Racism wrong, Homophobia acceptable?

Force_User:

If I were your employer, I could fire you for any number of things. But with a special protection, I could not fire you for being Gay.

That isn't a "special protection". That's the concept of equality - anyone who can do a job properly, regardless of their race, religion, taste in movies, shoe size or sexuality, should be able to simply do their job. Those kind of factors are, quite frankly, none of the employer's business.

What if I were to fire you for being a Christian? Would that be okay? Christianity is certainly a choice, right? I don't agree with that choice; but if you can do your job as well as or better than someone who shares my beliefs, firing you would be wrong (IMHO)

But there are many employers who have a problem with homosexuality, usually based upon religious convictions.

Every employer is going to have a problem with something. I would assert that in the interest of fairness, issues not affecting the fulfillment of the work contract should not enter into any individual's employability.

I agree but there are those in the militant Gay Rights movement that think homosexuality should be taught side by side with heterosexuality.

How exactly is this any more militant than those who oppose gay teachers? I think I have to side with TreeCave on this one: No sexuality should be taught in school. If the parents can't trust the educational system, the burden is theirs and should be anyway.

That doesn't but then again you said it yourself, you're not exactly part of the Gay Rights agenda that does scare the poopy out of straight people.

I should have been more clear - I am very very pro gay rights. I simply do not consider myself a member of the "gay community" as I find such groupings and labels somewhat silly.


SoloJones:

Basically, what he said was that by holding such parades and displays, gays and lesbians are only hurting their cases.

I generally agree with this statement, as I have said before in this thread.

He said he doesn't care what you do in private, but why flaunt it?

Flaunt it? Yes, I suppose that the parades would be considered flaunting. I agree with that.

But while we're at it, why do you straight people feel the need to flaunt your sexuality all the time?

Why do you put it everywhere on TV?

Why is it in all the magazines and movies?

Why are you always making out in public?

Why do you have to flaunt your marriages with a special section of the newspaper, announcing to all that you're going to be boinking indefinitely?

I agree that the gay pride parade is excessive, stupid, counterproductive and embarrassing, but give me a break:

Before anyone starts saying that the queers are flaunting their sexuality for assembling one day a year, they should ask themselves how many days a year heterosexuality is flaunted and celebrated.

Those who do care but aren't actually attacking you only become more opposed to you when you hold displays like this.

I agree, but there comes a point where visibility is the only ally of the underdog. Yes, gays would be wise to find more productive means of this visibility but the general concept is that of "Silence=Death"

If you are wishing to be accepted, just live out your lives.

Guess what? We do. Kinda hard not to unless you have the urge to have a lunch of pills.

There are always going to be people who oppose you, but if they aren't physically hurting you, ignore it

Bill should read my post about what happened to me the other day.

It's all fine and dandy to ignore it till the day some thug threatens you and you have no way to protect your life unless you happen to be saved by some good Samaritans.

Some people don't really care what you do (or they quietly disapprove) but when you start exposing their children to ideas that are far beyond their comprehension, they get angry.

If you or Bill can find proof that any child exposed to gay people has been adversely affected in any way

 

Bill (and I) aren't saying it necessarily hurts children to be exposed like that to homosexuality, but simply that many parents don't need to be explaining things like that to their young children (especially at an age where they don't even understand sex)

But while we're at it, why do you straight people feel the need to flaunt your sexuality all the time?

I don't. I can't control others who do. The same goes for gays, of course.

Why do you put it everywhere on TV?
Why is it in all the magazines and movies?

Come on, you can't expect movies and TV to take out every aspect of heterosexual love and throw them out the door, can you? There are TV shows and movies that feature gays, too. Anyway, there's a big difference because you chose what TV shows and movies to see. You don't choose what you'll see on the street.

Why are you always making out in public?
I don't, and don't plan on it, and dislike PDA's on the whole. I know many who feel the same way.


Why do you have to flaunt your marriages with a special section of the newspaper, announcing to all that you're going to be boinking indefinitely?

Why do we post announcements of death? This is for the knowledge of those who know them but might not have heard about it. Plus, marriages are big events. Gay pride parades aren't announcing anything in particular besides the fact that, yes, the gays are still there.

Yeah and the million man march does the same thing. How dare they push their ideals on us innocent white folk?

Race is something that can be easily explained to a child. Sexuality, however, is not.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

Bill (and I) aren't saying it necessarily hurts children to be exposed like that to homosexuality, but simply that many parents don't need to be explaining things like that to their young children (especially at an age where they don't even understand sex)

Well, that's up to the parent, though; isn't it?

Some parents censor what their children see on TV. Or what they read or what they eat or with which kids they can be friends.

If parents don't want their kids exposed to the gay pride parades, I suggest that they do what I do when those goofy things take place: Rent a movie the previous night and hide in your house till all the scary queens have left main street.

"But while we're at it, why do you straight people feel the need to flaunt your sexuality all the time?"

I don't. I can't control others who do. The same goes for gays, of course.

Well, there you go.

Come on, you can't expect movies and TV to take out every aspect of heterosexual love and throw them out the door, can you?

Of course not. That wasn't the point that I was making. The point was that to say that gays are flaunting their sexuality can readily be likened to Pinoccio telling Gonzo that he has a big nose.

There are TV shows and movies that feature gays, too.

How many gay movies and TV shows are there for every hundred of their straight counterparts?

Anyway, there's a big difference because you chose what TV shows and movies to see. You don't choose what you'll see on the street.

Yes, you do. It isn't as if the gays lurk in the shadows, wait for the unsuspecting heteros to be lollygagging around and then, a la some insipid war flick, come parachuting out of the sky in all their sequined glory.

It's not that hard to avoid the gay pride parade. I do it every year.

Why do we post announcements of death? This is for the knowledge of those who know them but might not have heard about it. Plus, marriages are big events. Gay pride parades aren't announcing anything in particular besides the fact that, yes, the gays are still there.

Ah, but when gay couples want to announce THEIR unions, everyone gets bent out of shape. See the double standard here?

Race is something that can be easily explained to a child. Sexuality, however, is not.

It would seem that sexuality is not easy to explain to anyone.

There were plenty of parents who were upset that their child's virgin ears were deflowered when MLK gave that speech.

Plenty of parents who were outraged at the women's rights movement.

Plenty of parents who are upset about any number of things that their child may see. Americans have the right to congregate and protest; to lobby, to gather, to celebrate, to express their views. Parents who fear this should either be prepared to explain anything for which a child may have a question or be prepared to hide their child away like Rapunzel in a tower.

(I'm edit-crazy today - sorry, I need more sleep!) ;c)

 

Cwrn-


How many gay movies and TV shows are there for every hundred of their straight counterparts?

How many gay people are there in real life compared to straight people? If every show were "Queer as Folk", that wouldn't be a very accurate expression of society now, would it?

Ah, but when gay couples want to announce THEIR unions, everyone gets bent out of shape. See the double standard here?

It's not a problem with them announcing it.. I just don't think gay marriages should be allowed. If gays want to state in the newspaper that they're formed some sort of permanent union with their partner, though, I'm not going to stop them. It's their right.

There were plenty of parents who were upset that their child's virgin ears were deflowered when MLK gave that speech.

I'm sorry, but there's still a big difference between the color of your skin and your sexuality. Kids have to deal with skin color, but I don't know of many young kids you are having sex

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

Race is something that can be easily explained to a child. Sexuality, however, is not.

So what happens to the kids that are raised by gay parents? Does it traumatize them to learn that some people are attracted to the same sex?

 

gwaer- Well, we'll never know how their lives are compared to what they would have been with straight parents, so it's hard to say.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

"How many gay movies and TV shows are there for every hundred of their straight counterparts?"

How many gay people are there in real life compared to straight people? If every show were "Queer as Folk", that wouldn't be a very accurate expression of society now, would it?

Exactly. It seems to even out. If we go per capita, there are probably about the same amount of gay movies and straight movies.

The same cannot exactly be said of "flaunting", however; people only seem to apply that to gays, for some reason.

In theory, there are 10 gay people for every 100 straight people. Even in New York City, I certainly see a lot more straight "flaunting".

double standard here?

It's not a problem with them announcing it.. I just don't think gay marriages should be allowed.

A lot of people think marriage in general is a perpetuation of the patriarchy and demeaning to women: There are many points of view on this.

I would like to know WHY you don't think gay marriages should be allowed. I've asked this several times on this thread and no one has bothered to answer. If you disapprove; that's fine - but what gives the government the right to make such things illegal, based solely on religion?

If gays want to state in the newspaper that they're formed some sort of permanent union with their partner, though, I'm not going to stop them. It's their right.

See, this is the sort of thing I'm looking for.

I'm sorry, but there's still a big difference between the color of your skin and your sexuality. Kids have to deal with skin color, but I don't know of many young kids you are having sex

How do kids have to "deal" with skin color? Most of the kids I know don't give a bordock's butt what color anyone's skin is: It's the parents who care.

The point is that gays want equal rights - they are protected under law to assemble and petition for those rights. People who disagree with them are welcome to assemble and voice these disagreements, or hide it all from their kids, but they should not be able to prevent anyone from expressing their opinion or desire for rights.

 

Cwrn-

The reason I personally don't condone gay marriages is because I believe that marriage was set up by God, between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve If gays want to have some other sort of union, that's fine, but it can't be a true "marriage" in the sense that I view it as.

Now, as far as the Government's sanctioning of gay marriages... I don't know. I'm still forming my opinions on this one, because it's somewhat of a gray area between religion/government.

I'm not saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to parade, etc. I'm just saying, to paraphrase the immortal words of Dr. Ian Malcolm, just because they could doesn't necessarily mean they should. I just would like those who parade to reconsider it.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

First of all, there is a distinct difference between a marriage done by the state and one done by the church. As far as I know, the two are entirely different. So, if you happen to think marriage is a "holy union between a man and a woman", you are more than entitled to get married in a church. The church is more than entitled to deny services to gay people as well. However, there should be no such restrictions on gays and lesbians being married by the state. The state and the federal government has no legitimate interest in keeping gays and lesbians from having full protection under the law in terms of marriage (and employment). So whatever your religious opinion is about what constitutes marriage, it has no bearing on marriages done by the state.

Secondly, while my mother had custody of my sister and I, we have/had a very close relationship with our GAY father. Having a gay parent does not warp anyone or anything. When my pops let us know exactly what was going on between him and "his friend", we thought nothing of it. Not a real big surprise. And I was 11 or 12 at the time. So yes, young people can know what a gay person is, be around a gay person, and NOT BECOME GAY, or warped, or otherwise deviant. Such fears of gay parents are unfounded and entirely stupid, IMNSHO.

 

SoloJones:

The reason I personally don't condone gay marriages is because I believe that marriage was set up by God, between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

I would just like to state for the record that the cutesy little "Adam and Steve" rhyming couplet is quite possibly the most annoying and insipid thing that I have ever heard. This isn't really directed at you, SoloJones: I know you're just repeating a phrase that you heard, but man does it make my flesh crawl.

If gays want to have some other sort of union, that's fine, but it can't be a true "marriage" in the sense that I view it as.

Yeah. I said that earlier. I don't care what you call it. I'm all about the same legal rights?

Now, as far as the Government's sanctioning of gay marriages... I don't know. I'm still forming my opinions on this one, because it's somewhat of a gray area between religion/government.

How is it somewhat of a grey area? We aren't living in a theocracy.

I'm not saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to parade, etc. I'm just saying, to paraphrase the immortal words of Dr. Ian Malcolm, just because they could doesn't necessarily mean they should.

So, wait... gays parading is similar to creating genetically engineered dinosaurs, which eat people? Sorry, I'm not buying that one.

I just would like those who parade to reconsider it.

So would I....So would I.

On a side note: Would it be fair to consider parts of your sig to be flaunting your sexuality?

What if I had a sig that said "Hayden is one hot babe!"? Would that be flaunting mine?

 

Chibiangi - that's really nifty ;c)

But I must say the whole "size queen" think needs to be stamped out. ;c)

 

cwrn-

I would just like to state for the record that the cutesy little "Adam and Steve" rhyming couplet is quite possibly the most annoying and insipid thing that I have ever heard. This isn't really directed at you, SoloJones: I know you're just repeating a phrase that you heard, but man does it make my flesh crawl.

Sorry. Won't happen again

Yeah. I said that earlier. I don't care what you call it. I'm all about the same legal rights?

Legal rights, yes. I mean, as far as medical consent and stuff... yes, I think they should be able to have that.

How is it somewhat of a grey area? We aren't living in a theocracy.

We aren't living in a theocracy, but just the fact that the government is involved in marriage is almost a breaking of separation of church and state.


So, wait... gays parading is similar to creating genetically engineered dinosaurs, which eat people? Sorry, I'm not buying that one.

I didn't mean it to sound like that, I just think that quote can be applied to any situation

On a side note: Would it be fair to consider parts of your sig to be flaunting your sexuality?

What if I had a sig that said "Hayden is one hot babe!"? Would that be flaunting mine?

Well, I didn't really say that, jedijedi did No, almost everyone here knows I love Kevin Spacey, but doesn't almost everyone here know you are gay? Besides, this is a community for 13+ year olds, so it shouldn't be an issue. I was just talking about how kids are effected by gay pride parades, etc.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

"I know you're just repeating a phrase that you heard, but man does it make my flesh crawl."

Sorry. Won't happen again

No worries ;c)

Legal rights, yes. I mean, as far as medical consent and stuff... yes, I think they should be able to have that.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "medical consent". Could you explain?

We aren't living in a theocracy, but just the fact that the government is involved in marriage is almost a breaking of separation of church and state.

I wouldn't really say that - the government is really only involved in the legal/financial aspects of marriage - one can get a non-religious marriage. A church ceremony is more or less symbolic as far as the law is concerned: The government is all about the paperwork.

No, almost everyone here knows I love Kevin Spacey, but doesn't almost everyone here know you are gay?

Yeah - the idea is that by having such a sig or by stating your feelings about Mr. Spacey, you're ostensibly saying, "I'm heterosexual."

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I'm just pointing out that people hardly notice when straight people do such things, whereas gay people doing the same thing may be accused of flaunting.

Besides, this is a community for 13+ year olds, so it shouldn't be an issue. I was just talking about how kids are effected by gay pride parades, etc.

Is there really a problem with parents accidentally taking their kids to the gay pride parades? Seriously?

 

What if I were to fire you for being a Christian? Would that be okay? Christianity is certainly a choice, right? I don't agree with that choice; but if you can do your job as well as or better than someone who shares my beliefs, firing you would be wrong (IMHO)

that's a great comparison, and I must remember it for the future.

Why do you have to flaunt your marriages with a special section of the newspaper, announcing to all that you're going to be boinking indefinitely?

It's widespread cultural insecurity. There is simply no other explanation for why most hets WANT to see het sexuality in every movie, every newspaper, every everything.: to reassure them that everyone else is, indeed, doing it. But when someone shows then that some people are doing it differently, that threatens them.

Valentine's Day is way more vomit-inducing to me than a gay pride parade could ever be. It's so hollow and trite - a mockery of any real sentiment.

You don't choose what you'll see on the street.

Yes, and all I see in billboards and movie ads and on sides of busses and t-shirts is boobs and the hint of someone getting laid just for switching toothpastes. I don't like looking at women's breasts - got my own if I did. It annoys the snot out of me, but I manage to cope. AND I manage not to detest straight men for making a world where T&A sells every product on earth.

I'm sorry, but there's still a big difference between the color of your skin and your sexuality. Kids have to deal with skin color, but I don't know of many young kids you are having sex

I learned about homosexuality when I was 7, just after learning about heterosexuality. I asked mom, "Well, HOW do they do that?" She quite honsetly said she didn't know, and I lost interest in the conversation, as it wasn't relevant to me. Strangely, that's how I still feel about what gays do in bed - irrelevant to me.

If gays want to have some other sort of union, that's fine, but it can't be a true "marriage" in the sense that I view it as.

This is a valid opinion - not one I like to see forced onto everyone via law, as you are acknowledging mixed feelings on as well. But every individual should define marriage as he or she sees fit, and that's what you're doing. I personally don't consider marriages of convenience or marriages for money to be "real" marriages. And don't think marriage for money is just something that happens in Hollywood - most women, if you know them well enough, will admit that financial security came ahead of love in their potential husband-ranking. I consider that a form of prostitution, which I'm sure is a view that offends more people than your view that same sex isn't what marriage was designed for.

My opinion on legal and religious marriage, as I've stated before, is exactly what Chibiangi said.

 

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "medical consent". Could you explain?

Like, if someone needs surgery or if someone has to decided whether or not to terminate life support, the decision goes to their spouse or closest living relative. I think that gays should have the right to decide these things for their partners, since they know them best. (I watch a lot of ER, you see, so I know all about this )

Yeah - the idea is that by having such a sig or by stating your feelings about Mr. Spacey, you're ostensibly saying, "I'm heterosexual."
There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I'm just pointing out that people hardly notice when straight people do such things, whereas gay people doing the same thing may be accused of flaunting.

Yeah, but I don't march around with a sign that says "I love Kevin Spacey"... yet

I have no problem with people talking about those things among groups of mature people.

Is there really a problem with parents accidentally taking their kids to the gay pride parades? Seriously?

If I were a parent, I wouldn't want my child exposed to ANY type of sexuality until late elementry/middle school years. Kids deserve to enjoy the innocence of childhood.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

If I were a parent, I wouldn't want my child exposed to ANY type of sexuality until late elementry/middle school years. Kids deserve to enjoy the innocence of childhood.

I'd love this too, but it's impossible, and let me explain why I believe that.

Kids are very aware of their parents' sexuality on some level, and of other people they're exposed to. They tend to tune out all the boinking on the soaps and so on - little mental blinders to that, somehow. But they don't miss a THING about their parent(s) because they're depending on them. (Incidentally, this is why you have to set an example for your kids rather than just tell them what to do.)

My parents so rarely had sex that I was conceived around New Years, if that gives you an idea just how "rarely". I didn't realize I knew this when it was happening, but I see now that I did, and I've always had the impression sex was a damaging thing. It wasn't a morality issue - my parents actually both waited until marriage and didn't have it with anyone else, and look where that morality got them.

And conversely, I saw all sorts of sex on TV - it was the 80's, where every couple on film got it on during the first date, and it was always great, no matter they hadn't exchanged 15 words before stripping. Between this and my parents' total lack of affection, you'd think I'd have gotten a balanced idea about sexuality.

Nah. My parents' won - they were real, and TV was not. Kids know what's real. No matter how free and easy sex was on TV and in movies, I never managed to shake the idea that you have a 90% chance of having a horrible emotional and/or physical experience anytime you contemplate having sex.

 

No, it is possible. Me, and many people I know, didn't watch that stuff or even think about it until about middleschool. I mean, we didn't even totally understand what sex was until "the video" around 5th grade.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

but SJ, you were unconsciously aware of it. Your ideas about sex were already being shaped by forces way more influential than TV. That was the point I was trying to make.

I understand what you're saying about not rubbing kids' faces in semi-pornographic crap. As an adult, I wish I got hte same courtesy, but every movie must have some T&A or the oh-so-valuable male demographic won't go. And every toothpaste add on earth seems to end with people kissing - use Colgate to get some booty! Ugh. It's disgusting.

And it IS heterosexual males flaunting their ridiculous lust, which they feed like crazy until all the sudden..... middle age impotence!

 

Lol TreeCave! Now all I can think of is this part in "A Time to Kill"... hehe... ok, I am getting too tired to be capable of anything but incoherent thought and laughter. I'll talk to you all later.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

SoloJones:

Like, if someone needs surgery or if someone has to decided whether or not to terminate life support, the decision goes to their spouse or closest living relative. I think that gays should have the right to decide these things for their partners, since they know them best.

Okay. That makes perfect sense. Thanks. ;c)

Yeah, but I don't march around with a sign that says "I love Kevin Spacey"... yet

Hehehe. I know you don't.

I think the thing to keep in mind, a point that we've both been somehwhat illustrating, is that while sexuality is flaunted on both sides of the fence, so to speak, this doesn't mean that you and I flaunt OUR sexuality; at least not as much as many people do.

The problem that occurs is that people have this tendency to lump people into groups and assume that they all behave the same way. Everyone knows that this is erroneous, but we do it anyway. People tend to see Star Wars fans as geeks, to see blond women as bimbos, to see black men as gangstas.

These are stereotypes, but they do have some basis in reality - these behaviors are often regularly observed and help to form such opinions.

I'm not saying that you have done this, because I don't feel that you have; but I think that it is important for people to try to remove the label from the person before making any such assumptions.

Just because some gay people have their foo-foo little parade doesn't mean that ALL or even most gays approve of this parade, or of the supposed promiscuity that has been attached to homosexuality.

Because of this, I'm never in a hurry to reveal my sexuality to people that I have just met. I would rather give them a chance to get to know me as a human being.

I don't start a new job, walk into the theatre or studio and say "Hey, everybody - I'm GAY!"

I don't think anyone should really care, unless they want to bed me; even then it's a non-issue because I'm very much taken.

When conversation leads to dating or relationships, if some guy mentions his girlfriend, I have no problem mentioning my boyfriend: This really has nothing to do with sex - it has to do with to whom I am comitted.

When this comes up, people tend to say something like, "Boyfriend? YOU'RE gay? But...you hate Madonna! You hate Will & Grace! You don't like showtunes! You rarely, if ever talk about sex! Your DVD collection doesn't have any 'gay movies'! You can't dance! Your apartment isn't beautifully decorated! You CAN'T be gay!"

I love this, because it gives me a chance to blow away all the assumptions that people may have about gay people.

"Is there really a problem with parents accidentally taking their kids to the gay pride parades? Seriously?"

If I were a parent, I wouldn't want my child exposed to ANY type of sexuality until late elementry/middle school years. Kids deserve to enjoy the innocence of childhood.

Okay, but you haven't answered the question: Is is really that big of a danger that young kids are going to stumble upon the gay pride parade? If it's really a concern, parents can make certain that their kids don't encounter it. Simple enough.

TreeCave:

I had nearly forgotten just how hedonistic TV and movies in the 80's were. You're right: I do remember that now. Everyone was hopping into the sack with everyone, often not even knowing their name. While a lot of people are upset about all the sex on TV and in the movies these days, it doesn't hold a candle to the 80's. I see a lot less sex and a lot more responsibility in contemporary things.

I also think you have a great point about how kids pick up on the subtlties of real-life relationships and latch onto them much more tightly than what they see on TV or film.

I can understand what SoloJones is saying - some parents don't want their kids to be exposed to sexual issues until sometime near puberty. Like she said, this is possible: Plenty of parents do it, but most of them have to homeschool to do so; they can't bleep out what is said on the playground, which is unfortunately

 

Cwrn-

I hate stereotyping, too, believe me. I'm a young blonde girl, so I must be a ditz, right? Right, tell that to the 613 kids in my class who are behind me (or the 1 who is in front of me and tells me I'm just as smart as him). Stereotyping is really annoying, so I understand where you are coming from.

Of course, it DOES have it's basis in reality. All that I would ask is that those homosexuals (I hate those words, too) who hold parades, etc. would think twice before doing so.

Yes, parents can make sure their kids don't see those parades if they know about them. Sometimes, though, they may not. O'Reilly was responding to something no one knew about- a group of lesbians at a basketball game who started kissing and holding up signs during the game to get attention. That kind of stuff you can't predict.

There's nothing wrong with educating kids about sex. There's also nothing wrong with shielding kids from sex. I think it just depends on how dedicated the parents are to keeping their kids guarded from TV shows or movies that could confuse them.

Also, when I was a kid it wasn't the same as it is today. We just played around at school, some girls thought boys were gross (I was friends with all boys). We didn't think about dating, wearing makeup, looking cute, etc. I can see this in pictures from my elementry school days. But now, thanks to teeny bopper pop and other forms of media, younger and younger kids are starting to think about things beyond their years. I think it's a sad trend, personally.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

Of course, it DOES have it's basis in reality. All that I would ask is that those homosexuals (I hate those words, too) who hold parades, etc. would think twice before doing so.

Sure. I would ask the same thing. There are far more productive ways to gain visibility and to express our need for rights and acceptance. Even so, if they want to make themselves look like rampaging morons, it's going to affect people like myself moreso than any straight people. I'm the one that has to constantly prove to others that not all gays act like that.

Yes, parents can make sure their kids don't see those parades if they know about them. Sometimes, though, they may not.

Then the parents are being lax. The parade is the same weekend every year - a different weekend in some cities, but each town has a week reserved for the parade. All it takes is a bit of research online, some marks on the calander and some planning and the virgin eyes of the children will never see it.

O'Reilly was responding to something no one knew about- a group of lesbians at a basketball game who started kissing and holding up signs during the game to get attention. That kind of stuff you can't predict.

Once again, the misguided actions of a few people is being used to illustrate a point about an entire group. Were I to meet aforementioned lesbians, I would tell them that they're morons and that causing such scenes will only serve to bring more hate upon their heads. They would be better off organizing a food drive for the homeless or orchestrating a group to pick up trash on the highway.

In order to get equal rights, gays need to prove to the country that they are productive and valuable members of society. What was it that really got the ball rolling with women's lib? Well, quite a lot of things, but a key factor was the guts and determination of the women who, while so many men were away at war, stepped up and said "I'll work in the factories; I'll help make munitions; I'll be a nurse; I'll keep this country in full operation with or without our men"

It was only when they were suddenly needed as a cruical fulcrum of society that the men in power had to throw up their hands and admit that women were every bit as capable as men. I don't feel that this is what it SHOULD take to get equal rights, but it seems that such is the case.

There's nothing wrong with educating kids about sex. There's also nothing wrong with shielding kids from sex. I think it just depends on how dedicated the parents are to keeping their kids guarded from TV shows or movies that could confuse them.

I still feel that it can be detrimental to kids to be too sheilded from the world and from sex in particular. In my mind, what this does is warp their sense of sexual realilty, mystifies sex and can sometimes make it all that much more appealing.

My little sister is being raised by my step-mother, who has kept her more or less in a bubble. Once, she stumbled upon a URL where I was posting some of my writing. She called me in tears, crying "I didn't know you cuss... I'm so disappointed in you!" and didn't talk to me for weeks. She's 14. I think this is excessive.

Also, when I was a kid it wasn't the same as it is today. We just played around at school, some girls thought boys were gross (I was friends with all boys). We didn't think about dating, wearing makeup, looking cute, etc.

Hmmmmmm. Well, I went to Catholic school and sex was always a topic of conversation from about 3rd grade on.

But now, thanks to teeny bopper pop and other forms of media, younger and younger kids are starting to think about things beyond their years. I think it's a sad trend, personally.

I really don't think that this is anything new, I just think that it is more visible than ever.

 

cwrn-

O'Reilly wasn't saying that it's a problem among all gays/lesbians, but simply pointing out that those who do such extreme things to gain attention are only hurting themselves and others.

I don't agree with censorship like your little sister is experiencing. I know a family who does that, has a TV guardian thing to bleep out ALL swearing and their kids are 17, 13, and 10. It's stupid, I agree. But I still think I would want my kids guarded from sex, at least mostly, until around puberty. Just my personal feelings, of course.

Your school was obviously different than mine. In my third grade, the biggest topic of conversation was our Star Wars club

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

Why do you feel that it is best to guard kids from knowing about sex? How does it hurt them?

 

There are just some things I don't think it's appropriate for kids to talk about. They should be allowed their innocence. It's not to censor them forever, it's just to let them enjoy childhood without getting involved in talking about things they shouldn't be.

-sj loves kevin spacey