BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

"I'm not homophobic but I don't like gays."

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:26 / 09.10.02
Right - the above should be deleted forthwith. Let us look instead at:


I did ask. See that bit where I say "what exactly is your objection to this?" That's called asking.

Still, you do score bonus points for being the first person on this thread to say in as many words "I'm not homophobic, but....". It is to laugh.

Haus - My objection? It is that after x-million years of evolution, I don't believe that you can simply dispense with one gender from a parenting couple and claim that the child will be raised equally well. I'm not saying that same-sex parents are *incapable* of raising children, I just don't believe they can do it as well as a (dareI-say-it) 'normal' couple. Add on the points you made about what a hard life being gay lets you in for, and I am going to object to kids being taught about it at least until they reach pubery.

So, children should also not be taught about being black? Or Jewish? Or, hey, women? All have hard lives...

Right, where were we?

It is that after x-million years of evolution, I don't believe that you can simply dispense with one gender from a parenting couple and claim that the child will be raised equally well.

This assumes that throughout x-million years (2 is the conventional calculation, I believe) of evolution, children have been raised by a mixed-gender couple. As opposed, for example, to a primate communal upbringing. Or the male disappearing and the female raising the kids. Now, no doubt you know far more about our ancestors than I, but do you actually have evidence to support the contention that dual parenting is "normal"? It strikes me as an aberration brought about by agricultural settlement.

I just don't believe they can do it as well as a (dareI-say-it) 'normal' couple.

I'm not even going to bother. Of course you daren't say it. Because political correctness has gone mad.

Add on the points you made about what a hard life being gay lets you in for, and I am going to object to kids being taught about it at least until they reach pubery

Now, what you have done here is to assume that there is a natural causal link between your prejudice about same-sex couples - have you ever actually met the child of a same-sex couple - and the idea that society persecutes minorites, and the statement "one should not teach children about homosexuality, or about same-sex couples". In case I need to spell this out for the hard of thinking, no such natural causal link exists. One could just as well say "Homosexuals get a hard time from lots of societal groups, so it is vital that our children are taught to understand and respect homosexual love as soon as possible".

Find me a single convincing causal link betwen the statement "being gay lets you in for a hard life" and "I am going to object to kids being taught about homosexuality at least until they reach puberty". Please. I dare you. I double dare you.

You may want to "protect" your children from any understanding of homosexuality. Fortunately, education is there to protect children from their parents' view of the universe. It is when those parents decide that their right to foster ignorance should be protected by law that the problems start.

(Oh, and one more time for the cheap seats. You do not "get AIDS off" anyone. You "get" HIV. You may subsequently *develop* AIDS. This is an important distinction, and it is deeply worrying that you are unable to make it)

And to round up the threads:

Torquemada, I'm afraid we are not massively interested in your brother or that you built this STD clininc on rock'n'roll. If you would like to tell us more about yourself, please do so in the Conversation. The Head Shop is for ideas. Ideas like:

The link you're missing - Once at pubery they will make their own minds up. Before that - Being Gay = Hard Time, therefore advise them to avoid if poss.

Well, I'm sure that gay men and lesbians everywhere will be absolutely jumping for joy to learn that nobody will give them a hard time after puberty. You see, I'm trying to be good, but you're making it so easy and so hard. This also assumes that your previous instruction will mean nothing to them (if homosexuality is environmental) or that they will "become gay" at the moment of puberty and not before (very Freudian), and being either utterly ignorant of or advised against homosexuality for their entire previous life will have no effect whatsover on how they feel about this (if homosexuality is innate).

This isn't a natural causal link. It's a bloke in pub link, and a barely comprehensible one.

And what do you mean "avoid if poss"? Do you mean that will advise them to avoid having sex with people of the same gender until they reach puberty? If so, how often do you plan to tell them this? Nightly? Or do you mean that you are opposed to them being taught about same-sex couples or any other aspect of homosexuality unitl puberty, that being, if you cast your mind back about three posts, where we were. Or do you mean you will advise them not to have children as part of a same-sex relationship until at least after puberty?Because that, at least, is *bloody* good advice.
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:44 / 09.10.02
Lurid - I suppose my justification would be evolutionary, in the 'we're still here' sense. - Torquemada

This is the sort of reasoning that gives evolution a bad name. To reiterate, just because one believes that a certain set of behaviours consitute the norm this does not always imply that those behaviours are due to evolution.

For instance, one could look at the widespread use of cutlery. But it is absurd to see an adopted social habit as being part of evolution. We did not evolve hands in order that we could more easily use knives and forks. Tools in general, perhaps. But my point is that you cannot justify table manners on evolutionary grounds.

In order to convincingly say that a practice is due to evolution, you have to try to separate all the possible influences involved. A neat assumption that current practices are set in stone is lazy.

There are many factors that influence individuals and societies. One of them is a set of evolutionary constraints. And even the effect of this is far from clear - the connection between genes and human behaviour is a difficult one. Moreover, despite the bad press, evolution makes no claim to justify morality. Even if something is in our "genes", that does not make it right or desirable.
 
 
Torquemada
14:01 / 09.10.02
Why do I have to *prove* that dual-sex parenting is an advantage?

It's not like Single-sex parenting is going to produce a rush of people thinking 'crikey, this is so much better for our children, why didn't think of this before?'. It is Single-Sex-relationship parenting that is, at the moment, 'out of the ordinary', so it is up to YOU to prove the case for it - which you can't. It hasn't existed in big enough numbers or for long enough for us to able to judge any 'effect' it would have (good or bad).

You can't really blame parents for reacting - if kids ask about being gay, etc. then tell them, by all means - they need to know. Don't get so excited about kids being saved from their ignorant parents with their out-of-date ideas, because once you put something like that on the national school curriculum, it immediately becomes a tool for those with their own agenda.

For instance, we were visited at school by a troupe of actors who gave an astonishingly one-sided portrayal of the IRA (a soldier in this play bled to death - the IRA were all heroes). All the kids were shocked, parents visited the school for a shout, it went on for ages.

You can see where they'd started - 'let's show the kids what it's like to live in N. Ireland', and it ended up a thinly-veiled progpoganda piece. You may think it's good that schools educate kids about stuff their parents don't, but you can't then blame the parents because they will then blame the school for not bringing their kids up properly for them. It goes back to what I was saying about TV - where exactly does the resposibility lie?

Am I getting somewhere with this?
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
14:14 / 09.10.02
Yes. You're getting to "the National Curriculum is a tool of the IRA".

Which is actually quite impressive.

I think I have a migraine. Could you find a topic and stick to it, please?

Why don;t we start with a few very simple questions. Please think carefully before you answer them. Try to make your meaning clear. Try not to contradict yourself.

1) What do you think the role of teachers should be in telling children about relationships?

2) Should children learn about heterosexual relationships before homosexual relationships?

3) What role should parents play in telling children about relationships?

4) Who is being "protected" by witholding information about a) homosexual relationships and b) same-sex parenting.

5) How will this "protection" manifest itself?

6) Are you willing to accept that you do not understand evolutionary psychology, and should probably stop throwing terms like "normal" or "natural" around?

7) Who on Earth was trying to prove that single-sex parenting is "better" or "worse" than same-sex parenting or heterosexual couple parenting? What is that, a new gameshow? With Ulrika?

There are also a bunch of questions modded into my previous post which will come up the next time my post is modified, which were intended to deal with your interpost - watch the skies.

(Hey, Torquemada said some of his best friends were gay. Well, one of them. Snerk)
 
 
Ex
14:17 / 09.10.02
By the time one’s child spits out the dummy and coherently expresses an erotic desire (particularly considering how rarely they do so to parents) it’ll be waaaaay too late to bring in an emergency education plan (sit them down, crack your knuckles, get the lad up to speed about manlove and homophobia over a stiff drink and cigar). They may already be an emotionally stunted munchkin paralysed by vague fears, and they probably won’t trust you an inch.
That’s a vast gamble, considering the amount of people who have some level of same-sex desire while they’re growing up.

And gathering information on Led Zeppelin isn’t an emotionally fraught journey for controversial self-definition via unreliable scant sources. (I’m delighted to be contradicted by fans of the Zep.)

Oh, and:
no-one seems to have done a reality-check on just how different the childs' life will be and what the implications of that are.

There are dozens of studies on this. I can post a bibliography if anyone’s interested, it’s been a hot research topic since about 1995 (the families involved go back far further).
 
 
Rev. Orr
14:19 / 09.10.02
Out of interest, Mr. Mada, are you aware of the slight difference between 'parenting' and 'procreation'? I trust this was included in your medical background but there appears to be a little confusion. Yes, there is an evolutionary or biological advantage to attempting the latter with a gender diverse pair. No, the former has bugger all to do with evolution.
 
 
The Natural Way
08:17 / 10.10.02
I understand what yr saying, Torquemada (even if THEY don't):

Yr not homophobic.

But you don't like gaydads.

Is this a zen thing?
 
 
Torquemada
08:45 / 10.10.02
Arse - I missed an entire post of Haus' - sorry, you're right, I was only telling you about myself to dispel some of your misconceptions.

Please explain, don't attack.


Yes. You're getting to "the National Curriculum is a tool of the IRA".

No I wasn't. I was using it to illustrate how a well-intentioned idea can be easuly changed by someone with their own agenda.


I think I have a migraine. Could you find a topic and stick to it, please?

Sorry, trying to address everything at once.


Why don;t we start with a few very simple questions. Please think carefully before you answer them. Try to make your meaning clear. Try not to contradict yourself.

I'll do my best, but some of these questions are worth a thread on their own...(and I am painting a target on my head whist typing)


1) What do you think the role of teachers should be in telling children about relationships?

Minimal - each child will start wondering about this sort of thing at a different time - not something you can schedule into the School timetable. And, going back to the original post, I certainly don't want Nickeodeon deciding when to do it for me.


2) Should children learn about heterosexual relationships before homosexual relationships?

Why not? Then you've dealt with the majority - how about having proportional representation in terms of how much children are taught about each?


3) What role should parents play in telling children about relationships?

A big one. Parents are let off too much responsibility already.


4) Who is being "protected" by witholding information about a) homosexual relationships and b) same-sex parenting.

You don't have to necessarily withhold. You can explain hetero relationships, then if they ask explain same-sex and so on. You *don't* have to bury them with options.


5) How will this "protection" manifest itself?

See above. My 'not-until-puberty' is really only applicable if they *don't ask*. If they're about to hit puberty, and still don't know/ aren't interested, then tell 'em everything regardless, they need to know (Ex is right on that one).


6) Are you willing to accept that you do not understand evolutionary psychology, and should probably stop throwing terms like "normal" or "natural" around?

Yes indeed. Unfortunately I used 'normal' (in qoutes) in place of majority. I haven't used the word Natural. Soon I'll have to use Jumping-to-Conclusions.
Are you willing to accept that I am a mere mortal making suggestions and not an all-knowing-oracle with some sort of gay-phobia-horror?


7) Who on Earth was trying to prove that single-sex parenting is "better" or "worse" than same-sex parenting or heterosexual couple parenting? What is that, a new gameshow? With Ulrika?

I was thinking in terms of what would be the best enviroment for a child. See I'm not coming from a homophobic 'don't teach 'em 'cos it's wrong' camp, I'm coming from a 'would there be a disadvantage for the child' camp. Until it could be proved that there was no disadvantage, I wouldn't encourage it. Just as I wouldn't encourage single-parenting - not because it can't be done, but because it's harder road.


Ex - post that bibliography! I'd be fascinated.
 
 
Torquemada
08:59 / 10.10.02
Nan - that would make a good thread...

Which would be better, having two gay Dads or two gay Mums (or neither)?. Think I'd have preferred Mums.
 
 
The Natural Way
10:30 / 10.10.02
Look, mate, I think what peeps are trying to get at here is exactly why you think it'll hurt kids to let them know about homosexuality before adolescence: Is it because they might BECOME A BIT GAY? Or because they might mention gaystuff in the playground and get a sharp punch to the nose?
 
 
Torquemada
11:12 / 10.10.02
Nan - the latter I think. Is it possible to become gay through enviroment? I've always thought not...

There were kids at my school who got lots of abuse for merely being under suspicion of being gay (of the ostrasised kind, rather than the punch-on-the-nose). 'Ooo you know so much about it then you must be...' and so on. You can educate kids about this stuff, but it won't stop them giggling about it or more importantly make them treat the subject in an adult fashion...which then means ammunition for the usual playground picking-on-anyone-that's-different herd mentality and so on. I'm sure there must be a way you can *make* them treat it in an adult fashion, but that may be a topic for another thread...

Orr - Bugger all? Surely parenting has evolved (and been influenced by evolution), as a whole...go on, what am I missing...
 
 
Ex
11:46 / 10.10.02
There’s an annotated bibliography and summary of research findings on gay and lebsian parenting at
the American Psychological Association’s site which gives some idea of the breadth and number of studies, and the overall conclusions.
The Child Welfare League of America (named with alarming sincerity in 1920 and sporting fine billowing capes) publishes Issues in Gay and Lesbian Adoption: Proceedings of the Fourth Peirce-Warwick Adoption Symposium – another summary piece.
 
 
yawn - thing's buddy
12:30 / 10.10.02
So this is where it's all going down.

Does nobody want to talk about comics? Comic threads are deid the noo. Deid ah tell ye.

Alan Moore's got a comic book history of same sex relationships (there must be something parenting in there too, surely?) coming out soon hasn't he? - an expansion of that little 'gay dolphins' strip he did for AARGH! back in 1988.

It's called Mirror Love or something. Top Shelf productions appropiately enough.

oh, and my dad thought that comics were turning me gay when I was 15.
 
 
grant
17:42 / 10.10.02
This news story seems relevant.

It's about the furor over a hate-crime educational video series. That, you know, says calling gay classmates "fags" really isn't helpful. Also has gay parents in it!
 
 
rakehell
01:02 / 11.10.02
Torquemada:

If it is bad to educate kids about this because it might make them have a hard time in life, why isn't it good to educate everybody about it and see if the intolerance through ignorance disappears?

There is a wealth of evidence that shows people become more open minded and tolerant as they become better informed.

And that's all we're talking about here; not that anyone abandons their current familial structure, but that they accept other people wanting to do it a different way.
 
 
Torquemada
08:20 / 11.10.02
Rakehell - indeed, you'd think that more information=less ignorace/bigotry. But we're talking about kids here, who are far from having an adult grasp of issues they'll have to deal with then they're furthur up the road to adulthood.

Learning stuff in class does not (at the moment) stop merciless abuse in the playground - I suppose this begs the question is this fault of a) bad education, or b) the kids being too young to deal with it. Like I said earlier, each child develops at a different rate, so scheduling this sort of thing in a school curriculum could have an averse affect on some kids...for the worse, too - 'oh look, a homo film, let's beat up philips, he's a homo' (regardless, of course, of whether philips is a 'homo' or not). I am going on the assumption that kids are too young to deal with it, but I'd love to be proved wrong if someone can come up with an education method that works...anything that makes everyone get along.

Interestingly, the links Ex put up earlier (quite good - you have to dig to find the reports tho) had conflicting views on this sort of thing - one said that kids (and kids of same-sex parents) at school got bullied for even the suspicion of being gay. The other report said it wasn't a problem, so it shows how grey an area this is.
 
 
Torquemada
08:27 / 11.10.02
Those reports, by the way - one of them had a few holes in its' data, but drew conclusions as if it didn't. That said, the info that *was* there was quite interesting. Both agreed that far more research had to be done, but both had some specific details which amazed me...

Like I never knew that the US only declassified 'being gay' as a *mental illness* until '73. Incredible - we really are only just past putting kids up chimneys, really.
 
 
Ganesh
09:54 / 11.10.02
I don't, sadly, have the time to respond to this as fully as I'd like...

In brief, I think the argument that one shouldn't broach the subject of same-sex parents because kids from such backgrounds might be bullied is rather a circular one. In studies of stigma, the factor most likely to overturn negative beliefs about a stigmatised minority is direct (demythologising) contact with that minority on a daily basis - experiential rather than theoretical learning. Sweeping the subject under the metaphorical carpet encourages ignorance, false assumptions and myths (eg. "children with same-sex parents are themselves gay").

Saying "oh, but children don't accumulate information/beliefs like adults do" is a cop-out: sure, children in a playground setting can be both deeply conservative and mercilessly cruel - to any of their number who appears different for any reason, whether appearance, race, background, class, whatever - but failing to educate them on the correct way to behave will, in the long-term, exacerbate the problem. At worst, the false assumptions persist into adulthood...

I remember the gay slogan 'invisibility = death' and I think it's pertinent here, at least in an anecdotal sense: many a gay male of my generation, talking about growing up in the UK, makes reference to the same handful of media stereotypes available in the '70s and early '80s; while we lament the Larry Grayson / John Inman cliches, however, ANY semi-recognisable reference-point, no matter how 'Uncle Tom', was better than none at all. In the last decade or two, homosexual 'role models' (for want of a better term) have proliferated - and this, more than almost anything else, I think, accounts for the greater confidence of gay men and women in the 21st century. Subjective isolation - the 'certainty' that you're the only such freak in the world - is crippling, and seeing/hearing yourself and your situation represented, even imperfectly, in the media is infinitely preferable to seeing no representation at all.

So yes, I think the Nickelodeon thing is homophobic in that it's far more likely to reflect the nebulously irrational fears and prejudices of parents ("If my child knows this is an acceptable lifestyle, he/she might choose to BE gay"; "I'm uncomfortable with the subject and I don't want them to ask me about it") than anything more concrete.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
13:24 / 11.10.02
Torquemada- indeed, you'd think that more information=less ignorace/bigotry. But we're talking about kids here, who are far from having an adult grasp of issues they'll have to deal with then they're furthur up the road to adulthood.

The solution seems obvious then. Why are we wasting our time trying to teach children anything when we should wait until they're adults?
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply