The Current Political Climate & The Gay Identity

[ThinkingSapien]

Human beings are not helplessly subjected to deterministic causes. We have the freedom to act for or against or impulses, even natural ones. Fasting, for example, is in a sense an ‘unnatural’ activity from a subjective standpoint…We are not disposed to moral action through genes. To suggest so would inevitably involve a denial of free will.

I think we are talking about two different things. It sounds like what you are saying is more centered on whether or not some one acts on their attraction to members of the same gender. I’m talking more about the presence of a tendency to feel attracted to or aroused by some one of the same gender. Can some one make decisions that go against these tendencies and urges? Certainly! Just as I can choose to eat the gut wrenching bowel loosening ice cream. But I haven’t chosen to find ice cream unappealing. Similarly I don’t think it’s been shown that some one chooses to what gender they are attracted.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m not saying that sexuality is simple. Just that I have yet to see any research to date which suggests that sexuality is a choice and yet as per my previous post we have both academic and practical evidence suggesting that is not influenced by either external factors, or the sexuality the person would like to have.

Then you have done enough research as to factors. Objective research. Not subjective stories of dubious value: You know, the ones which claim, “I always knew I was gay.” (The convenient revisionist testimony.) Except that no one “knows” or “knew” that, because internal and environmental forces combined to begin the shape the individual before that individual (1) had conscious knowledge of what was going on (2) developed enough long-term memory to be able to retrieve reliably the pathways of that shaping.

Second, even choice is complex. For example, not making a decision is a decision. Passive acceptance is a decision. Drifting into a behavior is a decision. One can make choices, particularly as a young child, before one is aware of doing so. Generally, young creatures of various types choose what is most apparent, choose what comforts, choose what provides security, choose what is most obvious, choose because they feel dependent, choose based on needs they are not even aware of. They don’t analyze too much. Yet they are making choices, even though as Catholics we do not hold them morally accountable for those choices until the age of reason (about age 7)

When any of us say “I always knew” (anything) or “I never made a choice about ____”, all that means is that we cannot locate in time, in retrospect, when we first felt comfortable doing something, identified with some activity (loving classical music, whatever). It means that in an immediate timeframe we would not be able easily to retrace what drew us to feel certain things or act certain ways or even take on certain roles. And even after long-term memory sets in, after age 3-4, we still are not always conscious, then or later, of making choices, but we may very well have made choices, and psychological treatment often uncovers those. (The child who “decides” that the oldest sibling doesn’t have much in the way of leadership skills, so he steps in to fill that role instead; the child who “decides” to behave a certain way to gain the affection of one of his parents who is difficult to please, and thus that child feels a need to accommodate.)

I’d be interested in any sources on this topic if you have any?

You should do a search on CAF for many of those discussions and links. InSearchofGrace has participated in many of them and shared many resources. There have been dozens of threads on this in the last 3 years minimum. It gets tiresome to repeat everything about once a week on CAF.

To date as I’ve said I’ve encountered no evidence that environment influences sexuality at all.

Then again your reading is rather limited; I’m sorry. Notice that I didn’t say “entirely determines” sexuality, but it does enormously influence it, and any authentic, respected book on psychology and the development of sexuality in the individual (and it is a development; it is not static like eye-color) will affirm that sexuality develops over time and is fluid for a considerable period. We experiment in various ways with sexuality when young; some of that is even through simple role-playing – that kind of investigation. Some of it is with our imagination.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Then you have not done enough research as to factors.

(Left out key word. Sorry about that.)

 

[St_Francis]

Okaydokey. I’ll reply to them as we go along if that’s ok? Avoids me needing to write a single massive one back and hopefully should help iron out any communication issues along the way.

Great

Agreed, I’d say sex should always be consensual for a starter.

Well, no, that’s not what I was talking about. I would say almost all people who believe that people with homosexual tendencies should remain chaste–no sexual activity outside of a tradition (two-gender) marriage–hold that to be true for everyone. We are not saying, heterosexual people can have sex whenever, but not hoosexuals.

Certainly in evolutionary terms for our species as a whole yes. Obviously there are other purposes as well, such as bonding, intimacy etc. Which aspect is percieved as being the most important aspect for any particular individual is of course down to that individual.

No, this view ignores reality. First of all, it ignores the reality that the end of the sexual act is procreation. If you look at the Guttenberg Institute’s statistics on abortion, you would be amazed at how many women are seeking an abortion who report using birth control properly. You can’t just wish that away in a search for “bonding, intinacy” etc.*

I personally agree, but I must admit to a lack of experience with other kinds of family so perhaps my view is biased. Also I don’t think we as a species have much experience of children raised in stable families with two parents of the same gender so it’s difficult to know how it would compare.

If we ignore the feminist fantasy that there are no true differences between the genders, then we can see that men and women bring different strengths and weaknesses to a situation. In a single-gender parenting situation, you lose the balance that a traditional two-gender parenting situation has. This means that there is a lack for the child(ren) involved.

Depends, I know that in Christian terms marriage is considered to be something holy “what God hast bound together…” etc. But obviously neither Christian or indeed even religious marriages represent the full spectrum of marriage. Would you consider a marriage between two atheists in a registry office to be a covenant with God?

Well, I am talking about societies in general, not specifically Catholic societies. In general, societies tend to encourage a covenental bond in marriage, a stronger bond than a mere contract.

…
Actually I’d say this is the other way around. That because attitudes towards sex changed contraception became a normal part of our society.

Ummm, there have always been people who had trouble with chastity who looked for a form of birth control, but they were outside the norm that society was encouraging.*

With Malthus, the original over-population Chicken Little in the 1700’s, and with changes in the Western economies with the Industrial Revolution, birth control was improved but legally prohibited, along with very strong religiois views against it.

As birth control was opened for married people and after the Anglican Lambeth Council which reversed its previous stance against birth control, then there was increased pressures to allow birth control first for married people, then for unmarried people. But overall, the Sexual Revolution could not bave happened the way it did without an available form of birth control which was perceived as very reliable.

All those who were against birth control used the same arguments which the Catholic Church uses, accurately foretelling the results which we see around us today.

Now this seems to be where our opinions diverge. I don’t think that contraception causes the breakup of families etc. Rather I think that both the rise of contraception and the reduced stability of the family unit has resulted from a number of different social changes. Including the increased freedom that we possess (such as sexual equality).

Corelation does not equal causation. All these things could not have happened on this scale without a supposedly reliabla form of birth control.*

For example a few hundred years ago if a man was a terrible husband, beat his wife etc. The wife had few options, …

Equally vastly fewer women are now satisfied with simply staying at home, cooking, cleaning and raising the children…

I disagree with some of what you say here, but will not go into those specifically…

Suffice to say that no human set-up is perfect, because it is filled with imperfect human beings, and I agree that there were other forces loosenings the bond of marriage in oir society.

Really, do you think if we made contraception illegal tomorrow people would stop having sex, or that women would return to the stove and accept their position as “homemaker”? The horse has definatively bolted, and even if the rise of contraception was part of the social change which you are referring to, taking it away will not change things back.

Well, I don’t think that we can make these changes without a lot of other changes, nor do I advocate it; my purpose is to describe the context of my further remarks. I may have gone into too much detail, but I figured better too much than too little.

Understood, although I can’t say that I agree with this position. Indeed the reality out in the world as far as I can see is that where most people don’t use contraception they still merrily engage in sex. Take a trip to South Africa for example, rampant HIV and other STD’s, minimal use of contraception.

Well… the societies in Sub-Saharan Africa have had a lot of other pressures.

 

[St_Francis]

Hi Candide,
this is part one…

Hi Francis,

I’ve been lurking on this thread and found the conversation interesting to follow, but I wanted to respond to this point because there appears to be an unwritten assumption here - that we can affect peoples sexuality by educating them (or “advertising” as you have called it above).

Until the 1800’s, there wasn’t really a concept of “homosexuality” as some sort of innner tendency; just the behavior. The idea that the behavior occurred existed, but not the idea of “sexual identity.”

What I have seen is a continuum of sexual behavior/identity, and I think that it’s pretty plain to see. We see homosexual people, bisexual people, and heterosexual people.

Now I will digress to more background. Human nature is such that people enjoy pleasure. In fact, when people experience a pleasure, they will often attempt to replicate whatever they perceive as the cause. If I eat a bite of a new type of chocolate candy and experience pleasure, I will buy some more, right? In fact, marketers will gice away free samples for that precise reason.

Now, consider the above continuum. Most people are pretty much heterosexual, while others experience varying amounts of attraction to either gender, and then there is a small group at the other end which is pretty much attracted only to their own gender.

Now take adolescents. Their sexuality is new, so to speak, and their experience is nil, for the most part.

What generally keeps things on track for adolescents is the social mores which channel their attraction towards the opposite gender. Most will not need that, and quite a few will benefit from that, but there will be the few whose attraction is pretty much set to their own gender.

For all those in between, they can be affected by the loosening of the social more of heterosexuality and by the homosexual “advertising.” Remeber that what they experience as pleasurable they will want to repeat. If their first experience is with another person of their own gender, they will have strengthened that aspect of their diffuse attraction, and weakened their attraction to the opposite.

Now, I am not saying we should go and beat up homosexuals, but I do believe that what the activist homosexuals are doing is wrong and will lead to many people’s being harmed, and a further weakening of society and marriage.

---

Consider too the possible motive for the activist homosexuals. They see themselves as members of a group, and they see that this group will not reproduce itself. when social mores are strict, there are fewer active homosexuals, so the group of open homosexuals is small. What better way of increasing the numbers of the group than by loosening social mores, which will free homosexuals trying to live chaste lives to join them, by “advertising” to attract those who feel attraction to their own gender but sufficient to the opposite to otherise avoid the homosexual group?

 

[Candide_West]

Then you have done enough research as to factors. *Objective research. *Not subjective stories of dubious value: *You know, the ones which claim, “I always knew I was gay.” *(The convenient revisionist testimony.) Except that no one “knows” or “knew” that, because internal and environmental forces combined to begin the shape the individual before that individual (1) had conscious knowledge of what was going on (2) developed enough long-term memory to be able to retrieve reliably the pathways of that shaping.

Perhaps I haven’t researched far enough, I’m willing to go further, although for the sake of this discussion it’s only really useful to consider sources which are available online.

*Second, even choice is complex. *For example, not making a decision is a decision. *Passive acceptance is a decision. *Drifting into a behavior is a decision. *One can make choices, particularly as a young child, before one is aware of doing so. *Generally, young creatures of various types choose what is most apparent, choose what comforts, choose what provides security, choose what is most obvious, choose because they feel dependent, choose based on needs they are not even aware of. *They don’t analyze too much. *Yet they are making choices, even though as Catholics we do not hold them morally accountable for those choices until the age of reason (about age 7)

Yes indeed, choice is a complex. Agreed.

*When any of us say “I always knew” (anything) or “I never made a choice about ____”, all that means is that we cannot locate in time, in retrospect, when we first felt comfortable doing something, identified with some activity (loving classical music, whatever). *It means that in an immediate timeframe we would not be able easily to retrace what drew us to feel certain things or act certain ways or even take on certain roles. *And even after long-term memory sets in, after age 3-4, we still are not always conscious, then or later, of making choices, but we may very well have made choices, and psychological treatment often uncovers those. *(The child who “decides” that the oldest sibling doesn’t have much in the way of leadership skills, so he steps in to fill that role instead; the child who “decides” to behave a certain way to gain the affection of one of his parents who is difficult to please, and thus that child feels a need to accommodate.)

Interesting, are you suggesting that we are born largely tabula rasa and that all the things we consider to be inherent parts of our personality are in fact learned behaviour from before we can remember?*

*You should do a search on CAF for many of those discussions and links. *InSearchofGrace has participated in many of them and shared many resources. *There have been dozens of threads on this in the last 3 years minimum. *It gets tiresome to repeat everything about once a week on CAF.

I’ve searched around, I found InSearchOfGrace and looked through a few scores of posts. Indeed there are a lot of references there, but I didn’t find any which related directly to the subject at hand (whether sexuality is influenced by environment or individual choice) perhaps you would be good enough to identify a post or a reference for me? Just one good one would be fine for the purposes of discussion at present.

*Then again your reading is rather limited; I’m sorry. *Notice that I didn’t say “entirely determines” sexuality, but it does enormously influence it, and any authentic, respected book on psychology and the development of sexuality in the individual (and it is a development; it is not static like eye-color) will affirm that sexuality develops over time and is fluid for a considerable period. *We experiment in various ways with sexuality when young; some of that is even through simple role-playing – that kind of investigation. *Some of it is with our imagination.

Ah I fear that in search of brevity I have misstated my position somewhat here. I’m aware of psychosexual development etc. And the way that our approach to and thoughts about sex are shaped by earlier experiences etc. But I view this as at least partially separated from what I would describe as the individuals sexuality. By which I mean the basic landmarks of their sexual identity (ie to which gender they are attracted, which gender the individual perceives themselves as etc).*

I’m not sure that this is any clearer, and I must admit that the line of separation is somewhat fuzzy. But I do think there is a distinction to be made. For example, take a man who has a fear of sex or another similar feature of his sexual development and wishes to resolve it. With a supportive relationship and possibly counselling it’s very likely he’ll be able to change that situation.*

On the other hand take a man who is homosexual and trying to make himself heterosexual. Is there a method which is even remotely reliable for achieving this? Again as far as I can tell (and I have looked), no. And it isn’t for want of attempts (by churches and other organisations) or will on the part of the participants. The most significant results of such programmes appear to be in teaching homosexuals to contain, deny or repress their desires. It doesn’t get rid of them and it certainly doesn’t give them heterosexual desires.*

I can only assume that the same would apply in reverse, although I’m not aware of any programmes which have attempted to make people homosexual.

 

[Candide_West]

Great

Well, no, that’s not what I was talking about. I would say almost all people who believe that people with homosexual tendencies should remain chaste–no sexual activity outside of a tradition (two-gender) marriage–hold that to be true for everyone. We are not saying, heterosexual people can have sex whenever, but not hoosexuals.

Understood. I was just agreeing that limitations are and should be put on sexual behaviour and gave an example. I suspect your restrictions may be different to mine but I suspect requiring consent at least will be one we hold in common.

No, this view ignores reality. First of all, it ignores the reality that the end of the sexual act is procreation. If you look at the Guttenberg Institute’s statistics on abortion, you would be amazed at how many women are seeking an abortion who report using birth control properly. You can’t just wish that away in a search for “bonding, intinacy” etc.

As I said, in an evolutionary and biological sense, yes. But so what? The biological and evolutionary purpose of running is to enable us to catch prey, and evade predators. Of course humans now do it for enjoyment, exercise or sport more often than for those purposes.*

The point is that we can use an activity for a number of different purposes, the evolutionary purpose is not necessarily the only valid one, or even the primary one for every individual.

*If we ignore the feminist fantasy that there are no true differences between the genders, then we can see that men and women bring different strengths and weaknesses to a situation. In a single-gender parenting situation, you lose the balance that a traditional two-gender parenting situation has. This means that there is a lack for the child(ren) involved.

As I said I tend to agree, but I can’t help but acknowledge that I’m biased, and lack any data to make any allowances for that bias. Perhaps this will be an area of interest as more data becomes available.

*Well, I am talking about societies in general, not specifically Catholic societies. In general, societies tend to encourage a covenental bond in marriage, a stronger bond than a mere contract.

True, my question is I guess how you define a covenant. How’s it different from an oath, promise or contract? If it is in some way related to your religious view that God is involved in the union then does that still apply in purely secular marriages?

Ummm, there have always been people who had trouble with chastity who looked for a form of birth control, but they were outside the norm that society was encouraging.

Depends which society you are referring to. If you mean western cultures over the last few hundred years then certainly. Beyond that, different cultures have encouraged different things at different times.

*With Malthus, the original over-population Chicken Little in the 1700’s, and with changes in the Western economies with the Industrial Revolution, birth control was improved but legally prohibited, along with very strong religiois views against it.

As birth control was opened for married people and after the Anglican Lambeth Council which reversed its previous stance against birth control, then there was increased pressures to allow birth control first for married people, then for unmarried people. But overall, the Sexual Revolution could not bave happened the way it did without an available form of birth control which was perceived as very reliable.

So you are saying that methods of contraception were around for hundreds of years without causing the effects you mentioned. This seems to be supporting my point here.*

Perhaps it’s also worth noting that within a generation of the great social changes of this century (such as the rise of sexual equality) the sexual revolution was complete (think of the “swinging” 60’s).

Certainly if there had been no reliable contraception then things would have been different. But we can of course say that for any technological or societal development.

*Corelation does not equal causation. All these things could not have happened on this scale without a supposedly reliabla form of birth control.

Equally you could say that reliable contraception would never have been made widely available if it hadn’t been for the social changes which were already happening.*

*I disagree with some of what you say here, but will not go into those specifically…

Suffice to say that no human set-up is perfect, because it is filled with imperfect human beings, and I agree that there were other forces loosenings the bond of marriage in oir society.

Ok.

*Well, I don’t think that we can make these changes without a lot of other changes, nor do I advocate it; my purpose is to describe the context of my further remarks. I may have gone into too much detail, but I figured better too much than too little.

No worries, it was an interesting wander in it’s own right.

*Well… the societies in Sub-Saharan Africa have had a lot of other pressures.

True, true. But none the less it’s a society where contraception is much less widely used, and STD’s are much more common. So blaming STD’s on contraception appears erroneous.

 

[Candide_West]

Hi Candide,
this is part one…

Until the 1800’s, there wasn’t really a concept of “homosexuality” as some sort of innner tendency; just the behavior. The idea that the behavior occurred existed, but not the idea of “sexual identity.”

Fair enough, but of course just because we weren’t aware of it doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.*

*What I have seen is a continuum of sexual behavior/identity, and I think that it’s pretty plain to see. We see homosexual people, bisexual people, and heterosexual people.

Indeed.*

*Now I will digress to more background. Human nature is such that people enjoy pleasure. In fact, when people experience a pleasure, they will often attempt to replicate whatever they perceive as the cause. If I eat a bite of a new type of chocolate candy and experience pleasure, I will buy some more, right? In fact, marketers will gice away free samples for that precise reason.

Ok.

*Now, consider the above continuum. Most people are pretty much heterosexual, while others experience varying amounts of attraction to either gender, and then there is a small group at the other end which is pretty much attracted only to their own gender.

Ok.

*Now take adolescents. Their sexuality is new, so to speak, and their experience is nil, for the most part.

Ok. Depends what you mean by experience I guess, you could argue that most early experience happens in the head.

*What generally keeps things on track for adolescents is the social mores which channel their attraction towards the opposite gender. Most will not need that, and quite a few will benefit from that, but there will be the few whose attraction is pretty much set to their own gender.

Well this again appears to be where our views diverge. I don’t think that a surrounding environment will have a terribly great influence on a developing sexuality. At least not in a predictable way. Ie one person with some level of natural inclination to homosexuality raised in a highly homophobic environment will turn out homosexual, another similar person will turn out heterosexual. Equally in a more balanced social environment you may well end up with the same results or reversed etc.*

Nor do I think that the kind of educational material which appears in schools represents anything substantial about an individuals awareness of homosexuality. For example when I was at school, no teachers ever mentioned anything about homosexuality, but my classmates and I were well aware of the subject by the age of about 14. And that was before the Internet existed.

All in all, I think even if you honestly believe we should try to prevent homosexuality, you still don’t really have a case for stopping schools from educating children that it exists and not to discriminate.

*For all those in between, they can be affected by the loosening of the social more of heterosexuality and by the homosexual “advertising.” Remeber that what they experience as pleasurable they will want to repeat. If their first experience is with another person of their own gender, they will have strengthened that aspect of their diffuse attraction, and weakened their attraction to the opposite.

Again I don’t agree here. I’ll grant that it’s theoretically possible. That some adolescent reading a story about Jack and John instead of Jack and Jill might decide to give homosexuality a try. But it seems somewhat unlikely. However its much more reliable that a child raised with awareness and acceptance of different racial groups, religions, sexual preferences etc etc. Will be much less likely to discriminate against those groups.

*Now, I am not saying we should go and beat up homosexuals, but I do believe that what the activist homosexuals are doing is wrong and will lead to many people’s being harmed, and a further weakening of society and marriage.

You say that you are not suggesting we go and beat up homosexuals, but you are suggesting that we cease an activity (education) which has a good track record in preventing discrimination (like beating up people of a different race / religion / sexuality). So while you are not carrying out any violence yourself or actively endorsing it, you don’t want society to follow a course which will prevent it either.

*Consider too the possible motive for the activist homosexuals. They see themselves as members of a group, and they see that this group will not reproduce itself. when social mores are strict, there are fewer active homosexuals, so the group of open homosexuals is small. What better way of increasing the numbers of the group than by loosening social mores, which will free homosexuals trying to live chaste lives to join them, by “advertising” to attract those who feel attraction to their own gender but sufficient to the opposite to otherise avoid the homosexual group?

I’m afraid this is a bit too conspiracy theory for me. Firstly why would homosexuals particularly want to expand their group? It’s not like say religious groups which believe they have a God given duty to expand. Nor do they need to reproduce themselves - given that homosexuality is probably older than human civilisation and doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.

I think a much more logical and likely explanation for gay pride campaigners etc is that many homosexuals have suffered from homophobia at some point in their life (whether it is insults and discrimination or physical violence) and want to reduce or prevent such problems for themselves and others in the future. Very similar to other forms of anti-discrimination campaigners and in my view a laudable objective.

 

[Candide_West]

A quick message to Annie and Elizabeth,

Just wondered if either of you have any further thoughts for this thread. Sorry to pester, but I try not to be involved on too many threads at a time as I struggle to get the time to write. I’ll leave it a couple more days and if I don’t hear anything further i’ll move on elsewhere.

Thanks for your thoughts either way, was interesting chatting with you.

Kind regards

 

[St_Francis]

A quick message to Annie and Elizabeth,

Just wondered if either of you have any further thoughts for this thread. Sorry to pester, but I try not to be involved on too many threads at a time as I struggle to get the time to write. I’ll leave it a couple more days and if I don’t hear anything further i’ll move on elsewhere.

Thanks for your thoughts either way, was interesting chatting with you.

Kind regards

Sorry Candide! I had tried to post something a few days ago but it didn’t go through.

 

[St_Francis]

Fair enough, but of course just because we weren’t aware of it doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.*

Sure, some people may have been at the exclusively homosexual end of the scale, but there wasn’t a concept that people were something, but that they engaged in certain behaviors. Someone who was celibate was simply considered non-active but not something.

Ok. Depends what you mean by experience I guess, you could argue that most early experience happens in the head.

Whatever, I don’t think kids think all that much about sex til adolescence and then it falls in with where they are on the scale unless they discipline their imagination, which they won’t if all they have heard is that homosexual activity is perfectly ok.

Well this again appears to be where our views diverge. I don’t think that a surrounding environment will have a terribly great influence on a developing sexuality. At least not in a predictable way. Ie one person with some level of natural inclination to homosexuality raised in a highly homophobic environment will turn out homosexual, another similar person will turn out heterosexual. Equally in a more balanced social environment you may well end up with the same results or reversed etc.*

What you describe is precisely what you would expect if sexuality lay along a continuum rather than being a set-in-stone group of divisions, which seems to be what you suggest.

You also ignore the volatility and impressionability of adolescents. In many ways, they are like still-damp clay: they cannot be changed a lot, but they can still be modified.

I do not believe in tabula rasa; I have 4 children so any belief I might once have held fled in the face of that reality However, children can be guided to change a great deal within the parameters with which they are born.

You can’t change a basically quiet, retiring child into an extroverted talker, but you can teach the child to be reasonably sociable. Or not.

We have so much evidence for the results of various types of experiences that I am surprised that you think that one’s sexuality is so rigid and defined.*

Nor do I think that the kind of educational material which appears in schools represents anything substantial about an individuals awareness of homosexuality. For example when I was at school, no teachers ever mentioned anything about homosexuality, but my classmates and I were well aware of the subject by the age of about 14. And that was before the Internet existed.

Oddly enough, there was no education about homosexuality when I was growing up either. And the amazing tthing is that I also never heard about bullying targeting homosexual (?) adolescents, either.

All in all, I think even if you honestly believe we should try to prevent homosexuality, you still don’t really have a case for stopping schools from educating children that it exists and not to discriminate.

I am not all for teaching children not to discriminate against homosexuals, but if that was all that this education were about, then it wouldn’t bother me too much. I think that children should be taught not to bully anyone, which does not seem to be what is happening at the schools.

However, some of this type of “education” goes way beyond simply teaching students that homosexual behavior exists and should not be a basis for bullying. And why this has to start at such an early age is simply beyond me.

Again I don’t agree here. I’ll grant that it’s theoretically possible. That some adolescent reading a story about Jack and John instead of Jack and Jill might decide to give homosexuality a try. … Will be much less likely to discriminate against those groups.

I tried to make clear that not all students would be interested in homosexual behavior after being taught about it in the schools, only a certain segment.*

I think that schools should teach students not to engage is sexual activity outside of marriage or else stay out of the sex ed business altogether. Why should my tax dollars go to teach children to do something inimical to our society?*

And in the same way, I do not understand why students should be taught about something which is, on a social level, also destructive.

You say that you are not suggesting we go and beat up homosexuals, but you are suggesting that we cease an activity (education) which has a good track record in preventing discrimination (like beating up people of a different race / religion / sexuality). So while you are not carrying out any violence yourself or actively endorsing it, you don’t want society to follow a course which will prevent it either.

I just have the strange idea that each child should be taught not to beat up anyone. Each child should be taught not to bully anyone.*

I’m afraid this is a bit too conspiracy theory for me. Firstly why would homosexuals particularly want to expand their group? It’s not like say religious groups which believe they have a God given duty to expand. Nor do they need to reproduce themselves - given that homosexuality is probably older than human civilisation and doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.

Sociability is a fact of human nature. People want to be accepted as normal. An increased percentage equals an increased perception of normalcy. Not a conspiracy theory, just human nature.

I think a much more logical and likely explanation for gay pride campaigners etc is that many homosexuals have suffered from homophobia… Very similar to other forms of anti-discrimination campaigners and in my view a laudable objective.

They want acceptance for what is objectively a mortal sin–how can this be right?

You may say that because we live on a multi-moral society that we cannot impose our morality on them, but how then can you justify their imposing their moraliity on us?

 

[St_Francis]

So really the question comes down to whether we wish to educate young people so they know homosexuality exists and shouldn’t be discriminated against. And do it in the same way we teach them it’s wrong to discriminate based on race, or religion, or gender…

Depends on what you mean by teaching children that homosexuality exists. What age of children? What aspects of homosexuality’s existing? I had to explain this to my children when they were going into single-sex environments so they would be able to protect themselves. But I taught them in a way that did not go into a lot of detail and would not make it seem interesting.

I also taught me children (who are homeschooled) to treat people decently, even ifthey were different in some way. I don’t see the need to go further than that. Bullying is bullying, whether the victim is handicapped, homosexual, heterosexual, whatever.*

I do not think it is right to discriminate against people based on innate characteristics, but I do think it is ok to discriminate against people based on their actions or characteristics they choose.

Or alternatively keep quiet and let them make up their own minds. In truth I have a great deal of belief in the ability of the younger generations to make sensible choices on their own (provided we don’t actively teach them discrimination) so I’m pretty open minded on this question.

I don’t think that refusing to teach is the correct attitude, either. That is an abandonment of our jobs in raising children.

Children do not actually make better choices if they are left alone. Where do you think discrimination started? If it has to be taught, then where did it come from?*

No, human nature is not all good, nor is it all bad. The problem is that it is usually easier to be bad than to be good. I mean, it’s really hard work being good, and becoming better is even harder.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Bullying is wrong, I don’t care* if the child is “interested” in dogs, bullying them is still wrong

*Actually I do care, I’d make sure they see a therapist to try to eliminate the problem, but I’d still oppose bullying them for it

 

[Candide_West]

Sure, some people may have been at the exclusively homosexual end of the scale, but there wasn’t a concept that people were something, but that they engaged in certain behaviors. Someone who was celibate was simply considered non-active but not something.

Ok, different terms were used at different times. True enough.*

*Whatever, I don’t think kids think all that much about sex til adolescence and then it falls in with where they are on the scale unless they discipline their imagination, which they won’t if all they have heard is that homosexual activity is perfectly ok.

“Discipline their imagination” that sounds immediately worrying. Why not let kids grow up to be who they are? Rather than forcing them into a mould. Would you suggest that we try to discipline children’s imaginations so they only take the career path we think right? Or hold the political views we think they should? **

Call me crazy but I think people are at their best and happiest when they are able to be who they naturally are and do what they truly wish to do. Rather than trying to teach them to want to be a given type of person.

*What you describe is precisely what you would expect if sexuality lay along a continuum rather than being a set-in-stone group of divisions, which seems to be what you suggest.

Agreed, I think sexuality is a continuum of differing shades. I also think we should respect that.

*You also ignore the volatility and impressionability of adolescents. In many ways, they are like still-damp clay: they cannot be changed a lot, but they can still be modified.

Indeed, unfortunately a lot of the time when adults have psychological issues later in life they can be traced back to attempting to mould them (by themselves of others) into something they’re not, repression of feelings / memories / desires etc. These often events often occur during adolescence. So your suggestion above that we can choose to deliberately “modify” adolescents is somewhat worrying.*

*I do not believe in tabula rasa; I have 4 children so any belief I might once have held fled in the face of that reality However, children can be guided to change a great deal within the parameters with which they are born.

There is a line to be drawn between providing guidance and support to a child and trying to make them into something. I’d say that trying to deliberately direct their sexual development falls into the latter category.

*You can’t change a basically quiet, retiring child into an extroverted talker, but you can teach the child to be reasonably sociable. Or not.

Right, I agree.*

*We have so much evidence for the results of various types of experiences that I am surprised that you think that one’s sexuality is so rigid and defined.

Er, I don’t think sexuality is rigidly defined. Nor do I think it should be, as we have discussed we humans naturally have a range of different sexualities. I just think we should respect that fact of our nature (or God given nature if you prefer) rather than trying to shoehorn everyone into a one-size-fits-all sexuality. When it clearly doesn’t.

*Oddly enough, there was no education about homosexuality when I was growing up either. And the amazing tthing is that I also never heard about bullying targeting homosexual (?) adolescents, either.

I didn’t hear much of it either, of course people got called rude (homophobic) names a lot and occasionally someone would get beaten up by people who were calling him those homophobic names. I don’t think any of the victims eventually turned out to be gay, although one of the bullies did.*

Incidentally the worst of the problem isn’t amongst adolescents, it’s when young people who have grown up thinking homosexuals are “depraved” or “sick” etc reach adulthood that the problems seem to get worse. Because they (depending on their social background) tend to decide that homosexuals either need “help”, “fixing” or “punishment”.

*I am not all for teaching children not to discriminate against homosexuals, but if that was all that this education were about, then it wouldn’t bother me too much. I think that children should be taught not to bully anyone, which does not seem to be what is happening at the schools.

Really? What is happening at schools in your area? In mine they are just adding stories about same sex couples into the standard curricular mix (similar to the way text books ceased to show pictures of white kids only a while back).*

*However, some of this type of “education” goes way beyond simply teaching students that homosexual behavior exists and should not be a basis for bullying. And why this has to start at such an early age is simply beyond me.

What are they teaching?*

*I tried to make clear that not all students would be interested in homosexual behavior after being taught about it in the schools, only a certain segment.

Understood, my point was that it seems highly unlikely that people will be swayed so easily over something so major.

 

[Candide_West]

*I think that schools should teach students not to engage is sexual activity outside of marriage or else stay out of the sex ed business altogether. Why should my tax dollars go to teach children to do something inimical to our society?

Well that’s fine as your religious belief, but as per my posts to Reginator, many people don’t share those views. And they aren’t being taught something which is “inimical to our society”, on the contrary, your complaint is in fact that they are NOT being taught something which you think they should but which a large proportion of society disagrees with.

Look at it from the other side, those people who don’t share your beliefs and are raising children without being married. Why should their tax dollars be spent teaching their kids that their parents are sinners and are going to hell? Do you think they would appreciate that any more that you would your kids being taught that their mother is a sinner for not wearing a burka?

*And in the same way, I do not understand why students should be taught about something which is, on a social level, also destructive.

? What is it that you feel is being taught which is destructive to society? Mostly schools serve the purpose of maintaining and perpetuating what already exists in society. That’s why there’s a lag before schools change to match society. For example it was a while after society realised racism was unacceptable that people of other ethnic backgrounds appeared in text books, it was a while after society realised that sexism was unacceptable that school options and course material became less gender biased, it’s been a while since most of society realised that homophobia is unacceptable, now the changes are reaching schools…

I just have the strange idea that each child should be taught not to beat up anyone. Each child should be taught not to bully anyone.

I quite agree, so that’s why I think education should be used as best we can to make sure kids don’t stigmatise disabled people, or those of a different race, or religion, or sexuality. That’s my point on this thread really.

*Sociability is a fact of human nature. People want to be accepted as normal. An increased percentage equals an increased perception of normalcy. Not a conspiracy theory, just human nature.

They want acceptance for what is objectively a mortal sin–how can this be right?

It’s something that you believe to be “objectively a mortal sin”, obviously they disagree, so do I.*

Some people think women leaving the house with face uncovered is “objectively a mortal sin”, but I somehow doubt you’ve donned the burka.

Why should society discriminate against people being homosexual because you consider a mortal sin. But not discriminate against you because you don’t wear a burka which others consider to be a mortal sin?*

*You may say that because we live on a multi-moral society that we cannot impose our morality on them, but how then can you justify their imposing their moraliity on us?

I don’t and they aren’t. When gay people start saying that heterosexual people can’t do X but homosexual people can. Then THAT will be them imposing their morality. IF that ever happens I’ll be on the other side of the fence demanding the same rights for heterosexual people as for homosexual. But just as getting rid of racism and sexism haven’t taken us to the other extreme, I suspect getting rid of homophobia won’t either.

Asking society to treat homosexuals the same as anyone else isn’t imposing “their morality”. It’s actually just wanting the morality society applies to be applied evenly.*

Depends on what you mean by teaching children that homosexuality exists. What age of children? What aspects of homosexuality’s existing? I had to explain this to my children when they were going into single-sex environments so they would be able to protect themselves. But I taught them in a way that did not go into a lot of detail and would not make it seem interesting.

I don’t work in education so wouldn’t presume to suggest how teachers should teach equality in any field. As long as the kids get taught “normal” as being as broad as “normal” really is, then that’s fine with me.

I also taught me children (who are homeschooled) to treat people decently, even ifthey were different in some way. I don’t see the need to go further than that. Bullying is bullying, whether the victim is handicapped, homosexual, heterosexual, whatever.

Quite agree, I think we should get rid of bullying, and it’s adult form - discrimination, altogether.

 

[Candide_West]

*I do not think it is right to discriminate against people based on innate characteristics, but I do think it is ok to discriminate against people based on their actions or characteristics they choose.

I’d disagree here, for a starter that would mean discrimination on the basis of religion would be fine. Can’t we just say that discrimination is wrong? It is clearly inherently unjust.

*I don’t think that refusing to teach is the correct attitude, either. That is an abandonment of our jobs in raising children.

I tend to agree, but teaching kids to do things which are wrong (like discriminate) is worse than not teaching them about the subject at all in my view.*

Children do not actually make better choices if they are left alone. Where do you think discrimination started? If it has to be taught, then where did it come from?

As far as I can tell organised discrimination against homosexuals came from religion.*Probably as part of the development of long term social control using sex which is key to theism *based societies.Not something I’ve read into much though, so more than willing to be corrected if you know more?

*No, human nature is not all good, nor is it all bad. The problem is that it is usually easier to be bad than to be good. I mean, it’s really hard work being good, and becoming better is even harder.

Disagree here. I find it pretty easy to behave in a moral way generally, certainly easier than dealing with the consequences of being immoral anyway. *Of course it cones down to what you call “good” and “bad” though. Conceivably you might argue that many things I do are immoral even though they do no detectable harm to anyone or anything.

 

[Candide_West]

Bullying is wrong, I don’t care* if the child is “interested” in dogs, bullying them is still wrong

*Actually I do care, I’d make sure they see a therapist to try to eliminate the problem, but I’d still oppose bullying them for it

I agree.

 

[St_Francis]

…Discipline their imagination" that sounds immediately worrying. Why not let kids grow up to be who they are? Rather than forcing them into a mould. Would you suggest that we try to discipline children’s imaginations so they only take the career path we think right? Or hold the political views we think they should?

Yes, I think everyone agrees that we should discipline our imaginations. Those who commit mass shootings, rapists, pedophiles, and bullies are all examples of people who do not discipline their imaginations.

Unless of course you think that they should not have been forced into a mold and instead allowed to be who they are?

Call me crazy but I think people are at their best and happiest when they are able to be who they naturally are and do what they truly wish to do. Rather than trying to teach them to want to be a given type of person.

Well, here is where we differ. I believe that people are at their best and happiest when they develop virtue and not give in to the selfish lazy vice-filled parts of themselves.*

You wrote:*I find it pretty easy to behave in a moral way generally, certainly easier than dealing with the consequences of being immoral anyway.

I suspect this might just be because somewhere along the line someone worked hard to mold you into a person of some virtue, at least the virtues of prudence and self-discipline.

However, I am sure you have run across people of little virtue, substance abusers, adulterers, and the like. If they are happy and at their best in this lifestyle, it is generally only temporarily.

Indeed, unfortunately a lot of the time when adults have psychological issues later in life they can be traced back to attempting to mould them (by themselves of others) into something they’re not, repression of feelings / memories / desires etc. These often events often occur during adolescence. So your suggestion above that we can choose to deliberately “modify” adolescents is somewhat worrying.

To be honest, a lot of psychological problems are caused by the cognitive dissonance between what society teaches as true and what one can sense is true.*

For example, many teens think that having sex will be a good thing. Later, they often look back and think it would have been better to wait until they were older (at least). There is a dissonance between what society says, that sex is not erribly impprtant, and the experience and reality of its actually being important.

Which may be why there are so many more trpubled people these days than there were back in the bad ol’ days when parents thought tthey were supposed to mold their children…

There is a line to be drawn between providing guidance and support to a child and trying to make them into something. I’d say that trying to deliberately direct their sexual development falls into the latter category.

You may think that allowing teens to form their own sexual development is a good idea, but the reality is that this attitude through society has prompted a great deal of pain and suffering and abuse among teens.*

According to the CDC (a US government health statistics keeper: Centers for Disease Control), two-thirds of sexually active girls either had mixed feelings about their initial experience or didn’t want to. And*Anthony Paik (2011). “Adolescent Sexuality and the Risk of Marital Dissolution”. Journal of Marriage and Family 73 (2): 472 is described as reporting that of girls who firste had sex at the age of 17 or younger, fewer than 10% “completely wanted to” (the percentage goes down at earlier ages of first experience).

As to molding their “sexual identity,” as we have agreed, this falls along a continuum, so most kids wouldn’t need it, others could benefit from some encouragement in the right direction, and others will suffer the cross of tendencies towards people of their own gender.

Should we allow schools to abandon their responsibilities to those in the middle of the spectrum under the guise of fighting something which should be fought across the board? I say no. This is something which needs to be taken care of in a different way.

For information about what is happening in the schools… ETA: I think this is a video I watched part of some time ago, which I was unable to find the link to. This is just part one of the entire video, and I haven’t watched the whole thing. If you’re not into videos, I will try to find a summary, but most of the info I could find about it linked to the parts of it which caused the most concern and all those links have been broken because of copyright concerns.

 

[Candide_West]

Hey Annie, sorry about the delay in replying, I didn’t see your message till today.

Yes, I think everyone agrees that we should discipline our imaginations. Those who commit mass shootings, rapists, pedophiles, and bullies are all examples of people who do not discipline their imaginations.

Unless of course you think that they should not have been forced into a mold and instead allowed to be who they are?

Actually there is a lot of evidence that those who become serial killers, *rapists etc are specifically people who have had their imaginations “disciplined” (either externally or internally imposed). Have a read up on psychological profiles of serial rapists, mass murderers or serial killers and you’ll generally find obvious signs of repressed sexuality.

This is the most widely supported explanation for the cooling off period between attacks for such people. Their sexual desires are repressed for long periods and then lash out when the pressure becomes too great.

So yes, I think it quite possibly would have been better if those people hadn’t been forced into a mould.

*Well, here is where we differ. I believe that people are at their best and happiest when they develop virtue and not give in to the selfish lazy vice-filled parts of themselves.

I agree, I just look a little further into the causes of such things. Generally if someone is fulfilled and happy in their life and has a sense of purpose and achievement, they won’t go off the rails and fall into “vice”.*

So I’d rather we try to make people happy in their lives and thus the short term benefits of “vice” are unattractive. Rather than simply telling people off for falling into “vice” and stigmatising against them while not fixing the cause which inevitably pushes them deeper.

*You wrote:*I find it pretty easy to behave in a moral way generally, certainly easier than dealing with the consequences of being immoral anyway.

I suspect this might just be because somewhere along the line someone worked hard to mold you into a person of some virtue, at least the virtues of prudence and self-discipline.

True enough, of course they didn’t try to “modify” me, I’m glad to say. It was rather simply a question of leading by example.

*However, I am sure you have run across people of little virtue, substance abusers, adulterers, and the like. If they are happy and at their best in this lifestyle, it is generally only temporarily.

Exactly my point. People fall into such behaviour when they are not fulfilled. I’d rather treat the cause, not stigmatise the symptom.

*To be honest, a lot of psychological problems are caused by the cognitive dissonance between what society teaches as true and what one can sense is true.

For example, many teens think that having sex will be a good thing. Later…

Well there indeed I would say we do have a problem. We all teach kids that sex is important and they shouldn’t do it frivolously. But then the media constantly bombards them and everyone else with sex related imagery. I find it childish myself, but as I’m sure you know, sex sells. So the media, inescapably, is saturated with it.

So yes, young people receive mixed messages. On the one hand parents and teachers tell them continuously to wait etc, while the media bombards them with images of sexually active adults. The result is that sex is seen as being in itself a grown up thing to do, so young people wanting to be grown ups, naturally want to do it. Conversely the advice of parents and teachers is seen as being childish as it is only directed at and thus only to be listened to by children. A sort “do as we say not as we do” situation.*

Unfortunate but unsurprising then that people now have sex younger. Again if this is to change then it must be our culture which changes. However, the sexual revolution has happened and reversing it would require something extreme.

*Which may be why there are so many more trpubled people these days than there were back in the bad ol’ days when parents thought tthey were supposed to mold their children…

Curious where you get your stats here? When was this time when there were less “troubled” people around? Looking back over the last 50 odd years there always seem to have been major social problems of one form or another. I’m not sure I’d say things are definitely better now, but can’t think of anything compelling to say it’s worse either.*

That said I’ll grant that we now have more media sensationalism which tell us we’re all doomed etc (fear sells papers too). Despite the much lower crime rates than say 30 years ago.*

 

[Candide_West]

*You may think that allowing teens to form their own sexual development is a good idea, but the reality is that this attitude through society has prompted a great deal of pain and suffering and abuse among teens.

Ok, so presumably that means there must have been a time when society allowed young people to form their own sexual development? Curious when this was. Obviously it hasn’t been recently as society these days takes a worrying detailed level of interest in sexual development (which is a growing trend) and as I said children are endlessly bombarded with sexuality.

As far as I can see society has always tried to direct peoples sexual development, and yes this has indeed caused a great deal of pain and suffering. Of course it’s possible that not directing it wouldn’t be any better, or even worse. But has it ever been tried?*

*According to the CDC (a US government health statistics keeper: Centers for Disease Control), two-thirds of sexually active girls …

Yep, most people would be or at least perceive they would be better off to wait longer to have sex. As I said our culture applies pressure on people to do so earlier unfortunately.

*As to molding their “sexual identity,” as we have agreed, this falls along a continuum, so most kids wouldn’t need it, others could benefit from some encouragement in the right direction, and others will suffer the cross of tendencies towards people of their own gender.

The problem here is the assumptions visible above. If you could somehow demonstrate that homosexual relationships are inherently harmful. That someone cannot be have a happy and fulfilled homosexual lifestyle, etc. And do so without assuming the conclusion (ie without assuming as true your belief that people have immortal souls which are harmed by such “sins”), then you might have an argument for trying to direct people towards heterosexuality. But even then it wouldn’t be ok to try to teach children to stigmatise or otherwise discriminate against homosexuality.

Take a happily married, monogamous lesbian couple who are deeply in love. Do you have any evidence that somehow what they are doing is harmful to them. Note I am not referring to things like “they’re harming their immortal souls”. I appreciate that may be your religious belief, but if they don’t share your belief, why should they obey the rules of your beliefs? I am guessing you don’t wear a burka, correct?

*Should we allow schools to abandon their responsibilities to those in the middle of the spectrum under the guise of fighting something which should be fought across the board? I say no. This is something which needs to be taken care of in a different way.

Again, it is your religious belief that homosexuality is somehow inherently harmful which leads you to thinking we should try to make people heterosexual. Try to appreciate that for people like me who don’t hold that belief, the whole argument falls down.

Similarly others create arguments why women cannot reveal their faces in public. But since you don’t hold the religious beliefs that those arguments are based on you do not agree with the conclusion. You wouldn’t want other peoples religious beliefs to be enforced upon you, other people don’t want your religious beliefs enforced upon them.

*For information about what is happening in the schools

…

Interesting, thanks for that. It seems to be very well done from what you’ve shown there, material appropriate to the age of the children, and directed at battling discrimination. I think one of the young people (looked about 14) made the point best, to paraphrase “I insult gay people and say things about them I know aren’t true. I know it’s wrong but I do it anyway. I should find out the truth before I say anything at all”.