Support NeoGAF

[Gaborn]

The issue is far to complicated for children to grasp, so I think issues of this magnitude should be avoided until the kids have reached adolescence or parents have signed off on it. I simply don't trust the average educator to treat the subject with the proper care. Preschools should just be neutral on the whole thing and focus on more immediate problems like making sure those kids have the skills to move on the next level.

Sometimes boys when they grow up fall in love with girls, and sometimes boys when they grow up fall in love with other boys. Most people have a Mommy and a Daddy but sometimes a boy or a girl might have 2 Mommies or 2 Daddies.

What complication are you seeing?

 

[Count Dookkake]

The issue is far to complicated for children to grasp, so I think issues of this magnitude should be avoided until the kids have reached adolescence or parents have signed off on it. I simply don't trust the average educator to treat the subject with the proper care. Preschools should just be neutral on the whole thing and focus on more immediate problems like making sure those kids have the skills to move on the next level.

Please explain the bolded.

Here's how you explain it to kids:

-Some boys like boys. Some boys like girls.
-Some girls like girls. Some girls like boys.
-You can like who you want to like.
-You shouldn't bother people for liking what you don't.

Seems simple enough.

 

[Uncompromisable]

I guess whats the point of this thread then? Everyone, yourself seemingly included, seems to be of the position that its not a big deal if children are exposed to homosexuality even if (tenuous claim) it leads to them being gay later in life. Unless I'm misreading what you wrote here as a direct response to my earlier point.

Ok fine, here's my pure, unadulterated, caveman bias:

My 'faith' (if you can call it that) is that I put importance in spreading my DNA in the biological perspective. Raising kids is a large personal cost but I do it so that I may 'live on' through them when my time is past.

While I am not bigoted in terms of sexual behaviour or preferences, I feel that male sexuality in our society lives in a very black and white environment. So that if my boy was ever curious or was introduced to some homosexual activity, he may build his identity around this experience and hence identify himself as gay, never to reproduce, putting my 'efforts' and costs to rear him to waste.

That's why I prefer lowering the chances he will have those experiences and act on his curiosities.

There. If I deserved to be banned for this, ban me. But it's what I think. I have nothing against gay people. My cousin is gay. I love her just as much as the rest of my family. I just have preferences about my kids.

 

[Stumpokapow]

There is no evidence for this. The best evidence is it's a primarily a combination of genetics and prenatal hormonal exposure in the womb. But no, the non-genetic aspect of homosexuality has not been linked scientifically to early age experiences like you suggest.

I think the best "nurture" case for homosexuality is probably situational homosexuality (prison and other gender-segregated total institutions) or cultural construction of sexual practices (IE MSM versus self-identified LBG individuals; Roman times where self-identified heterosexual citizens would practice homosexual acts with those of the slave/chattel as a sort of property relations).

But it's kind of a moot point because if you're educated enough on sexual politics to be discussing cases like that, you're also sensible enough to recognize that the "choice" question is not about determining truthfully if orientation is a choice, but rather about marginalizing it as a mutable, changable, treatable, fixable aberration--which is not an acceptable approach to sexual orientation regardless of its nominal original.

I just have preferences about my kids.

Your gay kids can have kids--they can do it genetically in a variety of ways, but more importantly, they can also adopt. The grandkids your gay kids have will be just as much yours whether or not you have a biological connection to them. Moreover it's quite possible that your straight kids will choose not to have kids, will be biologically unable to, or will choose to adopt. I'd seriously rethink rationalizing a prejudicial approach to your kids based on some tangential connection to a biological imperative.

It's clear you're not trying to be bigoted--but when you say, in any way, that being gay is a worse outcome for your kids than being straight, what that's say to gay people is that their identity is a worse outcome than if they had been straight. It is hurtful.

 

[xxracerxx]

Is this how you picture a homosexual teacher will come to school?

One of my great friends is gay and is a nanny to 3 young boys ages 9,8, and 7. When he told them he was gay (after they asked about his "roommate"), they were curious and just asked questions for about 20 minutes then went on their merry child way.

While I am not bigoted in terms of sexual behaviour or preferences, I feel that male sexuality in our society lives in a very black and white environment. So that if my boy was ever curious or was introduced to some homosexual activity, he may build his identity around this experience and hence identify himself as gay, never to reproduce, putting my 'efforts' and costs to rear him to waste.

My personal opinion is I hope I never make my kid feel this way. Like they are a disappointment to me if they don't biologically reproduce.

Fuck, how awful.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Ok fine, here's my pure, unadulterated, caveman bias:

My 'faith' (if you can call it that) is that I put importance in spreading my DNA in the biological perspective. Raising kids is a large personal cost but I do it so that I may 'live on' through them when my time is past.

While I am not bigoted in terms of sexual behaviour or preferences, I feel that male sexuality in our society lives in a very black and white environment. So that if my boy was ever curious or was introduced to some homosexual activity, he may build his identity around this experience and hence identify himself as gay, never to reproduce, putting my 'efforts' and costs to rear him to waste.

That's why I prefer lowering the chances he will have those experiences and act on his curiosities.

There. If I deserved to be banned for this, ban me. But it's what I think. I have nothing against gay people. My cousin is gay. I love her just as much as the rest of my family. I just have preferences about my kids.

Christ almighty.

 

[Uncompromisable]

As long as you have the exactly reflective stance that their heterosexuality should not be emphasized, that straight teachers should never mention their marriage or their relationships, then that's fine. Teachers as a whole keeping their personal lives out of the classroom is an acceptable ideal. (although in practice it seems to almost exclusively persecute gay teachers and not straight ones)

I can agree with that as being the best solution, yes.

 

[Jacob]

My 'faith' (if you can call it that) is that I put importance in spreading my DNA in the biological perspective. Raising kids is a large personal cost but I do it so that I may 'live on' through them when my time is past.

Did you just say that you had kids just so that they could have kids in turn and carry on your genetic "legacy"? Please tell me I misunderstood that somehow.

 

[Uncompromisable]

Christ almighty.

scary, isn't it?

Did you just say that you had kids just so that they could have kids in turn and carry on your genetic "legacy"? Please tell me I misunderstood that somehow.

You did not. It's how I feel.

 

[cutmeamango]

Christ almighty.

I want my daughter to be a lesbian, what's the matter?

 

[thetrin]

People should be encouraged to be happy with who they are. They shouldn't be taught to conform to an arbitrary standard. You are who you are, and you should be happy with that person.

So...yes.

I want my child not to be afraid to tell me who they are. I don't want my kid to grow up and think "I can't tell dad what I am." I want my kid to consider me the most trusted confidant in their life, the way I consider my parents to be that trusted. If my child is heterosexual, awesome. If my child is homosexual, that's also awesome. What's not awesome is when they believe that some natural part of their existence is some shameful thing and that I wouldn't be proud of them.

I'll be proud of my child as long as they continue to be true to themselves, because being true to yourself requires a lot of courage.

 

[DECK'ARD]

I should get GAF bonus points for my potted summary of this thinking earlier.

 

[lunch]

My personal opinion is I hope I never make my kid feel this way. Like they are a disappointment to me if they don't biologically reproduce.

Fuck, how awful.

Agreed. Uncompromisable, it sounds like you have issues unrelated to homosexuality that you need to sort though first.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Ok fine, here's my pure, unadulterated, caveman bias:

My 'faith' (if you can call it that) is that I put importance in spreading my DNA in the biological perspective. Raising kids is a large personal cost but I do it so that I may 'live on' through them when my time is past.

While I am not bigoted in terms of sexual behaviour or preferences, I feel that male sexuality in our society lives in a very black and white environment. So that if my boy was ever curious or was introduced to some homosexual activity, he may build his identity around this experience and hence identify himself as gay, never to reproduce, putting my 'efforts' and costs to rear him to waste.

That's why I prefer lowering the chances he will have those experiences and act on his curiosities.

There. If I deserved to be banned for this, ban me. But it's what I think. I have nothing against gay people. My cousin is gay. I love her just as much as the rest of my family. I just have preferences about my kids.

So much ridiculousness in this. Hey guys, his cousin is gay!

 

[Jacob]

scary, isn't it?



You did not. It's how I feel.

What if your kids just don't want kids of their own, period? Or what if they want to adopt? I can't imagine the mentality behind having kids solely based on the assumption that they'll later do something you want.

 

[thetrin]

You did not. It's how I feel.

You want your children not to be gay so that you can have some vague feeling of immortality? That sounds incredibly selfish.

 

[ivysaur12]

scary, isn't it?



You did not. It's how I feel.

Then maybe you shouldn't be thinking about kids at this point if that's how you would treat a potentially gay son.

 

[Alrus]

It's appalling to think that sexuality is 'strictly' a choice more than it's appalling to think that it's 'strictly' not a choice?

Yes it is.

 

[Stumpokapow]

You did not. It's how I feel.

Is there a particular component to your genetics that you want passed on? What if, by chance, the components of your genetic heritage that you value are changed by mutation or because your kids inherited those traits from your would-be partner? Likewise, what if your straight kids have biological kids that inherit those characteristics from their would-be partner?

It is entirely possible that your biological grandchildren will not be the same race as you, will not look like you, will not have your hair or your eyes or your nose or your smile or your personality.

Is it really worth setting yourself up for disappointment and projecting to your kids that they will disappoint you if something like this occurs.

 

[TheKaeptain]

Please explain the bolded.

Here's how you explain it to kids:

-Some boys like boys. Some boys like girls.
-Some girls like girls. Some girls like boys.
-You can like who you want to like.
-You shouldn't bother people for liking what you don't.

Seems simple enough.

Yep. Pretty much what my father told me and what I am going to say to my child when he ask me about it. The one thing I will teach my son is that there is no shame in being who you are and no shame in being with someone you want to be with.

 

[Walsh]

I for one believe that lesbianism is already being encouraged by the media and society at a widespread rate. Atleast this "lipstick" lesbian and experimintation nonsense.

I think it is pure and utter nonsense than man love is being left in the dust here. Society needs to change and we need to see more boys making out at younger ages like girls are doing.

 

[thetrin]

Uncompromisable, it sounds like you need a lazarus pit, not kids.

 

[marrec]

Ok fine, here's my pure, unadulterated, caveman bias:

My 'faith' (if you can call it that) is that I put importance in spreading my DNA in the biological perspective. Raising kids is a large personal cost but I do it so that I may 'live on' through them when my time is past.

While I am not bigoted in terms of sexual behaviour or preferences, I feel that male sexuality in our society lives in a very black and white environment. So that if my boy was ever curious or was introduced to some homosexual activity, he may build his identity around this experience and hence identify himself as gay, never to reproduce, putting my 'efforts' and costs to rear him to waste.

That's why I prefer lowering the chances he will have those experiences and act on his curiosities.

There. If I deserved to be banned for this, ban me. But it's what I think. I have nothing against gay people. My cousin is gay. I love her just as much as the rest of my family. I just have preferences about my kids.

I am the father of a 5 year old and you just made me want to kick your ass.

I am a rational human being though, so I won't express such violent tendencies beyond the above sentence. You're viewpoint is warped beyond the extreme and I'm going to go ahead and assume that you aren't a father so this bullshit you're spouting is based not on personal experience but on some ideal you've thought of very recently that will be gone the second you start actually raising a child.

 

[Evolution_1ne]

well not like it's having any negative effect on population growth so why not? I see no reason to care

 

[Gaborn]

So that if my boy was ever curious or was introduced to some homosexual activity, he may build his identity around this experience and hence identify himself as gay, never to reproduce, putting my 'efforts' and costs to rear him to waste.

Let me just reduce your post (which I thought was... well, never mind but you can guess) to this. What about your son using a surrogate and his sperm to have a child and raise it with his partner? It seems bizarre (and misguided) that you think gay men don't have natural kids in a HUGE variety of ways, including their own genetic kids.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Uncompromisable, it sounds like you need a lazarus pit, not kids.

Hey, if it gets Batman to be real, then maybe this bias against homosexuals has something to it...

 

[Dr. Malik]

Good lord, what am I reading?

 

[thetrin]

Hey, if it gets Batman to be real, then maybe this bias against homosexuals has something to it...

It's a risk I'm willing to take so kids do not have to live in fear.

 

[ReBurn]

"Encouraging" homosexuality may not be the right choice of words.

"Not discouraging" is better.

Let people be themselves. No need to push in either direction.

This is how I feel about it. It's not my place to try to influence anyone's sexuality.

 

[Earthstrike]

Ok fine, here's my pure, unadulterated, caveman bias:

My 'faith' (if you can call it that) is that I put importance in spreading my DNA in the biological perspective. Raising kids is a large personal cost but I do it so that I may 'live on' through them when my time is past.

While I am not bigoted in terms of sexual behaviour or preferences, I feel that male sexuality in our society lives in a very black and white environment. So that if my boy was ever curious or was introduced to some homosexual activity, he may build his identity around this experience and hence identify himself as gay, never to reproduce, putting my 'efforts' and costs to rear him to waste.

That's why I prefer lowering the chances he will have those experiences and act on his curiosities.

There. If I deserved to be banned for this, ban me. But it's what I think. I have nothing against gay people. My cousin is gay. I love her just as much as the rest of my family. I just have preferences about my kids.

I sincerely hope you don't have gay children then, because given what you just stated, if any of your children are gay and are aware of these views, you've increased to probability that they will commit suicide.

 

[Uncompromisable]

I think the best "nurture" case for homosexuality is probably situational homosexuality (prison and other gender-segregated total institutions) or cultural construction of sexual practices (IE MSM versus self-identified LBG individuals; Roman times where self-identified heterosexual citizens would practice homosexual acts with those of the slave/chattel as a sort of property relations).

But it's kind of a moot point because if you're educated enough on sexual politics to be discussing cases like that, you're also sensible enough to recognize that the "choice" question is not about determining truthfully if orientation is a choice, but rather about marginalizing it as a mutable, changable, treatable, fixable aberration--which is not an acceptable approach to sexual orientation regardless of its nominal original.



Your gay kids can have kids--they can do it genetically in a variety of ways, but more importantly, they can also adopt. The grandkids your gay kids have will be just as much yours whether or not you have a biological connection to them. Moreover it's quite possible that your straight kids will choose not to have kids, will be biologically unable to, or will choose to adopt. I'd seriously rethink rationalizing a prejudicial approach to your kids based on some tangential connection to a biological imperative.

It's clear you're not trying to be bigoted--but when you say, in any way, that being gay is a worse outcome for your kids than being straight, what that's say to gay people is that their identity is a worse outcome than if they had been straight. It is hurtful.

I dont mean to be hurtful, I don't know. My son could very well be some vagabond or junky that doesn't reproduce. He may even be sterile. It's a good point.

So you're saying that I am defending my preference through some logically derived biological imperative, and that it's my bias causing the argumentation and not the other way around. I'm not sure about that yet but I can't say it's impossible.

But saying that homosexuality reduces DNA transfer doesn't seem like a bad reason for me not to want to encourage it in my kids given that my MAIN reason to have kids is to spread my genes. Just as much as I would not want to encourage any other activities that reduces their ability to spread their DNA.

 

[thetrin]

This is how I feel about it. It's not my place to try to influence anyone's sexuality.

In the end you wouldn't be able to anyway. It's a fool's errands. No one is that malleable. Even self-proclaimed "former homosexuals" will spend their whole lives denying their natural urges.

There's nothing worse than someone saying "I'm not bigoted" and then saying something bigoted. You know it's wrong, but you go ahead and say it anyway!

 

[ivysaur12]

I dont mean to be hurtful, I don't know. My son could very well be some vagabond or junky that doesn't reproduce. He may even be sterile. It's a good point.

So you're saying that I am defending my preference through some logically derived biological imperative, and that it's my bias causing the argumentation and not the other way around. I'm not sure about that yet but I can't say it's impossible.

But saying that homosexuality reduces DNA transfer doesn't seem like a bad reason for me not to want to encourage it in my kids given that my MAIN reason to have kids is to spread my genes. Just as much as I would not want to encourage any other activities that reduces their ability to spread their DNA.

If your main reason, on a conscious level, to have kids is because you want to spread your DNA, you might as well just become a sperm donor and leave the child rearing to those with more lofty aspirations.

 

[DECK'ARD]

I dont mean to be hurtful, I don't know. My son could very well be some vagabond or junky that doesn't reproduce. He may even be sterile. It's a good point.

So you're saying that I am defending my preference through some logically derived biological imperative, and that it's my bias causing the argumentation and not the other way around. I'm not sure about that yet but I can't say it's impossible.

But saying that homosexuality reduces DNA transfer doesn't seem like a bad reason for me not to want to encourage it in my kids given that my MAIN reason to have kids is to spread my genes. Just as much as I would not want to encourage any other activities that reduces their ability to spread their DNA.

To be perfectly blunt, your DNA doesn't seem like it would be highly prized anyway.

 

[marrec]

I dont mean to be hurtful, I don't know. My son could very well be some vagabond or junky that doesn't reproduce. He may even be sterile. It's a good point.

So you're saying that I am defending my preference through some logically derived biological imperative, and that it's my bias causing the argumentation and not the other way around. I'm not sure about that yet but I can't say it's impossible.

But saying that homosexuality reduces DNA transfer doesn't seem like a bad reason for me not to want to encourage it in my kids given that my MAIN reason to have kids is to spread my genes. Just as much as I would not want to encourage any other activities that reduces their ability to spread their DNA.

You've not arrived logically at any imperative, despite your faux intellectual breakdown. If this were really the case then you'd simply want to get as many women as possible pregnant instead of focusing on one child who may or may not actually pass on any 'genes'.

It's an excuse for you to be a bigot and a poor one at that.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

If your main reason on a conscious level for you to have kids is because you want to spread your DNA, you might as well just become a sperm donor and leave the child rearing to those with more lofty goals.

Sounds about right. You should really reconsider the whole parenting thing. You don;t seem to be cut out for it.

 

[Uncompromisable]

Is there a particular component to your genetics that you want passed on? What if, by chance, the components of your genetic heritage that you value are changed by mutation or because your kids inherited those traits from your would-be partner? Likewise, what if your straight kids have biological kids that inherit those characteristics from their would-be partner?

It is entirely possible that your biological grandchildren will not be the same race as you, will not look like you, will not have your hair or your eyes or your nose or your smile or your personality.

Is it really worth setting yourself up for disappointment and projecting to your kids that they will disappoint you if something like this occurs.

There's nothing in particular that I want to spread no, I just want to spread. I know they might not look like me at all, that's not what's important to me. I just want to know my DNA is passed on and lives on in some form, even if it might not.

Would I be disappointed if my kids don't bear fruit? Yes.

 

[ReBurn]

In the end you wouldn't be able to anyway. It's a fool's errands. No one is that malleable. Even self-proclaimed "former homosexuals" will spend their whole lives denying their natural urges.

That's how I see it. We are who we are.

But people can influence the behavior of others. I think it's common that people get pushed into hiding how they really feel to avoid shame and ridicule when they are up against a majority with a dissenting opinion, or they need to appear to be a certain way to conform to expectations.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Do you have a mother for these hypothetical children?

 

[xxracerxx]

If your main reason, on a conscious level, to have kids is because you want to spread your DNA, you might as well just become a sperm donor and leave the child rearing to those with more lofty aspirations.

Please don't suggest this.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

There's nothing in particular that I want to spread no, I just want to spread. I know they might not look like me at all, that's not what's important to me. I just want to know my DNA is passed on and lives on in some form, even if it might not.

Would I be disappointed if my kids don't bear fruit? Yes.

Alright, this shit isn;t real. Seriously, these threads just can;t be real anymore.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Do you have a mother for these hypothetical children?

With that mindset, he will never have.

 

[Uncompromisable]

You've not arrived logically at any imperative, despite your faux intellectual breakdown. If this were really the case then you'd simply want to get as many women as possible pregnant instead of focusing on one child who may or may not actually pass on any 'genes'.

It's an excuse for you to be a bigot and a poor one at that.

I see your point, but I also believe that I best serve my genes by helping them out in life (hence having a supporting family). That's why I feel more sensitive to 'accidents' since I'm not diversifying my offspring.

 

[TheKaeptain]

Do you have a mother for these hypothetical children?

She's probably in the kitchen barefoot cooking as he writes this up.

 

[Count Dookkake]

With that mindset, he will never have.

thatsthejoke.jpg

 

[Soulscribe]

When people say "it should be encouraged the same way heterosexuality is encouraged," it makes me realize how much heteronormativity IS encouraged. You see it in your everyday Walmart/toy stores; boys' isles are riddled with monster trucks, action figures, toy guns, toy swords... you walk over to the girls' isles and all you see is a sea of pink. It plays into the fact that people "encourage," or at the very least "maintain" the idea that boys should chase masculine pursuits like getting acquainted with violent weapons and activity, whereas girls should learn to appreciate the more demure aspects of entertainment, as well as getting acquainted with domestic pursuits (easy bake oven anyone?)

So yes, I would like children to be "encouraged" (if that's the right word) that toy isles are gender neutral. When parents automatically ASSUME that their son will end up liking girls, they're "encouraging" heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is not only encouraged on our youth and teens, but it's straight up SPAMMED when people are growing up. Disney movies have played a part in sealing in heteronormative behavior, as have most TV shows, video games, magazines, and almost every other social medium.

"Encouraging" people, especially young people, that liking either or both genders is not worth a second thought would be wonderful. But that takes something that stems beyond telling your child that being gay is okay. It needs to be an overwhelming CHANGE in our social construct. When an aunt comes to visit her family for Thanksgiving and asks her nephew if he "has a girlfriend yet," THAT is encouraging heterosexuality. As soon as family will ask me if I have "a girlfriend or boyfriend" then I know that there isn't a social bias toward heteronormativity.


Children should be told that you can end up loving anybody you want. It's important to emphasize BOTH genders because once they leave that classroom they are going to be overwhelmed with heteronormative encouragement that tells them otherwise. In order for broad social attitudes toward homosexuality to change, it needs to start with giving children the right perspective. That way it becomes a clean, generational change.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Just when I thought I'd seen every type of thread on GAF.

 

[Fenderputty]

Did you just say that you had kids just so that they could have kids in turn and carry on your genetic "legacy"? Please tell me I misunderstood that somehow.

From an anthropological standpoint, that's why we all reproduce.

I still think he's an ass if he's going to try and prevent his children from possibly becoming the people they want to become. The idea that having children to extend ones genetic makeup into the world isn't some whacko cultic belief though.

You've not arrived logically at any imperative, despite your faux intellectual breakdown. If this were really the case then you'd simply want to get as many women as possible pregnant instead of focusing on one child who may or may not actually pass on any 'genes'.

It's an excuse for you to be a bigot and a poor one at that.

This ... if he was really concerned with just being biologically successful at reproduction, he wouldn't be living a monogamous life.

 

[xxracerxx]

All this shit just makes me feel like a pin will be going through a condom at some point in your life, and I shudder.

 

[Uncompromisable]

Agreed. Uncompromisable, it sounds like you have issues unrelated to homosexuality that you need to sort though first.

Tell me more, I'm open to opinions.