The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Not a word about ?'perverse' or ?'evil' or ?'wrong' or ?'bad'. Homosexuality simply does not conform to the generally accepted norm and cannot be explained any more than some forms of retardation, left handedness, some types of diabetes, ADD, or other human traits that vary from the norm can be explained. We simply don't know what causes some of these things and none of them in any way diminish the worth of the person.

I get in trouble with some of you people all the time because I often look at things differently than you do and therefore I am deviant in my views. If that makes me wrong or bad or evil in your eyes, I regret that, but I can't change your opinion or views either.

In a group of highschoolers I was working with awhile back, some members were professing some homophobic attitudes . Tempers were flaring in the group as the views of homosexuality were pretty diverse, so we decided the best way to deal with it was to be sure we all had good information on which to base our opinions. We started with the Bible and came to agree, as a group, that no case for or against sexual orientation could be made from the Bible when the most accurate history available and probable intent is factored in. We then spent some time reading up on what scientific studies we could find. By the time we finished, our homophobic members had considerably changed their views and all we all had learned something.

The importance of accepting the issue from a perspective of science is that with all forms of deviance, there is the very real possibility of medical science finding a cause and therefore a cure or prevention for those who want it. Should gay and lesbian people WANT to change their sexual orientation given that opportunity? I think only they can answer that. I suspect many would; many wouldn't.

As far as the twins studies cited by Diane, it very well be that they will discover a gene for homosexuality, but the preponderance of the evidence we have at this time is against that.

Comparison of the Twins Study with Other Studies
http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year1/psychobiology_site_backups/homosexuality-debate/genetics.html

Exploding the Gene Myth
http://eserver.org/gender/exploding-the-gene-myth.html

Anyhow, I continue to want the parent to choose the time that sexual orientation of any kind is explained to young children and I still maintain that understanding the difference between the genders is sufficient at the preschool level. And in respect for the Groundhog Dayish nature the discussion is taking, I too expect to end my commentary with these remarks.

Lola:-

Why go on threads that make you feel sick and not go on threads you said you loved?

Foxy:-

I'm sure glad my school didn't go in for that stuff.
Are the usual core subjects too much work?

sp

Lola mentioned that you had a stint teaching something somewhere at some time. Any familiarity with a couple of philosophy of education boys out of oxford...RS Peters and PH Hirst?

OK, fair enough - if thats all you meant by "deviant" - but if that is all you meant by "deviant", then why the need to shield your kids from seeing anything for the reason of it being "deviant"? Why the special status of homosexuality when, I assume, you dont shield your kids from "being confronted with", to take your other examples, retarded or left-handed people either?

Spendius, these highschoolers were a church group, not in a public classroom.

Nimh please read my 'final comment' post again more carefully. I specifically stated my views on teaching sexuality to kids. I stand by it.

Spendy,

Exactly.

Oooh, see now I'm torn. On the one hand, it doesn't seem good mental-health-wise to just keep saying the same things and have them be ignored, hence my attempt to just bow out. On the other hand, it doesn't sit well with me to have nimh's completely reasonable question be ignored using the same criteria. What I would love is to be able to have a face-to-face discsussion where tangents and distractions could be cut short and some answers to direct questions could be demanded.

I think it's a good question too. I'm waiting. But I don't look for an answer. Good questions have a way of being ignored around here.

There's plenty of room, however for the question to be addressed around the distractions.

But when no answers are forthcoming......what else is there to do but to deviate?

Fox's is a common definition of deviant - and accurate, of course - also implicit for most of us in the term is this meaning:

Definition: [n] a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior
[adj] markedly different from an accepted norm; "aberrent behavior"; "deviant ideas"


Synonyms: aberrant, abnormal, degenerate, deviate, pervert

See Also: bugger, child molester, fetishist, lecher, masochist, miscreant, nympho, nymphomaniac, paederast, paedophile, pederast, pedophile, reprobate, sadist, sadomasochist, satyr, sod, sodomist, sodomite

satyr, yeah I'm like that.

Is Mary Cheney a pervert, then?

Do you think so since you're the one using the word?

My use of the word 'deviant' by the way is in the same context as is used by psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists and others studying human behavior and it in no way is associated with anything perverse or even negative. That the rest of you see it as negative (homophobic?) is probably from your conditioning. But thank you so understanding that the No. 1 definition is the context and intent.

Ah, so you don't mind if kids are exposed to left-handed people, redheads, and gay/ lesbian folks. Right?

The only reason to isolate them is because of sexuality. The problem is, their "sexuality" is as apparent to a preschooler as any heterosexual couple's "sexuality". All a preschooler cares about or needs to know is that there are many different kinds of families.

Sozobe, if you want to discuss sex with your pre-schoolers go for it. I don't with mine. I wish to choose the time and place to discuss that with my kids.I respect your beliefs re raising your children. I would appreciate being respected for mine. Exposed to all kinds of 'decent' people? No problem. Exposed to the concept of homosexuality/heterosexuality at the preschool level. No way.

But that's exactly what I have been saying, that the "lesbian=sex" link is in your mind, not preschoolers'. Why discuss sex after watching the Buster video? Why does seeing a couple of moms lead to a discussion of sex?

Can you think of anything that differentiates a lesbian from a heterosexual woman other than sexual orientation? Differentiating gender and understanding male and female are quite sufficient for preschoolers in my opinion. If you read an earlier post on this thread, I stated I don't know the content of this particular cartoon but trust the judgment of those who have seen it to decide whether it is suitable for preschoolers.

Can you think of anything that differentiates being raised by a grandma instead of two parents other than sexual orientation?