Teaching kids about homosexuality

[BonsaiK]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[timeadept]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Sort of but not really."

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

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

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

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

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

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

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

 

[Saltyk]

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

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

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

Have some sense, people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with this 100%.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[timeadept]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Nieroshai]

It's my personal opinion that sexuality should be taught at home instead of school, at least until middle school health class when they've hit puberty. I don't care otherwise as far as letting them know homosexuality exists and what it is. As for the idea of tolerance and any other kind of morality, letting the school teach your kids morality is letting the government teach your kids morality. I believe in acceptance, but I also don't believe in the government telling us what to believe.

 

[Nick Angelici]

Im gonna vent a little and say that people for a long time are gonna be dumb shits about this.

Seriously I have a few gay friends here and there and they barely changed once the awkward "Im gay" moment passed. I dont hate them, and I wont unless they do something stuoid like anyone else.

YES people need to understand about ALL genders and sexualities to be able to accept them all as normal at the same time.

 

[TiefBlau]

Don't go out of your way to tell them.

Don't go out of your way to avoid it, either.

When I was a kid, I heard the word gay and I asked my mom, and she told me it's when a guy is in love with other guys. I said, "OK," and carried on with life.

It wasn't until much later that I found out that this is apparently a big deal.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Because "when a mummy and a daddy love each other very much" is all a small child is going to understand, and at that they understand very little. That's all I'm saying, when explaining to a small child, explain the fundamentals, don't go too complex for their little minds.

When the child grows up and gets to the age where they teach children about the birds and the bees in school and by extension sexuality, that's when it's appropriate.

Oh is it now? I wonder how I could figure the entire thing out pretty much on my own at the age of 8 or 9 and never really had to have a talk about "birds and bees".

The keyword here is "appropriate", and that's all this shenangian has ever really been about. Parents, teachers, every adult ever tend to get extremely uncomfortable when it comes to talking about this stuff with children, and that's also the reason why most of you in this thread who advocate waiting as long as possible say what you say.

The bullshit about "a kid will never understand these things" and similar crap is mostly just a rationalization on your part in order to escape having to deal with the subject matter.

I agree that a kid won't be able to understand these things on an emotional level (simply because they lack the hormonal make-up of a teenage or adult body) and some of them might even get a little freaked out by he entire thing at first (which isn't harmful since kids are run the risk of getting freaked out by pretty much anything new and unheard of like going to school for the first time or watching Disney's Snowhite and the seven dwarves for the first time etc.). But on a more conceptual level you'll see that kids are ridiculously quick to accept different things and not ask too many secondary questions about it once the entire thing has dawned on them completely. More questions might possibly arise when puberty hits them (because that's when the pesky emotional aspects start to make themselves known).

But It'll be a lot easier for everyone concerned if the kid already knows about the differences in heterosexuality and homosexuality and that none of them are "wrong" in any sense from an early age. Because IF the kid starts to develop feelings for someone of the same sex at that time, it won't be as much of a shock because they have known for several years that these things happen and that it isn't something to be feared.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with this 100%.

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

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

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

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

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

It doesn't truly change them to 100%, it just makes them go deeply into denial. Ok, sorry, that was a really confusing statement. I'm saying that external stimuli doesn't change anything like you are, I'm saying it makes people think it has and just makes them deny any feelings for the opposite/same sex. I feel that someone can be mostly straight/gay but they'll always have some attraction to at least some members of the same/opposite sex. Basically, most people are 90/10 to 70/30 or 10/90 to 30/70 while some are 60/40 to 40/60 (Straight, Gay and Bi). Asexuals are a strange mutation. I'd say most people are a 90/10 or 10/90 (Straight or Gay).

That explains your position much better, thanks. While I recognise your suggestion as a very real possibility. I still believe could be influenced one way or the other. Agree to disagree on a matter that has not been proven either way?

 

[kypsilon]

If you treat one subject as being different than the other, the neglected subject will come across as being something frowned upon, for lack of a better term. Children don't have all the societal misconceptions that adults carry around with them, they haven't learned to hate yet, and if you don't give them a reason to, they never will.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

I've never understood why people get so uptight about letting kids know what sex is. All "childhood innocence" ever leads to is misinformation and unnecessary cruelty, so it should all probably just get written down in a grade school text book and left at that.

they haven't learned to hate yet, and if you don't give them a reason to, they never will.

really.

REALLY.

"They haven't learned about hate yet"!?
Where did you grow up, the Elysion Fields? Small children are capable of some of the most hateful, cruel and discriminatory acts against each other without any outside interference whatsoever, and anyone who says otherwise is just blinded by rose tinted glasses (another one of those "societal misconceptions"). Hatred, like all emotion, is innate to the human condition and arises naturally in social interaction. This should be obvious to anyone who ever got the shit beaten out of them every day because they liked to sit in a corner and read books five years too advanced for their grade level.

 

[ninetails593]

Man, that's a doozey. Isn't seven a little early anyway? Why even have the talk anymore, it's not that hard to figure out, once you reach a certain age.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Have a homosexual explain it to them, they will do a much better job that you ever could

I just had an image of the parents bringing in a flaming guy XD "now billy, this man is a ho-mo-sexual. Can you say ho-mo-sexual?" XD sorry that's totally irrelevant.

No. Mostly because its already enough of a thing to have to teach about sex and not have to go into various other types of sex. That's unloading quiet a bit on a young child at once. One thing at a time.

how is it unloading too much to say some men like women some men like men and some men like both? The birds and the bees talk (what I understand this to have started from) is about love, why would it be so hard to add an aside that lists the 2 other homosexuality?

The way I hear it the "birds and the bees" is the physical act of sex. Telling kids about love is different and you can do that at any time and should say that love is a many varied and splendored thing and blah blah blah but when describing sex for the first time I don't think that parents need to describe every single possible way of having sex. If we're just talking about love as an emotion then that's different.

ok then, replace "a man and a woman" with "two people" and keep the rest of the talk the same. Problem solved.

The physical act of sex is different for homosexual couples because they physical do not have the same organs as a heterosexual couple. Therefore, no changing the wording does not solve anything. One type of sex at a time let's start simple (that's embarrassing enough) and move on from there. End of Line.

 

[metal mustache]

well at this point i don't think my thoughts will be seen by anyone, too many comments, but i feel like saying stuff anyway.

ideally kids should taught about homosexuallity at the same time so as to discourage discrimination.

but realistically there are reasons not to. your sister may have chosen not to simply because it seemed like it would make the discussion more uncomfortable and would be unnessecary as there wouldn't be much consequence, that is if the daughter's heterosexuality is confirmed. That being the case you should also see that talking about homosexuality would serve a different purpose alltogether than talking about the birds and the bees.

hmm she said inappropiate, that sounds a little like bigotry but its not like shes means to be one (as few people do, excluding trolls). I'm pretty sure she just wouldn't know what to say to her daughter. 'Birds and Bees' was told to her by her parents, but what where do you start with a talk about lesbians? ... did she say she was worried about akward phone calls? god, suck it up buttercup...

well those aren't really good reasons, but they are reasons none the less.

 

[Twilight_guy]

No. Mostly because its already enough of a thing to have to teach about sex and not have to go into various other types of sex. That's unloading quiet a bit on a young child at once. One thing at a time.

This isn't really about sex in itself specifically. I don't think anyone is saying "this is how you suck a penis." More like, some people are this, some people are this. Gay isn't all about sex.

As noted in an above quote from me, "the birds and the bees" in my definition is the physical act. If you want to discuss love, more power to the parents and discussing any type of relationship they like but for the description of the act, one thing at a time.

 

[MorganL4]

Best I can remember I learned about homosexuality simply because we have a friend who is bi, and I was simply told that she was attracted to women as well as men, to the best of my recollection my response was oh, okay. And then I moved on with my life, the concept might have been easier for me to handle seeing as I had grown up knowing this woman ( she was at the hospital with my mother when I was born.) Best I can recall I figured meh she is the same person she just likes women too.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

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

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

I'd say that sex is FAR from being about procreation even.

I mean if you think about it, how many times in recorded history has sex been about procreation as opposed to just a couple of horny people being horny?

Procreation isn't the purpose of sex. The purpose of sex has and will always be about getting off. Procreation is more of an afterthought or biological consequence of sex.