Thanks Kindle I have to now explain this to my child!!

[Biblepoe]

That means that if you know 50 people, at least one of them is likely to be gay. Most people know quite a lot more than 50 people. My husband has more than that counting one side of his family.

Make that 35 people. At 50 people, the probability of at least one of them being gay if 2% of the population is gay is 64%. The probability that a typical American knows someone who is gay is 99.9995% (see below).

Mathematical explanation:
If the probability of someone being gay is 2% (or 0.02), the probability of that person not being gay is the complement 0.98 (1 - 0.02 = 0.98). The probability of none of N number of people being gay is then the probability of an individual not being gay to the Nth power (in this case, the probability of none of 35 people being gay is 0.98^35 = 0.49, or 49%). The probability of at least one of those individuals being gay is the complement of that (1 - 0.49 = 0.51, or 51%).

According to the New York Times, the average American knows about 600 people. The probability that none of them are gay is 0.98^600 = .000005, or 0.0005%. In other words, even if only 2% of the population is gay, there is a 99.9995% chance that you know someone who is gay.

These numbers are based on the assumption that only 2% of the population is gay, but many studies have found the percentages to greatly vary based on research methodology with 2% being on the lower end of the results. Plus, these numbers don’t always include those who are somewhere in between gay and straight.

So, it is safe to assume that you know someone who is gay whether you know that they are gay or not. Your children know gay people. That fact that some of them are going to get married, and that this fact would get reflected in everyday media is hardly surprising.

Not to be a math prude, but I thought I should emphasize the point that everyone knows someone who is gay, whether they know that they know a gay person or not.

 

[Kamaduck]

My dear Wormwood,

I read with some degree of amusement your last letter about the patient’s posts on web forums. As you have correctly observed, there are few things so useful to us in a social context as flippant humour about, and flattery of, sinful acts. I really am most pleased with your progress.

Remember, nothing is that bad to these human vermin - as long as you can write it off in comedic fashion. As well as eroding the barriers that stand in the way of our good works great and small, this leverages the natural human tendency towards vanity and pride - and before we know it we are only an absent-minded hop away from scorn.

If the patient can at once be convinced among the faithful that he is more worldy-wise and sophisticated than them, and among the worldly and base that he is more pious and faithful to God than them, pretty much all we have to do at that point is sit back and watch our work do itself - bar the occasional prod in the right direction.

Your affectionate uncle,

Screwtape

I seem to recall that sexual sin is actually discussed in the Screwtape Letters, which are considerably older than I am. Kind of supports the idea that it’s been around for some time.

The OP does not need to tell her child about every sin out there for him to be protected from them. I am certain that she knows her child well enough to judge what he is ready for- certainly much better than any of us! It only concerns me that she wants him to avoid even the knowledge of “where babies come from” and “men who like other men” until fifth grade. He will almost certainly know all about it by then, and his information will almost certainly be wrong.

I say this as someone who went to an extremely conservative Christian school, where there actually was no crass mention of sex on the playground. No internet, no cable, in many of our homes. My knowledge of sex was strictly mechanical- insert part A into part B, wait 9 months and move on to birth. In my experience, it hardly matters. Bodies change before fifth grade. It doesn’t take long for one kid to get curious about what’s going on and look at something he shouldn’t, passing the information along to other kids. It can lead to anything, no matter how sheltered the children may be. In fact, sheltered children eat up false information because they have nothing to contradict it with.

I would much rather my mom had taught me more about sex years before fifth grade, or at least promised to tell me when I got older. I’m not claiming my upbringing was typical- I was given the most accurate words as soon as I could say them, I was never taught about Santa, and questions about thunder and lightning were answered strictly scientifically. It’s not the only way to raise a child. I just want the OP to be aware that she will more than likely have to begin this discussion before fifth grade. I will continue to maintain that more problems are caused by a lack of necessary knowledge than by leaning about things too early (and I’m talking about unavoidable facts of life here, not sins. Sins can be explained as they are encountered. The Kindle ad would be an example of encountering one, in my mind, but it’s not wrong if you want to wait for a more obvious encounter.)

 

[The_Bucket]

My dear Wormwood,

I read with some degree of amusement your last letter about the patient’s posts on web forums. As you have correctly observed, there are few things so useful to us in a social context as flippant humour about, and flattery of, sinful acts. I really am most pleased with your progress.

Remember, nothing is that bad to these human vermin - as long as you can write it off in comedic fashion. As well as eroding the barriers that stand in the way of our good works great and small, this leverages the natural human tendency towards vanity and pride - and before we know it we are only an absent-minded hop away from scorn.

If the patient can at once be convinced among the faithful that he is more worldy-wise and sophisticated than them, and among the worldly and base that he is more pious and faithful to God than them, pretty much all we have to do at that point is sit back and watch our work do itself - bar the occasional prod in the right direction.

Your affectionate uncle,

Screwtape

Given the level of charity expressed, I can only say that this post is brutally ironic. Kudos to you for reaching a new low in making base and gross assumptions about someone else’s intentions.

 

[The_Bucket]

I seem to recall that sexual sin is actually discussed in the Screwtape Letters, which are considerably older than I am. Kind of supports the idea that it’s been around for some time.

The OP does not need to tell her child about every sin out there for him to be protected from them. I am certain that she knows her child well enough to judge what he is ready for- certainly much better than any of us! It only concerns me that she wants him to avoid even the knowledge of “where babies come from” and “men who like other men” until fifth grade. He will almost certainly know all about it by then, and his information will almost certainly be wrong.

I say this as someone who went to an extremely conservative Christian school, where there actually was no crass mention of sex on the playground. No internet, no cable, in many of our homes. My knowledge of sex was strictly mechanical- insert part A into part B, wait 9 months and move on to birth. In my experience, it hardly matters. Bodies change before fifth grade. It doesn’t take long for one kid to get curious about what’s going on and look at something he shouldn’t, passing the information along to other kids. It can lead to anything, no matter how sheltered the children may be. In fact, sheltered children eat up false information because they have nothing to contradict it with.

I would much rather my mom had taught me more about sex years before fifth grade, or at least promised to tell me when I got older. I’m not claiming my upbringing was typical- I was given the most accurate words as soon as I could say them, I was never taught about Santa, and questions about thunder and lightning were answered strictly scientifically. It’s not the only way to raise a child. I just want the OP to be aware that she will more than likely have to begin this discussion before fifth grade. I will continue to maintain that more problems are caused by a lack of necessary knowledge than by leaning about things too early (and I’m talking about unavoidable facts of life here, not sins. Sins can be explained as they are encountered. The Kindle ad would be an example of encountering one, in my mind, but it’s not wrong if you want to wait for a more obvious encounter.)

This, coupled with a “stop whining because the world has always got it wrong” message was basically my point. Well said.

 

[ephesians4]

Given the level of charity expressed, I can only say that this post is brutally ironic. Kudos to you for reaching a new low in making base and gross assumptions about someone else’s intentions.

I try to strike a tone of bitter unintentional irony at all times if I can, on account of how I find it amusing.

Anyway, it was all meant in a spirit of good and friendly fun in the fellowship of others likely to have read some of the same things as me, I didn’t mean to hit a sensitive note of any kind so I genuinely apologise if I did.

 

[Z1Z2]

Please, people! Writing out a tuition check does not a responsible parent make! Even if you send your little darling to the Pope’s own elementary school, your kids need to hear it from you! And see it from you! Lived out every day, discussed frequently, and celebrated! Sexual sin is so invasive and one can not buy their way out of this!

:clapping::clapping:

My daughter is in 6th grade at our local public school and knows less about popular culture than some of the 6th grade girls we know who go to the local Catholic school.

 

[epan]

I couldn’t figure out which one was the gay husband, and which one was the straight husband. That might be hard to explain to a seven year old. Otherwise, just give an age appropriate explanation, and move on. Every 7 year old who does not live in a bubble has heard the word “gay”. Your job as a parent, IMHO, is to fill in the blanks and tell your kids what it all means, rather than let them pick up misinformation. If you buy that, then Kindly might be doing you a favor by giving you an opening to discuss it.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

wow, I was wondering when this kind of stuff would happen. Homosexuality is in many shows, but I was wondering when it would expand beyond that. its happening…

It happened a long time ago but nobody paid attention.

This thread proves we’re still not.

 

[davidn87]

Maybe I should come out of the closet… Hi CAF I am heterosexual. I believe in traditional marriage. I can’t control my attraction to my husband…

I’ve actually been bullied online because I’m not shy about liking women! Apparently some view it as an abnormal practice which “just isn’t right”…

 

[pollynova]

If I were gay, I think I would actually be offended by the terrible pandering that’s going on in that commercial.

 

[Patavium]

Reading this thread, and also the comments in the video… No it has NOT been proven CONCLUSIVELY that Humans are BORN gay. No it has not. In fact, many studies (sciencemag.org/content/284/5414/665.short archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=495588 ) find no genetic cause. However, it has been AGREED (link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-006-9062-2 tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v51n04_09) by most scientists that Homosexuality is more likely related to choices due to the environment (i.e. culture, society, etc…)

Interestingly, studies (ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/3/259.short) have shown that when people believe that Homosexuals are BORN that way, they are more likely to SUPPORT gay “marriage”. And let’s not get into the gay couples raising kids… (again the scientific evidence is against it, and in favor of the traditional family [How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study - ScienceDirect]](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610])).

 

[Kamaduck]

If I were gay, I think I would actually be offended by the terrible pandering that’s going on in that commercial.

I think I’d be neutral about it. Commercials are not known for subtlety.

Patavium, I don’t really think the causes of homsexuality are relevant here. We’re mostly discussing when kids should learn about sensitive topics. Why people are attracted to members of the same sex won’t really change the fact that some are, and I don’t see how it will change when kids are old enough to learn about it.

 

[PaulinVA]

So, this is a very interesting discussion.

I think that the 14th Amendment probably demands that gay marriage be allowed, so we will all have to deal with this in the future (in the US).

This does present many issues for Christians - not because gay marriage will kill heterosexual marriage - we have already killed marriage ourselves. The real issue is explaining what marriage is to our children, and how people with service jobs are “protected” in conscience.

If children are not the reason to get married, what is the reason? If men and women don’t have separate and discrete roles in society and in marriage, what happens? If I think gay marriage is a sham, can I still be forced to provide flowers to one, to photograph one? Can I be forced to rent a room at my bed and breakfast to a married gay couple? Can I express displeasure or revulsion in public at the idea of gay marriage?

 

[JackieMom]

If I think gay marriage is a sham, can I still be forced to provide flowers to one, to photograph one? Can I be forced to rent a room at my bed and breakfast to a married gay couple? Can I express displeasure or revulsion in public at the idea of gay marriage?

Would you do the same to a “remarried” couple? Mortal sin is mortal sin…

 

[PaulinVA]

Would you do the same to a “remarried” couple? Mortal sin is mortal sin…

I do not see them as the same at all.

Gay marriage is always wrong, where ever you find it. There is nothing that makes it right.

Remarriage, either through divorce with annulment or death of a spouse, is not wrong. Illicit remarriage is at least following the natural law.

 

[Kamaduck]

If children are not the reason to get married, what is the reason? If men and women don’t have separate and discrete roles in society and in marriage, what happens? If I think gay marriage is a sham, can I still be forced to provide flowers to one, to photograph one? Can I be forced to rent a room at my bed and breakfast to a married gay couple? Can I express displeasure or revulsion in public at the idea of gay marriage?

While I agree with you that this is where things are headed (and it is very sad ), I don’t see why we wouldn’t allow men to room together. Are we going to make all single people room separately?

 

[JackieMom]

I do not see them as the same at all.

Gay marriage is always wrong, where ever you find it. There is nothing that makes it right.

Remarriage, either through divorce with annulment or death of a spouse, is not wrong. Illicit remarriage is at least following the natural law.

I was referring obviously to invalid remarriage, and I do think it’s the same. Is providing the flowers for an adulterous relationship any better than providing the flowers for a same-sex one?

 

[AshJade]

I think I was about 7 when I found out about homosexuality. My children don’t know about it yet, (5 and 3). I want to teach my children compassion and love for the sinner.

Gay marriage might be against natural law, but that doesn’t make them any worse than other sinners. I think much of the uproar about gay marriage is based on distaste for the sexual acts they may or may not engage in. People need to get past that, and see the person.

Jesus ate with sinners, tax collectors, and prostitutes. He loves everyone, gay or straight. We all sin. Worry about yourself, not what others are doing.

Let Christ’s love shine through you, and don’t worry about what other people are doing. Just love them.

 

[PaulinVA]

I was referring obviously to invalid remarriage, and I do think it’s the same. Is providing the flowers for an adulterous relationship any better than providing the flowers for a same-sex one?

Yes, it is. One is actually *participating *in the wedding as a supplier. The other is sending flowers to someone.

This is different than the HHS religious liberty issue. I think that is more straightforward. I don’t think that there is a constitutional protection against being forced to provide flowers for a gay wedding or letting a gay couple stay at your bed and breakfast (unmarried, maybe). It still violates peoples’ conscience, but not in a way that goes against constitutional protections.

Which is why, in the culture wars, losing on gay marriage loses everything.

 

[JackieMom]

Yes, it is. One is actually *participating *in the wedding as a supplier. The other is sending flowers to someone.

This is different than the HHS religious liberty issue. I think that is more straightforward. I don’t think that there is a constitutional protection against being forced to provide flowers for a gay wedding or letting a gay couple stay at your bed and breakfast (unmarried, maybe). It still violates peoples’ conscience, but not in a way that goes against constitutional protections.

Which is why, in the culture wars, losing on gay marriage loses everything.

I was talking about acting as a florist (or photographer, or DJ, or caterer, or venue owner) for both types of invalid weddings - an already married Catholic getting “remarried” and a SS couple having a civil “marriage.” Personally I can’t say one offends me more than the other. But I think a lot of Catholics find the gay wedding situation more distasteful than the adultery invalid wedding situation.