Is homosexuality a bad thing?

[Deep sigh] Will I ever find another 6 year old on this site?

^ huh? My niece is six. Unless you are a bloody genius, you're not six!

How old are you? We do have some young'ns here. Many of them are sort of transient posters.

It was a joke.

And I don't think a six year old would be in a discussion about homosexuality.

A father watched his 6 year old daughter playing in the garden. He smiled as he reflected on how sweet and pure his little girl was. Tears formed in his eyes as he thought about her seeing the wonders of nature through such innocent eyes.

Suddenly she just stopped and stared at the ground. He went over to her to see what work of God had captured her attention. He noticed she was looking at two bugs mating. "Daddy, what are those two doing?" she asked. They're mating," her father replied."What do you call the one on top?" she asked. "Sweetheart, they're called Daddy Longlegs," her father answered. "So, the other one is a Mommy Longlegs?" the little girl asked.

As his heart soared with the joy of such a cute and innocent question he replied "No dear. Both of them are Daddy Longlegs." The little girl, looking a little puzzled, thought for a moment, then took her foot and stomped them flat. "Well, we're not having any of that gay **** happening in our garden!!"

Very good Chumly

People teach their kids to hate homosexuals long before they know the meaning of the word.

How do mean?

I remember being called 'faggot' even before I was certain of what the word meant and I was a smart kid.

It is a learned behavior. Kids will, most of the time, inherit their parents prejudices.

and some get over that.

Thank god for that eh?

And some don't.

Too many don't -- it's like being born into a family of Democrats or Republicans. One usually adopts the family politics. It's an effect that may be dying out as it also has a lot to do with the churches. A Republican right wing religious family is certainly a lot more likely to raise a homophobic kid and as long as the church backs it up, it's not going to change but very slowly.

On the first page, Phoenix said that "Prejudice of any sort can never be explained by logic." I would qualify the wording, regarding homophobia, to say that it cannot be JUSTIFIED with logic, but the use of logic in scientific inquiry can help us to UNDERSTAND it. It has psychoLOGICical and socioLOGICical foundations. Homophobia's irrationality is the major reason homophobes like to refer to the old testament to "justify" their feelings, forgetting that the Old Testament was written at a time when humankind's level of knowleldge was very primitive.

It'll change, though, slow as it may be. Hopefully that change will stick with us. My niece has been in school with students with same-sex parents in her several years of schooling. It's tricky at certain developmental stages. As I said above, even she didn't get how someone can have 2 mommies or 2 daddies. Our family is very supportive of the MA law allowing same sex marriages. Her classes have had tolerance protocols, books, etc...... All these students can't stay in liberal boston. Some will spread out around the country and the world...... Won't they? Am I being idealistic?

Wow this is still going, well OK.
I disagree that people learn that being a "faggot" (and how is a homo a bundle of sticks again?) is bad. In australian schools, non-discrimination is taught thoroughly throughout school. Australians do however discriminate. As does the rest of the WHOLE WORLD.

Let me provide an example of where prejudice/discrimination was described as 100% bad and wrong and disgusting over here:
I assume that you all heard about the Race Riots that happened in Australia a while ago. I assume you all thought that this was a disgusting unjustifyable manifestation of racism.
This was not the case. The lebanese people who were living in Cronulla (and this info was straight from the mouths of the austrlian Cronulla people), were harrasing women and menacing Australian people on the beaches. The Australian police failed to address the problem (again, info from the mouths of the Cronulla people), and as a result the Australians took violent action - against the lebanese people - who where the perpetraitors. Sometimes its the only way - you have to put people back in their place.

It is not acceptable to simply say that discrimination/prejudice is outright and always wrong - coz its not. You have to say why prejudice is IN A CERTAIN CASE, wrong. In this case prejudice against gays. And even then, people in general will not change their oppinion. Descrimination against "those who are not us" is universal, and will not disappear just because a few people yell "ITS WRONG!".

Yes, but even if non-discrimination is encouraged and taught by school curriculum, the body of students may not listen to such teachings, take onboard the messages or have a culture that goes contrary to teachings.

For example, the common use of applying the word "gay" to things that are stupid, disliked etc.

e.g. "That shirt is so gay" meaning "I dislike the colour of that shirt"

RaceDriver 205 : "It is not acceptable to simply say that discrimination/prejudice is outright and always wrong - coz its not. You have to say why prejudice is IN A CERTAIN CASE, wrong." I must disagree with you. I think discrimination/prejudice is ALWAYS wrong. The example that you gave is not an example of prejudice or discrimination, it's just an example of people reacting violently to a situation that seemed to have required that kind of reaction. Now if the australians would start kicking the crap out of every lebanese guy they meet just because he's lebanese, and if they would say that every lebanese is a violent idiot that deserves "to be put back in his place", that would be an example of discrimination and prejudice and that would be WRONG.

I agree with Eretiq.

Not true. Discrimination was used as to who was attacked. Only the lebanese or "people of middle-eastern appearance" were attacked by Australians. This was a case of discrimination. Some of the attacked lebanese may not have been perpetraitors, but It is not possible to tell, and it is the perpetrating lebaneses' fault that other members of their people were attacked.

I will use my favourite example which I use against pacifists:
If our country was invaded by Vikings, it is not, and will never be acceptable to not discriminate against Vikings. It is not acceptable to say that they have just as much right to our country as we do. Thats not how life works. Discrimination/prejudice is often justified.

Another example: Criminals. It is correct to discriminate against criminals, because they are the most likely to inflict crime upon ones self, and therefore it is in ones best interest to discriminate.

Another example: People with contagious disease. It is correct to discriminate against people with contagious disease. If you dont you may end up with that disease and then subsequently end up dead.

My favorite example: Sex. It is not reasonable to say that discrimination against people when it comes to chosing a mate is unacceptable. Sexual attraction discriminates on all possible grounds - health, race, age, finantial status, the shape of your body, your personallity and your wit. You'll never get anyone to not discriminate when it comes to sex, and you are severely out of order to think it is always unacceptable to discriminate.