Teaching kids about homosexuality

[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.

Then explain to me how keeping children ignorant helps them in the slightest.
And don't reach for "preserving their innocence" because that is a bullshit copout.

You are doing it again. YOU think that by not teaching a CHILD about homosexuality means you are keeping them ignorant. I disagree. You are trying to set up your beliefs as fact, and they most certainly are not fact for me. You have an opinion, and again I will say that its fine, but it most certainly is NOT fact. You think its keeping a child ignorant, and I think that its something that should be approached either if they ask you about it, or at a much older period in their life.

I will also add that 7 years old is honestly too young to be having the discussion.

Okay, fine. Fair enough. But you still have to account for a little paradox that crops up as a result.

7 years old isn't okay to tell the kid about homosexuality, but its a great age to talk about heterosexuality?

WTF?!?!?!

And I'm not just speaking from my own personal beliefs about bigotry.

My knowledge of bigotry comes from years of studying it in University classes, assisting people conducting studies on the issue, and DECADES worth of material that one can easily access by picking up a Sociology, Ethnic Studies, Women Studies, or Lesbian/Gay Studies textbook.

Lol, no, you misunderstood me. I meant 7 years old is too young to even broach the subject of sex, at all. My youngest son is getting ready to turn 7, and his only concerns are having fun at school, playing his DS and the Kinect, and sports.

I understand what you are saying about bigotry, but there is no hatred or fear in anything I am saying, nor teaching my children. I will teach my children to treat other people kindly, and fairly, until my dying breath.

 

[Necromancer1991]

Just bring up the idea of love and such, don't try to force one way another or you're bound to do something wrong.

 

[El Poncho]

Why would they need to learn about homosexual relations?

People don't usually discover they are gay until they are in their teenage years and by then they know everything they need to know.

 

[TheDoctor455]

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.

Then explain to me how keeping children ignorant helps them in the slightest.
And don't reach for "preserving their innocence" because that is a bullshit copout.

You are doing it again. YOU think that by not teaching a CHILD about homosexuality means you are keeping them ignorant. I disagree. You are trying to set up your beliefs as fact, and they most certainly are not fact for me. You have an opinion, and again I will say that its fine, but it most certainly is NOT fact. You think its keeping a child ignorant, and I think that its something that should be approached either if they ask you about it, or at a much older period in their life.

I will also add that 7 years old is honestly too young to be having the discussion.

Okay, fine. Fair enough. But you still have to account for a little paradox that crops up as a result.

7 years old isn't okay to tell the kid about homosexuality, but its a great age to talk about heterosexuality?

WTF?!?!?!

And I'm not just speaking from my own personal beliefs about bigotry.

My knowledge of bigotry comes from years of studying it in University classes, assisting people conducting studies on the issue, and DECADES worth of material that one can easily access by picking up a Sociology, Ethnic Studies, Women Studies, or Lesbian/Gay Studies textbook.

Lol, no, you misunderstood me. I meant 7 years old is too young to even broach the subject of sex, at all. My youngest son is getting ready to turn 7, and his only concerns are having fun at school, playing his DS and the Kinect, and sports.

I understand what you are saying about bigotry, but there is no hatred or fear in anything I am saying, nor teaching my children. I will teach my children to treat other people kindly, and fairly, until my dying breath.

That's reasonable enough. But you have to acknowledge that part of teaching kids treat others equally means teaching them about other people in general.

And... I was taught about all of this when I was 7, including homosexuality (it was lightly touched upon and I didn't really get it at the time, but I worked out most of the issues around it before I turned 10).

The paradox I was referring to was with the OP's sister apparently deciding that 7 is a great age to teach her kid about heterosexuality, but not homosexuality. I can't wrap my head around that kind of logic.

 

[razer17]

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.

Surely by not teaching them about homosexuality in the first place you are actually teaching them that it is something to repress?

"Well, mommy said that a love is between a man and a woman, so clearly I'm weird for like another woman?"

Teaching a child that some people can be gay isn't going to suddenly change them. Some people are gay, most aren't, you're not going to influence that in what you teach them.

 

[Hashime]

Nope, because she is learning about the "birds and the bees" or reproduction. Homosexual relationships do not result in reproduction so there is no reason to cover it.

Plus it is better to teach the "norm" because that is what it is. (If we graph relationships the mode of the graph will be heterosexual relationships)

Now, when she is old enough to understand sexuality i.e. an adolescent (has feelings with which to relate) it might be appropriate to cover.

 

[Something Amyss]

So basiclly then everyone is bi? I am straight and i chose not to have sex with men, i dont want to. So how can you be gay and attracted to men and chose to sleep with women? That would make you bi?

No, bisexuality is an actual attraction to both sexes. a straight who sleeps with a member of the same sex who they're not really interested in doesn't suddenly become gay or bisexual, nor does a gay sleeping with someone of the opposite sex they're not attracted to make them straight or bisexual.

So no, everyone is not bi. Everyone is what they are, and can choose to deny their nature. That doesn't change their nature, however.

Honestly, can you control who you love? I mean, really love? Can you even control who turns you on?

 

[0986875533423]

So basiclly then everyone is bi? I am straight and i chose not to have sex with men, i dont want to. So how can you be gay and attracted to men and chose to sleep with women? That would make you bi?

You chose not to have sex with men because of your biological predisposition. True choice would be if someone were bisexual and decided to mate only with one sex because, say, they didn't like immensely popular women's fashions at the moment. What's being talked about here is someone doing something that disgusts them and goes against their psychological setup in order to be percieved by wider society as 'normal'.

 

[Ekonk]

I don't care what you guys do, I'm gonna tell my kids princes can marry princes as well.

The same goes for princesses.

 

[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.

 

[Kebabco]

[/quote]

Love can also occur between a man and an animal, or a woman and an animal, or a man, a woman, an alien and an animal. It's also possible that you have a desire to express your love using cream, other food, whips, poo, tinfoil, handcuffs, rapelay, domination etc. You are free to express your love in any way possible........

Yeah this sounds beautiful...

We teach kids in our society about social norms, we dont tell them about every freakin possibility there is with everything.

Comparing fictional love scenarios between aliens and humans with homosexual relationships just goes to show how badly in touch with the current reality you are.

Homosexuality BELONG to social norms in pretty much the entire western world and if a parent expect their kid to go through life never noticing that it exists or even meet a gay person then that parent lives in a fantasyworld disconnected from the real one. In the same way yours is when you try to portay it as something so uncommon as a person in love with an alien...

Well apparently it doesn't belong to our social norms yet, otherwise we wouldnt be having this discussion now would we?

It does belong to our social norms, I don't see how you came to the decision that it doesn't.

I would say that a social norm only exist when, lets say, 90% of people in a society agree that deviation of the norm is an actionable offense, to be rectified by the state, social pressure, whatever. I think it's pretty obvious that there isnt a country in the world that considers acceptance of homosexuality as part of the social norm (according to this definition).

Hell, in most of the western world (assuming we only discuss the western world here), same-sex marriage isnt even allowed. That means that the majority of the population in those countries doesnt want the same legal status for homosexual relations and before you even consider homosexuality to be included in the social norm I think it might be prudent to make it fucking legal first.

By that definition I'd argue that it's the social norm in England at least, and that's the way it should be. If homosexuality isn't a social norm in a particular location then it should be, because it's a large issue in many peoples lives that can't be controlled and I think everyone should be taught to accept it.

Joehoe, read before you post. According to the definition it isnt a social norm in the UK (which i assume you mean), vindicated by the fact that there isnt even same-sex marriage in the UK yet, which only needs 50% of the population's support vs the social norm which requires 90%. Holy hell...

 

[Dexiro]

oice in life. You chose whatever way seems the right one to based on what you know and feel.

Being gay means you're attracted to the same sex, you don't choose who you're attracted to.

A gay guy can choose to have sex with a female, and a straight guy can have sex with another guy, who you have sex with isn't the deciding factor on your sexuality.

So basiclly then everyone is bi? I am straight and i chose not to have sex with men, i dont want to. So how can you be gay and attracted to men and chose to sleep with women? That would make you bi?

See this is a problem, people aren't being educated on what homosexuality is.

Who you have sex with has NOTHING to do with your sexuality. Your sexuality is entirely 100% based on who you're attracted to.

If you're a gay and you're attracted to other males than you're gay, if you're attracted to females then you're straight, if you're attracted to both sexes then you're bi.

A gay guy can choose to sleep with females, but he'll still be gay and there'll be no physical attraction. A lot of gay people stay in denial and try to condition themselves to sleep with women, but there's no benefit in doing so and you just end up with a troubled and unhappy person.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

I think there should be as less outside teaching over homosexuality as possible, if a person is homesexual then they should be able to come out as one without any external knowledge. I just don't believe kids should be taught about homosexuality at a young age.

 

[Ara69]

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

 

[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.

 

[Dexiro]

Joehoe, read before you post. According to the definition it isnt a social norm in the UK (which i assume you mean), vindicated by the fact that there isnt even same-sex marriage in the UK yet, which only needs 50% of the population's support vs the social norm which requires 90%. Holy hell...

There is same sex marriage here. Or there's civil partnerships at least which are treated as the same thing. By my knowledge the only thing stopping actual gay marriages is religion.

Even so I still think it should be taught as a social norm. The attitude towards hetero and homosexuality should be the same.

 

[VulakAerr]

Well to be quite frank, hetrosexuality is the norm, as such it should be taught first unless there is a particular reason that warrants the mention of homosexuality (such as a gay family member or school friend, this will come up on it's own anyway, there's no need to force it).

Then again how would you know what the child might encounter? For instance, what happens if one of the classmates gets exposed as being gay without anyone seeing it coming? How do kids usually react to that when they have only been forcefed with the heterosexual norms and values all their life? With acceptance and tolerance? (I doubt it)

When dealing with kids it's best to keep things as simple as possible

"Love can occur between a man and a woman, but also between a man and another man or a woman and another women. Only men and women can have children through sex, though but that doesn't mean that the feelings of homosexual are any less real or strange than the ones between heterosexual men and women. People are different, and it's okay to be different because we are all a bit different from eachother in some way or another. So I want you to bear this in mind if you meet a boy who loves other boys instead of loving girls, because even if you might not love boys like he does, he's not any less of a person than you are, just different from you. The same way you are different from him when you like blue shirts more than green shirts.

You want others to accept that you like blue shirts and not get teased or made fun of because you do, right? Then it's not hard to understand that a boy who likes boys more than he likes girls would want to be able to like what he likes without getting teased because of it, don't you agree?"

Pretty simple and clear cut explanation and one that a kid at a young age would eat up pretty easily.

So exactly what is it that you fear would "complicate" matters so much?

I love this post so much. This makes the most sense out of any of the arguments here.

I'd also like to add that if you teach your child about homosexuality and its place in the world at the same time as heterosexuality etc. then when one of the child's friends at school tells them about it with, perhaps, a less than mature viewpoint, then you can feel slightly more assured that your offspring is meeting this armed with the knowledge you've given them.

 

[lettucethesallad]

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

...or the kid might catch the gay?

You would be amazed how many people think they have a sexuality they indeed have not (at least that's what I firmly believe). I feel sorry for people under 18 who claim to be homosexual, as it's more often than not insecurity.

Yeah, no. It doesn't work like that. I'm 17, and identify as bi, and can tell you with all certainty that it's not "insecurity". I really fucking hate when people say that. It's beyond insulting.

Edit:

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

...or the kid might catch the gay?

You would be amazed how many people think they have a sexuality they indeed have not (at least that's what I firmly believe). I laugh at people under 18 who claim to be homosexual, as it's more often than not insecurity.

That I can agree with. Lots of 'bisexual' kids running around because it's the cool thing to be this week. My point was just that in my oppinion, information is important when building tolerance. If she doesn't know about gays, they'll always be strange and different. Teach a kid from the start that people are different and like different things, and maybe the social stigma will eventually go away.

Same goes for you. I don't identify as queer because it's trendy.

I didn't say everyone did. I just said it happens. Being bi myself I've encountered countless other girls who're self-proclaimed bisexuals because they kissed their best friend while drunk. It wasn't written with intent to offend.

 

[Therumancer]

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?

I won't be getting into my position on gay rights in general since it should already be well known here (and if you missed it, there are probably some of my messages archived way back in the forums or something, no point in rehashing pointless arguements that will go nowhere).

In general I think a 7 year old is solidly in the "pre-sexual" phase of humanity and they probably shouldn't be getting into the entire "birds and the bees" thing quite so soon. personally think that we're at the "babies are delivered by storks" phase here.

Homosexuality as a topic should probably be addressed around the time of Jr. High School as part of sex education, which I think should be mandatory. It should be presented in a factual sense, rather than making any kind of stance on it one way or another as to whether it's right or wrong.

To be blunt, it's probably been covered in a lot of health & fitness/sexual education classes already, because it was mentioned many years ago when I went through that in school (I'm 35 now).

I suppose opinions vary on when sexual education should start, but as I said I think 7 years old is too young, and honestly I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of parents wanting to go there that soon. This coming from one of the guys who tends to be pretty tolerant when it comes to teen on teen sex, and feels that rather than abstinance, schools should be distributing condoms (although to be honest I think adults having sex with teenagers is still something that should be prevented).

 

[HeySeansOnline]

The parent should be involved in some way, directly shoving it in a child's face at a young age may be wrong, I don't know. I first learned about it through my first hearing of the word "gay", asked my father, he explained it to me then and there. That's how I leanred alot.

However teaching a child about it is not wrong, but seven I don't know, maybe later, when sexuality starts to come out more.

I think one of the best ways it can be learned is through the media, a gay character in a series/book/game can help introduce a child to homosexuality, as well as many other things.