Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

1…8485878990…218

Comments

  • #2582
    digger58
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 291 ✭✭digger58


    28064212 wrote: »
    That is normal





    So homosexual students should be thought nothing about their sexuality, while their heterosexual counterparts are learning vital information? In fact their sexuality should be totally ignored and not acknowledged?

    I don't understand, do you mean TAUGHT?


  • #2583
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Silvio.Dante wrote: »
    Gay 'marriage' is a very rare phenomenon. The vast majority of countries have no such concept in their legislative books.

    I suggest we give it 50-75 year to see how it goes in countries where its been introduced and we see then if its for us or not...

    Allowing women the vote was a rare phenomenon when it was first introduced. By your thinking, it would only have introduced in Ireland in the last 20 or 30 years!


  • #2584
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Hard to stop bullying in schools when you have people insisting homosexuality is not 'normal' and teachers should not teach that it is 'normal'.

    Teachers should simply remark on what is legal on the subject. No story books with latent bias in them of any kind.

    Stopping bullying is simple. Tell people to stop slandering and abusing others, and tell others to stop beating people up. I have good friends who teach both at primary and at secondary. They don't tolerate abusive terms like "that's so gay", "you're a gaylord" amongst other things. I think that's a great move forward since I was in school (1994 - 2008).

    However, to claim that people must support same-sex marriage to be anti-bullying, or that one must agree with sexual expression other than in a marriage, that's just plain off.

    People get bullied for all kinds of reasons, this is why a generic policy is far better than a specific one. Specific anti-bullying policies undermine the case of many others that are bullied.


  • #2585
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    28064212 wrote: »
    Same old semantic argument about "normal" ey? Very well, there is nothing wrong with it.

    It is not normal that two men raise children. The very fact that they cannot create children together would be a clue. You saying that there is nothing wrong with it, well I obviously beg to differ in relation to kids being brought into this world with the intention of depriving them of either their mom or their dad. Or giving them to a gay couple when there are qualifying nuclear couples available.
    How about an acknowledgement that they exist? That there is nothing wrong with them? That it's ok for them to be who they are? For them to be told that, contrary to what bigots, bullies and homophobes of all stripes may tell them, they are just as human as anybody else, and that they are not some subspecies that can be treated differently?

    You said they would not be getting the vital info in sex ed that hetero folks would. Could you elaborate on this vital info that hetero pupils get, and that pupils with same sex attraction wont get?


  • #2586
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    I was aware of them and didn't really think about them in any detail. I didn't find them to be abhorrent or abnormal, although I was naturally supposed to according to your self.

    Do you remember finding out about them, or do you simply recall always knowing about them?


  • Advertisement
  • #2587
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »
    However, to claim that people must support same-sex marriage to be anti-bullying, or that one must agree with sexual expression other than in a marriage, that's just plain off.

    What do you mean? If you don't support same sex marriage, and you're a state employee who's job it is to educate children on the laws of marriage, do you think a teacher can opt out of that lesson? What about teachers who believe in sexual expression outside marriage, should they be allowed to teach children having sex outside marriage is correct? How would children in the class who's parents are not married be made feel, listening to an adult in a role of authority teaching them that their parents are not acting right? Is that ok?


  • #2588
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    lazygal wrote: »
    My parents had several gay friends in long term relationships and as a child I was baffled as to why they couldn't get married like my parent's were. It meant two people who loved eachother and lived together and went on holidays and brought over yummy food when they came for dinner. You might even call it NORMAL.

    I wouldn't dispute that. Just like if school inculcated that it was the norm, it would likely be no big deal to the kids as they grow up. Its the point of the inculcation after all.


  • #2589
    periodictable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 931 ✭✭✭periodictable


    JimiTime wrote: »
    It is not normal that two men raise children. The very fact that they cannot create children together would be a clue. You saying that there is nothing wrong with it, well I obviously beg to differ in relation to kids being brought into this world with the intention of depriving them of either their mom or their dad. Or giving them to a gay couple when there are qualifying nuclear couples available.

    Reminds me of one of the arguments made by so called Christian groups in the 90s in the US when the debate about allowing gay couples to adopt was in full throttle. One comment they came out with that sticks in my mind was that it would be fine to allow gay couples to adopt HIV+ or kids with AIDS.
    I wonder if you would be of the same opinion. Your line of reasoning on the raising of children makes me think so.


  • #2590
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    lazygal wrote: »
    What do you mean? If you don't support same sex marriage, and you're a state employee who's job it is to educate children on the laws of marriage, do you think a teacher can opt out of that lesson? What about teachers who believe in sexual expression outside marriage, should they be allowed to teach children having sex outside marriage is correct? How would children in the class who's parents are not married be made feel, listening to an adult in a role of authority teaching them that their parents are not acting right? Is that ok?

    I think that teachers should just teach that it is legal without glorifying or promoting it through biased story books and other things.


  • #2591
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I wouldn't dispute that. Just like if school inculcated that it was the norm, it would likely be no big deal to the kids as they grow up. Its the point of the inculcation after all.

    Why would it be a big deal? What was a big deal in our house was judging people who were different to our family and how we did things, I was taught at home that there was no 'normal' because everyone was different. What's wrong with teaching that? I think its great that the normal expression of human love and sexuality isn't a big deal. I plan on educating my children that being gay is no big deal. What would you do if your child came to you and said he or she was gay? Would you think they'd been inculcated into thinking it or would you think of them as normal?


  • Advertisement
  • #2592
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    Teachers should simply remark on what is legal on the subject. No story books with latent bias in them of any kind.

    Stopping bullying is simple. Tell people to stop slandering and abusing others, and tell others to stop beating people up. I have good friends who teach both at primary and at secondary. They don't tolerate abusive terms like "that's so gay", "you're a gaylord" amongst other things. I think that's a great move forward since I was in school (1994 - 2008).

    However, to claim that people must support same-sex marriage to be anti-bullying, or that one must agree with sexual expression other than in a marriage, that's just plain off.

    People get bullied for all kinds of reasons, this is why a generic policy is far better than a specific one. Specific anti-bullying policies undermine the case of many others that are bullied.

    how exactly do you stop people bullying children of gay couples while at the same time wanting teachers to have the ability to skip over same-sex families/relationships? Surely that's a mixed message? :confused:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2593
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    periodictable wrote: »
    Reminds me of one of the arguments made by so called Christian groups in the 90s in the US when the debate about allowing gay couples to adopt was in full throttle. One comment they came out with that sticks in my mind was that it would be fine to allow gay couples to adopt HIV+ or kids with AIDS.
    I wonder if you would be of the same opinion. Your line of reasoning on the raising of children makes me think so.

    Ey? No idea where you get that from, sorry.


  • #2594
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »
    I think that teachers should just teach that it is legal without glorifying or promoting it through biased story books and other things.

    Why do you use the word 'glorifying'? Why is a book 'biased' if it contains stories other than those with your particular religious views? What 'other things' do you think teachers shouldn't be allowed to use to 'promote' (whatever that means, its a curious choice of word) homosexuality?


  • #2595
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    koth wrote: »
    how exactly do you stop people bullying children of gay couples while at the same time wanting teachers to have the ability to skip over same-sex families/relationships? Surely that's a mixed message? :confused:

    I don't know about the schools yee all went to, but I know mine didn't go on about the make-up of everyones family. I was never told in school, 'You should have a mammy and daddy ye know', 'Hey you, Murphy, you only have a ma raising you don't ye? Thats wrong ye know'. Its a total red herring you are presenting. The school don't have to make moral pronouncements about the family, but it can make pronouncements that on no occasion is it accptable to bully anyone.


  • #2596
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    JimiTime wrote: »
    The very fact that they cannot create children together would be a clue. You saying that there is nothing wrong with it, well I obviously beg to differ in relation to kids being brought into this world with the intention of depriving them of either their mom or their dad. Or giving them to a gay couple when there are qualifying nuclear couples available.
    You said they would not be getting the vital info in sex ed that hetero folks would. Could you elaborate on this vital info that hetero pupils get, and that pupils with same sex attraction wont get?

    Heterosexual people sometimes cannot create children together. What about couples like that who use donor eggs and/or sperm. Are they depriving their offspring of their biological parents? Are couple who use such methods to have a family in the wrong?


  • #2597
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    how exactly do you stop people bullying children of gay couples while at the same time wanting teachers to have the ability to skip over same-sex families/relationships? Surely that's a mixed message? :confused:

    You stop the abuse, and you stop the slander, and you stop the violence.

    Much as you do with anyone else who is bullied on any ground.

    I never said to skip over it, I said to teach this without bias. In R.E class teaching about how different faiths regard marriage would be welcome also I think.


  • #2598
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »
    You stop the abuse, and you stop the slander, and you stop the violence.

    Much as you do with anyone else who is bullied on any ground.

    I never said to skip over it, I said to teach this without bias. In R.E class teaching about how different faiths regard marriage would be welcome also I think.

    How do you teach without bias when you want teachers to be prevented from 'glorifying' particular sexual and legal relationships?


  • #2599
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I don't know about the schools yee all went to, but I know mine didn't go on about the make-up of everyones family. I was never told in school, 'You should have a mammy and daddy ye know', 'Hey you, Murphy, you only have a ma raising you don't ye? Thats wrong ye know'. Its a total red herring you are presenting. The school don't have to make moral pronouncements about the family, but it can make pronouncements that on no occasion is it accptable to bully anyone.

    and yet people on thread are calling on teachers to have the ability to ignore material relating to same-sex families. Not very consistent.

    And as a kid who was the son of a widower I know exactly how kids can be because of stereotypes regarding the make up of a family. This was a small village in Ireland during the 80s, all other families were two parent households. Only kid that got worse abuse was the Protestant kid.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2600
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    You stop the abuse, and you stop the slander, and you stop the violence.

    Much as you do with anyone else who is bullied on any ground.

    I never said to skip over it, I said to teach this without bias. In R.E class teaching about how different faiths regard marriage would be welcome also I think.

    And when the teacher/principal talks to the bully, how do you get the kid to understand that bullying someone because they (or their parents) are gay isn't okay without falling foul of your propaganda rules?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2601
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    And when the teacher/principal talks to the bully, how do you get the kid to understand that bullying someone because they (or their parents) are gay isn't okay without falling foul of your propaganda rules?

    You can simply tell the child that it isn't acceptable to bully someone. No slander, no abuse, no violence.

    I stood up for someone who was being mistreated because of his sexuality at school. I didn't have to say that I agreed with everything. I understood his dignity was being undermined, and that he was being essentially being made to be less than the human being that God created Him to be (in His reflection and likeness according to Genesis 1:26-27). That's wrong irrespective of my agreement.


  • Advertisement
  • #2602
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    lazygal wrote: »
    Heterosexual people sometimes cannot create children together.

    Indeed, and we are not shy in saying that in such circumstance that there is something wrong somewhere that prevents this.
    What about couples like that who use donor eggs and/or sperm. Are they depriving their offspring of their biological parents?

    Like with adoption, we would not say that they are depriving a child of their biological parents, as they are providing a child, who would not have existed in terms of the donor, and would not have had parents to raise them in terms of adoption, with a mother and a father.
    Are couple who use such methods to have a family in the wrong?

    No. They are looking to provide a child with a mother and father, so no, I don't believe it is wrong. I do not believe that its right for people to purposely look to bring kids into the world knowing that it wont have a mother or father though.


  • #2603
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    I was aware of them and didn't really think about them in any detail. I didn't find them to be abhorrent or abnormal, although I was naturally supposed to according to your self.

    As a kid I was familiar with the word "gay" as a term of abuse before I knew what it really meant. Once I knew what it meant, it seemed strange to me, but it didn't disgust me, although it was certainly in your best interest to act as if it did. This was in the late 80s / early 90s, a different time. Shortly after I left school, I heard that two lads I'd known in school got beaten up at a house party because they were a couple (I hadn't even known they were gay). Having suffered from bullies myself, I was left with an abiding hatred of bullying in any form or for any reason.

    If kids are being taught about tolerance, treating each other with respect, and the existence of different types of relationships and families then I'm quite happy with that and things have improved greatly. It's very hard to define what "glorification" of same-sex marriages would entail - I would imagine that most children's views of marriage, for example, is formed by their parents, rather than in the school. Children who grow up in a happy and loving home would have a better view of marriage than those who witness their parents fighting all the time.


  • #2604
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    You can simply tell the child that it isn't acceptable to bully someone. No slander, no abuse, no violence.
    that doesn't answer my question. I asked if the person dealing with the bully wants to tell the bully that being gay is normal and bullying a kid because they are gay isn't ok. That surely falls under your definition of propaganda?
    I stood up for someone who was being mistreated because of his sexuality at school. I didn't have to say that I agreed with everything. I understood his dignity was being undermined, and that he was being essentially being made to be less than the human being that God created Him to be (in His reflection and likeness according to Genesis 1:26-27). That's wrong irrespective of my agreement.
    Fair play,philo:) (I mean that in all sincerity (tone doesn't travel well by text;))

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2605
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    koth wrote: »
    and yet people on thread are calling on teachers to have the ability to ignore material relating to same-sex families. Not very consistent.

    They shouldn't be commenting on peoples families, and if they are good, bad or whatever. They never did when I was there.
    And as a kid who was the son of a widower I know exactly how kids can be because of stereotypes regarding the make up of a family. This was a small village in Ireland during the 80s, all other families were two parent households. Only kid that got worse abuse was the Protestant kid.

    Its hardly a stereotype that kids have have a mum and dad. I was the protestant kid in that catholic school, but I was also handy with my fists, so I wasn't bullied. There were two effeminate kids in the school, one was the stereotype wimpish kind of kid and was bullied, the other wouldn't be shy about hitting you a box, he wasn't bullied. Fat kids, 'specky' kids, ginger kids, and quiet kids were bullied, but the thing they all had in common, was that they wouldn't or couldn't fight back. There were many ginger, fat, 'specky' etc kids who were not bullied.

    All in all, we don't erradicate bullying by saying, 'Gingers are people too', We erradicate bullying by condemning bullying, whoever is on the receiving end.


  • #2606
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    JimiTime wrote: »
    They shouldn't be commenting on peoples families, and if they are good, bad or whatever. They never did when I was there.
    so how do you teach kids about anything relating to families without mentioning families? I definitely remember going essays and artwork about my family in primary school.

    Its hardly a stereotype that kids have have a mum and dad. I was the protestant kid in that catholic school, but I was also handy with my fists, so I wasn't bullied. There were two effeminate kids in the school, one was the stereotype wimpish kind of kid and was bullied, the other wouldn't be shy about hitting you a box, he wasn't bullied. Fat kids, 'specky' kids, ginger kids, and quiet kids were bullied, but the thing they all had in common, was that they wouldn't or couldn't fight back. There were many ginger, fat, 'specky' etc kids who were not bullied.

    All in all, we don't erradicate bullying by saying, 'Gingers are people too', We erradicate bullying by condemning bullying, whoever is on the receiving end.

    Actually you do eradicate bullying by saying, "group X are people". During the 80s it was totally normal to see gay guys getting beaten/bullied in movies/TV shows. Look at the equivalent these days, the person who beats up the gay kid is no longer seen as behaving acceptably by his peers.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2607
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    koth wrote: »
    Fair play,philo:) (I mean that in all sincerity (tone doesn't travel well by text;))

    Were you under the impression that we would let things like that happen because of our objections and disagreements? You think that we would walk by a gay person getting a kicking and just think, 'Ah but he's gay. Thats alright'?


  • #2608
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    Actually you do eradicate bullying by saying, "group X are people". During the 80s it was totally normal to see gay guys getting beaten/bullied in movies/TV shows. Look at the equivalent these days, the person who beats up the gay kid is no longer seen as behaving acceptably by his peers.

    I don't think anybody would disagree with you on this thread. Particularly with the bold.


  • #2609
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »

    I don't think anybody would disagree with you on this thread. Particularly with the bold.
    What about saying group x shouldn't be glorified? What does that mean? Is educating children about group x propaganda?


  • #2610
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Were you under the impression that we would let things like that happen because of our objections and disagreements? You think that we would walk by a gay person getting a kicking and just think, 'Ah but he's gay. Thats alright'?

    Nothing of the sort, I was just applauding philo for standing up for someone who was being bullied.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #2611
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    koth wrote: »

    Nothing of the sort, I was just applauding philo for standing up for someone who was being bullied.

    Yep, regardless of why bullies decide to make someone a target it takes guts to stand up for someone else. Nice one Phil.


Advertisement