Did you even read the post you were just quoting?LGBT Relationship Lessons in UK Schools
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Did you even read the post you were just quoting?I think this is one of the issues that makes this so difficult for parents and kids, the language around it is all wrong to start with. There is no other subject where we "have the talk" than sexual health, reproduction etc. I have two daughters (8 and 10) and even though I realise it is wrong, I still find menstruation an awkward topic and almost died when my 8 year old asked me how sex works and "does a man really do that with his willy, 'cos that sounds disgusting!" but why is it a talk, why is it a pressurised moment, we don't have the talk about walking or shitting and at the end of the day it's no different.
We build this stuff up so stupidly and the end result is we make it difficult for ourselves, the kids and the schools ... tits, the lot of us!
Probably because shitting doesn’t result in a new human coming out of you.
Anything to ignore the question again I guess.
When you quoted yourself you left out this bit;
Because it was impossible so far to fixate any point of contention and go from there. As soon as I tried to challenge something specific, the goalposts were moved, albeit probably not on purpose
The point of contention is you said something was homophobic but won't explain why.
I'm trying to be polite but I've reached the limit of my patience. Either answer the question, or pipe down.
don’t pretend like you need lessons!Would it be weird for a 40 year old to sit in on these lessons
Which part of "I'll be busy today but will reply in detail as soon as I have time" did you not understand? That was my statement *yesterday morning*, which I even quoted again for clarity, after you kept on complaining why I'm not answering on the day I said I'll be unable to answer. At the end of the post I reiterated:
The response now is another two posts complaining why I haven't already answered.
@Synco as bringing racism into it just derails the thread. That's why I said to just leave it.
I still think the same. But apologies for the misunderstanding.
I still think the same. But apologies for the misunderstanding.
Do some people in this thread actually mistake children for pets? You can tell them about LGBT and how normal it is all you want. Or not. It doesn't matter for how they'll actually think about it after growing up. Humans form their own thoughts, instinctively know what's right or wrong or normal or not normal and they can also change their thoughts and what they were taught when they were children, maybe even have a tendency to "rebel" against their parents.
Look up how many known porn stars come from strong religious families.
Look up how many known porn stars come from strong religious families.
You can say whatever, but you would be disappointed on your kid, less proud, less full fullfillment in YOUR (selfish) dreams. in conclusion: less
That is not true. You might love someone to a certain level.ALWAYS. And depending on the accumulating of the situations of how that person is, you will love them more or less
If you would have a kid that will spit on you, hit you, vile racist, steal, being a killer, a sadist that will enjoy torturing people, that will kill his mother (your wife), etc... I can guarantee that you will love him less and even hate him.
These are very extreme cases, of course and I am not saying that being homosexual is comparable, basically because being homosexual would not be in any degree of negativity or disappointment in my scale of values (but for some people yes and in different degrees), and I am not saying that anyone here would hate a kid and would not love their kid because he is gay, simply, they would love them less, even if it is from 100% to 99,99999%, basically because in their own words, they would be disappointed because he/she would not fulfill their dreams
Nah
No offense but this is really stupid.
You're telling me if I hope my kid likes video games and he doesn't I will love them less? Garbage. So I basically can't have any personal vision for my child?
Well, you see, first, the male puts his wee-wee into the female's hooha.
My problem with your "logic" is that it tries to use biology to justify a discriminatory opinion.
We'll call it homophobia in the context of this thread because it appears a number of posters have an irrational fear of discussions about same sex relationships turning their kids gay. Logical enough for you?
Ding ding ding ding.
The homophobia card! Comes flying out whenever your opinion isn't validated as the only acceptable opinion.
And whenever your opinion is literally homophobic.
What is your problem with basic logic?
If you get accused often enough of homophobia to call it "the homophobia card", you should consider whether your rhetoric is clear enough. Unless you're actually homophobic, in which case you should stop that.
You can. And depending on your vision and how they are, you will love them more or less. Unless you want to play the PC card
Not directly replying to this - as there's nothing to disagree with - just using it as context for a curiosity as you previously mentioned the idea of heterossexuality being natural.
I'm pretty sure I have already read that of all the extant big apes, humans are the ones who exhibit less frequent homossexual behaviour (I'm not sure how scientifically reliable this is, methodologies for this kind of study must be hard to come by with, so it's probably just an informal assessment of people who studied these animals).
However it kind of makes sense, as humans are the only big ape who discriminates against this behaviour. In this light, if people want to use the "natural card" then the most likely "natural" orientation for a species as ours would be bissexuality (IIRC strict homossexuality is very rare in other animals).
Ultimately though, most "natural" arguments are just falaccies.
Nonsense
PC card ?? This is pure insanity. Do you love your mom less if she doesn't support Man United?
Sport team pick is not a preference nor I would be disappointed with my loved ones, neither sex orientation. I would be disappointed and love less someone if they would be racist or homophobic for example
Well YOU'RE the one comparing it to racism or homophobia. The whole thing started from me and a few other posters saying in our minds we would want our child to be straight for personal preference reasons but if they weren't we wouldn't love them any less. You started assuming this definitely means we love them less.
You would be frustrated, fearful, or even disappointed but I don't think you would love them less.A son is not a friend
Sorry this is just untrue, I have two children and the instinct I have to love and protect is something that I have no control over, it's hardwired into my brain.
But I can be disappointed in them and would be if as you say they turned out to be homophobic or racist (they haven't yet, but they've disappointed me lots of times) The mistake you are making is maybe a linguistic one, but you can't conflate loving a child less and being disappointed with a child's choices.
You are just explaining what is happening. Don't see the point of your post
Thats why I would still love my kid but to a less degree. I definitely I would love my kid and try to make him think and correct him about racism and homophobia. But if he would decide to act and for example attack those collective, It would definitely make a huge dent on that love and maybe for the worse
Now you will tell me that parents never hated they kids and viceversa
Blood is thicker than friendship, but as well has a limit
I don't doubt about the hardwiring. Truley I don't. But again, it all depends on what you kid does. Having preferences and disappointments will not make that hardwiring disappear is not all of nothing, is just less
And again, it all depends on limits, there are actions that there are no harwiring that could resist. Imagine that you would be Richard Huckle parents.
As well, there are different level of parenting love. Some might forgive everything (but I am sure they would love them less) but not everybody, and I am sure you would not like to be tested on certain levels
Well, I'm afraid our cases are different. Mine can be real bastards that I can't imagine loving them less.
Always assuming that we talk about those feelings of hate, not about being a mass murderer, or something similar, and even in those cases ...
So there is a limit and there is a grade. That is all what I am saying
I know that for your kids you would reach lengths that would defy logic, never said the opposite
Of course there is a degree, although I do not think that with issues of love it is so defined, and what I am saying is that you are placing it very low.
You have said that if your son is a homophobe, you may love him less, and from what I understand reading the thread, if your son wants your grandson to be heterosexual, it is a reason to love him less?
No my love for my children does not depend on what they do, that's the point. My emotions in terms of anger, disappointment, pride or sheer horror at their actions change on a regular basis, for example my eldest has punched her younger sister in the face in an argument over lego. I find the action reprehensible, I am disappointed, I'm furious .... but I still love my eldest in exactly the same way.
If my child turned out to be Richard Huckle, I would be horrified, I'd snitch on them in a second and I'd be devastated that my child could do something so awful (I think I would also blame myself rather than the child and wonder where I went wrong), but would it stop me loving them? I don't think anything could, it's biology.
My point is you're being ridiculous for saying a preference makes you love your kids less. Especially those saying they will not love their kids any less.
Well, of course it depends on your moral values. As I said even if it goes from 100% to 99.99999% is loving less. but anyway. I said it all and I wont lose my time. Different opinions
Like I have the opinion that such a preferences are homophobic, even if slight
I am out of that spin off of conversation
Glad someone else picked on this. I got banned for biting back on being called a bad parent purely for stating an opinion (a fairly mild one at that). I doubt the other poster even got an infraction. We also had someone else calling people morons who received no warnings because he was arguing against a conservative opinion. There's definitely more polarizing, discussion halting, condescending tone from the liberal view in this thread but it's the other side that get called intolerant.
But that's lefty caf for you.
It's not that far fetched, in some countries many parents disowned their child for taking different religions, some even refused to attend their wedding because they married someone from a different religion or different race. Forget big things such as religion / race, relationship broke down for much less.
Agree? Disagree? It's another debate.
But yes, if you see things beyond the scope of liberal western perspective than these things happens, and it's quite the norm in many countries.
We weren't talking about other countries or even other families or our neighbors. Of course it happens but if someone like myself and other posters on here are saying there's nothing wrong in having a preference of how our child would be like it's ridiculous to hear we wont love them if they turn any other way, especially when we're saying it's not the case (and it doesn't have to be said).
I think key here is that love, aggression (in a broader sense), and selfishness aren't mutually exclusive.
Everybody growing up with family will know that they usually coexist. One can love his or her child, and at the same time be selfish and overbearing when it comes to some things.
Everybody growing up with family will know that they usually coexist. One can love his or her child, and at the same time be selfish and overbearing when it comes to some things.
When I refer to the homophobia card, this is what I'm talking about. The assumption that x must mean y because they said z.
I'm not saying that you are deliberately doing that, but there is a general sense of it in the thread.
I know homosexuality is natural. If it wasn't animals wouldn't do it, and also surely it would have been bred out of humans. I never used the word unnatural or even went down that path.
Many many pages of nonsense ago, arguments were being made that if you are not happy with your kids being gay, you must be homophobic.
I said that for heterosexual people, the urge to procreate is biologically driven, so it's sensible to expect that they will also want thier children to pro create.