homosexual), but you really don't want to tell a 7 year old "yeah, it's great fun." I would save the sexual orientation discussion for when they're old enough to understand that sex is done for other reasons than making babies.