Not born that way

[J70]

If depends on what you define "change" as. You'd obviously have to adjust to your son or daughter not being straight, but beyond that what difference should it make to your relationship to them? They're still your kid. Nothing about them has changed except what their expressed sexuality is. Instead of them shacking up with a member of the opposite sex, they shack up with a member of the same sex. Everything else is status quo.

I don't see what the big deal is.

I mean I can see why it would be a big deal if you thought homosexuality was this terrible sin or crime against nature, or not "normal". But, increasing numbers of people don't think that way.

The certainty that things would change in any meaningful way is just projection on the part of you and No Wides.

Your son having an operation to get breasts and becoming a "woman", that is normal!  Keep taking the redner kid.

My response to Iceman was to his point about Johnny and Mark kissing under the mistletoe. If you have an issue with THAT, then address it.

As for transgenderism, you appear fixated on the operation/hormone treatment part. Are pre-op trans people ok in your eyes?

[No wides]

If it was so normal the human population would have ceased a long time ago.

Why, because the 90% of the population that is straight wouldn't be enough to keep things going?

By your standard Down Syndrome is not "normal". Rarity doesn't make something unnatural or something to be marginalized.

That's as low as you have went and you have went low, why don't you stick to the debate and not bring in people with learning disabilities.

Are you missing the point deliberately?

I think you are, sad you have to bring in people with learning disabilities to back up your chic liberal views.

[No wides]

If depends on what you define "change" as. You'd obviously have to adjust to your son or daughter not being straight, but beyond that what difference should it make to your relationship to them? They're still your kid. Nothing about them has changed except what their expressed sexuality is. Instead of them shacking up with a member of the opposite sex, they shack up with a member of the same sex. Everything else is status quo.

I don't see what the big deal is.

I mean I can see why it would be a big deal if you thought homosexuality was this terrible sin or crime against nature, or not "normal". But, increasing numbers of people don't think that way.

The certainty that things would change in any meaningful way is just projection on the part of you and No Wides.

Your son having an operation to get breasts and becoming a "woman", that is normal!  Keep taking the redner kid.

My response to Iceman was to his point about Johnny and Mark kissing under the mistletoe. If you have an issue with THAT, then address it.

As for transgenderism, you appear fixated on the operation/hormone treatment part. Are pre-op trans people ok in your eyes?

A man in a dress let him at it, you keep saying transgenderism is normal, and that as a result nothing would change between your son and you if he came home with breasts and a minis skirt - hence I called you out as a bullshitter as it would change, it would change everything, so keep bullshitting you are great at it.

[J70]

If it was so normal the human population would have ceased a long time ago.

Why, because the 90% of the population that is straight wouldn't be enough to keep things going?

By your standard Down Syndrome is not "normal". Rarity doesn't make something unnatural or something to be marginalized.

That's as low as you have went and you have went low, why don't you stick to the debate and not bring in people with learning disabilities.

Are you missing the point deliberately?

I think you are, sad you have to bring in people with learning disabilities to back up your chic liberal views.

So I'm going to have to spell it out slowly, again, for you.

1. You're attacking homosexuality as not "normal" on the basis that it would have led to the extinction of humans if it wasn't.
2. I raised the obvious point that 90-odd% of humans are straight, so how exactly could homosexuality cause human extinction (you ignored this question).
3. I brought up Down Syndrome, another set of traits that naturally affects a minority of people and which could affect someone's ability to procreate, just like homosexuality. I could have used other examples, the point would be the same.
4. And the point, already stated, is that rarity of a trait i.e. it not being "normal", is NOT a reason for suppression or marginalization. But, again, you ignore the actual point (wonder why?).

To summarize: It wasn't a comment at all on Down Syndrome. It was a comment on your, once again, flawed logic.

[J70]

If depends on what you define "change" as. You'd obviously have to adjust to your son or daughter not being straight, but beyond that what difference should it make to your relationship to them? They're still your kid. Nothing about them has changed except what their expressed sexuality is. Instead of them shacking up with a member of the opposite sex, they shack up with a member of the same sex. Everything else is status quo.

I don't see what the big deal is.

I mean I can see why it would be a big deal if you thought homosexuality was this terrible sin or crime against nature, or not "normal". But, increasing numbers of people don't think that way.

The certainty that things would change in any meaningful way is just projection on the part of you and No Wides.

Your son having an operation to get breasts and becoming a "woman", that is normal!  Keep taking the redner kid.

My response to Iceman was to his point about Johnny and Mark kissing under the mistletoe. If you have an issue with THAT, then address it.

As for transgenderism, you appear fixated on the operation/hormone treatment part. Are pre-op trans people ok in your eyes?

A man in a dress let him at it, you keep saying transgenderism is normal, and that as a result nothing would change between your son and you if he came home with breasts and a minis skirt - hence I called you out as a bullshitter as it would change, it would change everything, so keep bullshitting you are great at it.

As I stated in a previous post to Iceman about homosexuality, there is NO reason it would have to change everything, unless your view of your son or daughter's sexuality was framed upon avoidance of horrible, sinful behaviour.

You seem a little confused though when it comes to this.

If its ok for him to wear a dress and (presumably) live life as a woman (and vice versa for your daughter), why the hell does it become a catastrophe only when he or she decides to go the whole hog and transition, physically, whether through hormonal treatment or surgery or both?

Its the same person, same mind, same feelings. All that's changing is that they're altering the physical body to reflect their mind and feelings and personality.

Would you prefer your son or daughter to stay confined within a body they weren't comfortable with just to make you happy or continue to have your approval? They'd be ok as long as your son just stuck to wearing a wig, make-up and a dress?

[The Iceman]

Just reading the crap on here it raises the question as to whether any of those arguing have a gay child. If they had, they would perhaps not be so quick to use terms such as "lifestyle choice". It is insulting in the extreme and denigrates gay people and their families. It is attitudes like this in wider society that causes high rates of depression in the gay community as people struggle to come to terms with their sexuality. Feeling that they are disappointing parents and that they aren't accepted as "normal".

Should any and all sexual attractions be ok and encouraged in case the person feeling them would get depressed for not being accepted? Is anything not normal today? Is everything ok?

Of course not, assuming you're including tendencies such as paedophilia.

Taking paedophilia out of it because Eamonn says it isn't fair.  Why can't other sexual attractions be normal and ok? The argument used here is that we have to normalize it to save lives because people are denying who they are. Why is same sex attraction any more normal than another sexual attraction?

I haven't talked to my kids all that much about homosexuality. My eldest boy is only 8. We lived in Seattle until recently and he seen a few gay couples walking about and his normal (and don't call it otherwise please) is "thats' crazy".
If it was all normal why are so many people on here openly "repulsed" by it?

How about gay people who are repulsed by heterosexual sex?

I'm repulsed myself by the thought of homosexual sexual activity (at least male!  ). Doesn't mean that my discomfort is a valid reason to drive those people back into the closet and criminalize their lifestyles.

You see this is where you take your own ideas and project them on to me. I did not mention criminalizing homosexuality or driving it back in to the closet.  But I don't have to teach my kids that it is normal.  Right now there is really no escape from the indoctrination.  It's being forcibly taught in schools against the wishes of parents (at least in america). It's in every TV show you turn on. My kids are being bombarded with homosexuality - can you not see that? If homosexuals are such a minority in today's world why is there at least one in every tv show? what about gingers? there are more gingers in the world than homosexuals but they don't get that much tv time... (I jest)

No wides comments are a bit extreme but I agree he has a point. I don't know who would look the same at their kids.  Like no change at all? Nothing? Just life as normal with Johnny and Mark over for Christmas dinner kissing under the mistletoe? I don't believe it would be status quo....

If depends on what you define "change" as. You'd obviously have to adjust to your son or daughter not being straight, but beyond that what difference should it make to your relationship to them? They're still your kid. Nothing about them has changed except what their expressed sexuality is. Instead of them shacking up with a member of the opposite sex, they shack up with a member of the same sex. Everything else is status quo.

I don't see what the big deal is.

I mean I can see why it would be a big deal if you thought homosexuality was this terrible sin or crime against nature, or not "normal". But, increasing numbers of people don't think that way.

The certainty that things would change in any meaningful way is just projection on the part of you and No Wides.

I struggle to believe you I'm sorry. 

and can we stop comparing the colour of someone's skin to their sexual attractions. To do so would mean that because all colours of skin are normal then surely all sexual attractions are normal.  We go down a very very dangerous path comparing the two..... this isn't the civil rights movement of today - you're romanticizing it all for a cause to champion and missing the damage it's doing.

What damage?

There are lots of threads out there. Even websites. Go to the American center for disease control and look at the amount of HIV and AIDs related to gay sex.  Look at rectal cancers related to gay sex.  Look at std's related to gay sex.  Read about the average number of partners a gay man has. Lots of this is swept under the rug and this is just physical harm.
If you want to read both sides of the argument there is a book called "making gay okay". If you're willing to try and seek balance at least read it.

And given that you believe the above, what do YOU think society should be doing with respect to homosexuality?

I think we all know lots of gay people.  There's the normally behaved lads and then there's the over the top flaming lads who are more feminine than any woman I've ever met.  The in your face type.
I feel like that's what we get  - in your face - not the people themselves - but this movement, this agenda is being thrust at us from all angles (to many sexual undertones in this haha).  Can we watch a tv show without there being a gay couple.  Can my kids go to school and not be taught it in sex education as one of many alternatives? I'd just like some innocence back in life.  I feel like this whole movement this whole agenda has opened up an anything goes regards to sex and as people we're just going down the gutter...

[No wides]

If depends on what you define "change" as. You'd obviously have to adjust to your son or daughter not being straight, but beyond that what difference should it make to your relationship to them? They're still your kid. Nothing about them has changed except what their expressed sexuality is. Instead of them shacking up with a member of the opposite sex, they shack up with a member of the same sex. Everything else is status quo.

I don't see what the big deal is.

I mean I can see why it would be a big deal if you thought homosexuality was this terrible sin or crime against nature, or not "normal". But, increasing numbers of people don't think that way.

The certainty that things would change in any meaningful way is just projection on the part of you and No Wides.

Your son having an operation to get breasts and becoming a "woman", that is normal!  Keep taking the redner kid.

My response to Iceman was to his point about Johnny and Mark kissing under the mistletoe. If you have an issue with THAT, then address it.

As for transgenderism, you appear fixated on the operation/hormone treatment part. Are pre-op trans people ok in your eyes?

A man in a dress let him at it, you keep saying transgenderism is normal, and that as a result nothing would change between your son and you if he came home with breasts and a minis skirt - hence I called you out as a bullshitter as it would change, it would change everything, so keep bullshitting you are great at it.

As I stated in a previous post to Iceman about homosexuality, there is NO reason it would have to change everything, unless your view of your son or daughter's sexuality was framed upon avoidance of horrible, sinful behaviour.

You seem a little confused though when it comes to this.

If its ok for him to wear a dress and (presumably) live life as a woman (and vice versa for your daughter), why the hell does it become a catastrophe only when he or she decides to go the whole hog and transition, physically, whether through hormonal treatment or surgery or both?

Its the same person, same mind, same feelings. All that's changing is that they're altering the physical body to reflect their mind and feelings and personality.

Would you prefer your son or daughter to stay confined within a body they weren't comfortable with just to make you happy or continue to have your approval? They'd be ok as long as your son just stuck to wearing a wig, make-up and a dress?

You really are as stupid as you come across.

[No wides]

If it was so normal the human population would have ceased a long time ago.

Why, because the 90% of the population that is straight wouldn't be enough to keep things going?

By your standard Down Syndrome is not "normal". Rarity doesn't make something unnatural or something to be marginalized.

That's as low as you have went and you have went low, why don't you stick to the debate and not bring in people with learning disabilities.

Are you missing the point deliberately?

I think you are, sad you have to bring in people with learning disabilities to back up your chic liberal views.

So I'm going to have to spell it out slowly, again, for you.

1. You're attacking homosexuality as not "normal" on the basis that it would have led to the extinction of humans if it wasn't.
2. I raised the obvious point that 90-odd% of humans are straight, so how exactly could homosexuality cause human extinction (you ignored this question).
3. I brought up Down Syndrome, another set of traits that naturally affects a minority of people and which could affect someone's ability to procreate, just like homosexuality. I could have used other examples, the point would be the same.
4. And the point, already stated, is that rarity of a trait i.e. it not being "normal", is NOT a reason for suppression or marginalization. But, again, you ignore the actual point (wonder why?).

To summarize: It wasn't a comment at all on Down Syndrome. It was a comment on your, once again, flawed logic.

So why use it, you made the choice to use people with learning disabilities to backup some logic you have about homosexuality.  It is disgusting, but you don't care as you need to be seen to be liberal as for another set of traits in relation to people with learning disabilities, unreal!

[J70]

For Iceman (sorry lad, the quotes are all messed up, so I'll respond point by point)

Taking paedophilia out of it because Eamonn says it isn't fair.  Why can't other sexual attractions be normal and ok? The argument used here is that we have to normalize it to save lives because people are denying who they are. Why is same sex attraction any more normal than another sexual attraction?

What other sexual attractions are you talking about? I don't think "normality" is the issue when it comes to homsexuality and paedophilia. Children, consent, maturity etc, are the issue. You know this!

You see this is where you take your own ideas and project them on to me. I did not mention criminalizing homosexuality or driving it back in to the closet.  But I don't have to teach my kids that it is normal.  Right now there is really no escape from the indoctrination.  It's being forcibly taught in schools against the wishes of parents (at least in america). It's in every TV show you turn on. My kids are being bombarded with homosexuality - can you not see that? If homosexuals are such a minority in today's world why is there at least one in every tv show? what about gingers? there are more gingers in the world than homosexuals but they don't get that much tv time... (I jest)

Sorry, I wasn't attempting to project or put words in your mouth - after all I did ask at the end what you would have society do.

As for gays and gingers - have gingers been the subject of repression? There didn't used to be many racial and ethnic minorities on tv (some would argue they're still not fully represented). Entertainment mirrors society. It was not a coincidence that Captain Kirk kissed Uhura in Star Trek in the late 60s but it had to be cut from the broadcast in the southern states. As society grows more accepting of homosexuality (or trangenderism - look at the Amazon series, which is pretty decent), tv and movies will reflect that.

On the schools though - what would you HAVE them teach? You say you don't want them driven back in the closet or their lifestyle criminalized, but that some parents don't want their kids to learn about it. So what should be done?

I struggle to believe you I'm sorry. 

That's based on your experiences, not mine.

Projection!

There are lots of threads out there. Even websites. Go to the American center for disease control and look at the amount of HIV and AIDs related to gay sex.  Look at rectal cancers related to gay sex.  Look at std's related to gay sex.  Read about the average number of partners a gay man has. Lots of this is swept under the rug and this is just physical harm.
If you want to read both sides of the argument there is a book called "making gay okay". If you're willing to try and seek balance at least read it.

And what about lesbianism? What are the figures for them? Given that females are usually much less promiscuous than men and thus I would imagine lesbians have lower incidence of STDs than the general population, does that make THEM ok?

I can imagine, given the male psyche and drive, that many gay men avail of casual sex opportunities, but that doesn't make homosexuality or homosexual behaviour wrong. It means that some of them need to cop the f**k on, same as straight people did after the free love 60s.

I think we all know lots of gay people.  There's the normally behaved lads and then there's the over the top flaming lads who are more feminine than any woman I've ever met.  The in your face type.
I feel like that's what we get  - in your face - not the people themselves - but this movement, this agenda is being thrust at us from all angles (to many sexual undertones in this haha).  Can we watch a tv show without there being a gay couple.  Can my kids go to school and not be taught it in sex education as one of many alternatives? I'd just like some innocence back in life.  I feel like this whole movement this whole agenda has opened up an anything goes regards to sex and as people we're just going down the gutter...

I think you're looking for a problem where none exists.

Some men are very effeminate and I guess some of them become quite militant about it due to the history of suppression and persecution. I've no issue with it. If they want to unapologetically announce their arrival as equal citizens, more power to them.

On the kids though, is it not the point that school is supposed to prepare them for life? Would you not rather your kids be equipped with the knowledge they'll need? What happens if one of them does turn out to be gay, but was denied the knowledge that it is not the end of the world, that they will in fact be able to live a fully formed and happy life?

[No wides]

For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.

[J70]

If depends on what you define "change" as. You'd obviously have to adjust to your son or daughter not being straight, but beyond that what difference should it make to your relationship to them? They're still your kid. Nothing about them has changed except what their expressed sexuality is. Instead of them shacking up with a member of the opposite sex, they shack up with a member of the same sex. Everything else is status quo.

I don't see what the big deal is.

I mean I can see why it would be a big deal if you thought homosexuality was this terrible sin or crime against nature, or not "normal". But, increasing numbers of people don't think that way.

The certainty that things would change in any meaningful way is just projection on the part of you and No Wides.

Your son having an operation to get breasts and becoming a "woman", that is normal!  Keep taking the redner kid.

My response to Iceman was to his point about Johnny and Mark kissing under the mistletoe. If you have an issue with THAT, then address it.

As for transgenderism, you appear fixated on the operation/hormone treatment part. Are pre-op trans people ok in your eyes?

A man in a dress let him at it, you keep saying transgenderism is normal, and that as a result nothing would change between your son and you if he came home with breasts and a minis skirt - hence I called you out as a bullshitter as it would change, it would change everything, so keep bullshitting you are great at it.

As I stated in a previous post to Iceman about homosexuality, there is NO reason it would have to change everything, unless your view of your son or daughter's sexuality was framed upon avoidance of horrible, sinful behaviour.

You seem a little confused though when it comes to this.

If its ok for him to wear a dress and (presumably) live life as a woman (and vice versa for your daughter), why the hell does it become a catastrophe only when he or she decides to go the whole hog and transition, physically, whether through hormonal treatment or surgery or both?

Its the same person, same mind, same feelings. All that's changing is that they're altering the physical body to reflect their mind and feelings and personality.

Would you prefer your son or daughter to stay confined within a body they weren't comfortable with just to make you happy or continue to have your approval? They'd be ok as long as your son just stuck to wearing a wig, make-up and a dress?

You really are as stupid as you come across.

It shouldn't be too difficult to answer the question then, should it?

[J70]

For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.

I didn't say they couldn't.

[J70]

If it was so normal the human population would have ceased a long time ago.

Why, because the 90% of the population that is straight wouldn't be enough to keep things going?

By your standard Down Syndrome is not "normal". Rarity doesn't make something unnatural or something to be marginalized.

That's as low as you have went and you have went low, why don't you stick to the debate and not bring in people with learning disabilities.

Are you missing the point deliberately?

I think you are, sad you have to bring in people with learning disabilities to back up your chic liberal views.

So I'm going to have to spell it out slowly, again, for you.

1. You're attacking homosexuality as not "normal" on the basis that it would have led to the extinction of humans if it wasn't.
2. I raised the obvious point that 90-odd% of humans are straight, so how exactly could homosexuality cause human extinction (you ignored this question).
3. I brought up Down Syndrome, another set of traits that naturally affects a minority of people and which could affect someone's ability to procreate, just like homosexuality. I could have used other examples, the point would be the same.
4. And the point, already stated, is that rarity of a trait i.e. it not being "normal", is NOT a reason for suppression or marginalization. But, again, you ignore the actual point (wonder why?).

To summarize: It wasn't a comment at all on Down Syndrome. It was a comment on your, once again, flawed logic.

So why use it, you made the choice to use people with learning disabilities to backup some logic you have about homosexuality.  It is disgusting, but you don't care as you need to be seen to be liberal as for another set of traits in relation to people with learning disabilities, unreal!

All right, I'm disgusting!

Now address the point!

[No wides]

For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.

I didn't say they couldn't.

You implied it.

[muppet]

Taking paedophilia out of it because Eamonn says it isn't fair.  Why can't other sexual attractions be normal and ok? The argument used here is that we have to normalize it to save lives because people are denying who they are. Why is same sex attraction any more normal than another sexual attraction?

Iceman, this argument is quite evil. I know it is propagated by the Vatican, but that doesn't make it any less evil.

Abusing children is completely different to the private actions of consenting adults, the key being consent and being old enough to know what's what. Heterosexual rape is along the same lines as your argument, but no one is arguing for its legitimacy are they?