NationStates Jolt Archive

Even if the study is true, it might only prove the fact that genetics may only play the role of making a child more susceptible to suggestion of enviromental factors.


This is pretty much the view of scientists on this matter, I don't think anyone with an informed opinion argues that it is uniformly either nature or nurture.

Even if the study is true, it might only prove the fact that genetics may only play the role of making a child more susceptible to suggestion of enviromental factors.


This is pretty much the view of scientists on this matter, I don't think anyone with an informed opinion argues that it is uniformly either nature or nurture.

exactly. it's like how musical talent is in part genetics (with some people having brains better designed for complex pitch comprehension etc) but also in part environment. some people will seek out music however they can, but most will only discover their talent if somebody gives them music lessons or encourages them to give it a go.

Even if the study is true, it might only prove the fact that genetics may only play the role of making a child more susceptible to suggestion of enviromental factors.


This is pretty much the view of scientists on this matter, I don't think anyone with an informed opinion argues that it is uniformly either nature or nurture.

exactly. it's like how musical talent is in part genetics (with some people having brains better designed for complex pitch comprehension etc) but also in part environment. some people will seek out music however they can, but most will only discover their talent if somebody gives them music lessons or encourages them to give it a go.

The special talent is in the genes.

It takes lessons/encouragement and an outlet to nuture it.

I find this comparable to the issue in Alabama with the ten commandments.

Then you misunderstand that issue. Moore was advocating a particular religion on public property, in a facility which is supposed to be fair and impartial, no less. Depicting the existence of homosexuals does not advocate a particular relgious belief, and this issue has virtually nothing in common with the other.

Even if the study is true, it might only prove the fact that genetics may only play the role of making a child more susceptible to suggestion of enviromental factors.


This is pretty much the view of scientists on this matter, I don't think anyone with an informed opinion argues that it is uniformly either nature or nurture.

exactly. it's like how musical talent is in part genetics (with some people having brains better designed for complex pitch comprehension etc) but also in part environment. some people will seek out music however they can, but most will only discover their talent if somebody gives them music lessons or encourages them to give it a go.

The special talent is in the genes.

It takes lessons/encouragement and an outlet to nuture it.

exactly. the "potential" for homosexual attractions is in the genes, but it will only surface in certain cases and environments.

in both cases, if the "genes" are a strong enough force then the trait will make itself known even in a hostile environment...some people who receive no encouragement at all will simply be compelled to seek out music, just like some people will still come out as gay even if their families disown them for it.

No offense bottle, but you twisted my words. I sad made more suggestible, not have a nescessary predisposition to homesexuality. They are two mutually exclusive things. By research shown, the suggestibility accounts for most things. People who are gay are more likely to go out on shopping sprees, buy things on a whim, and join into more extremist views. But yes, if you call such a general topic a predisposition, then yes, you are correct.

Homosexuality is a choice, just like Downs syndrome and Alzheimers!

No offense bottle, but you twisted my words. I sad made more suggestible, not have a nescessary predisposition to homesexuality. They are two mutually exclusive things. By research shown, the suggestibility accounts for most things. People who are gay are more likely to go out on shopping sprees, buy things on a whim, and join into more extremist views. But yes, if you call such a general topic a predisposition, then yes, you are correct.

no offense, but your theory isn't supported by any of the current scientific data. sorry i creditted you with the sense to grasp basic genetics and the studies that have been done on homosexuality...i won't make the same mistake again :).

No offense bottle, but you twisted my words. I sad made more suggestible, not have a nescessary predisposition to homesexuality. They are two mutually exclusive things. By research shown, the suggestibility accounts for most things. People who are gay are more likely to go out on shopping sprees, buy things on a whim, and join into more extremist views. But yes, if you call such a general topic a predisposition, then yes, you are correct.

I would be delighted to see this research. If you could somehow fabric^H^H^H^H^H^Hcite or otherwise link to it, I would be interested in reading it. Until then, I'll continue nodding and knowing better.

Homosexuality is a choice, just like Downs syndrome and Alzheimers!
Exactly :D

When you see many gay men have feminine phsysical traits and behave more like women, from an early age on (and the other way round with women), you can conclude that it is natural.

Religion could be just as much a natural anomaly.

-Time for lobotomy again mister Falwell!
-*grrmmlll. drool*
-My god what an improvement!

Ha! I knew reading was bad! I knew it all along!

I live in North Carolina and I remember when that was on the local news. I don't think anybody would believe how shocked people here were about it. That's how shut up in a box the majority of them are. They didn't know homosexuals or homosexual existed until Queer Eye and t.A.T.u. and Madonna and Britney (and so on and so forth) came on their tv.

Anybody else notice that the last page in this topic doesn't exist? :shock:

Anyways. Thanks to all the reasonable people here, I'm glad the fascists got flooded out :)

If anything, I would say books claiming homosexuality unnatural should be banned from school libraries.

Why in hell has this turned into learned behaviorvs inherent behavior? I though it was about what is suitable reading material for a six year old child and if schools have a right to overule his parents wishes?

My position is still, suitability, one way or another, can only be determined by parents for a child that young.

There is an age where a parent should no longer be able shelter their children, but nobody has proposed what that age is.... 18, 14, 12?

The MPAA has ratings systems that start at 13, and based on content go up from there. This may be one of those few occasions where I actually agree with them; though a parent can instruct their children not to go to a PG-13 picture it is nobody elses responsibilty but the child for that wish to be honored.

(it is worth noting that the book in question has no content advisory on it, and anyone reading it would not know until the end what the subject matter at hand is. Sneaky - especially with children)

Even if the study is true, it might only prove the fact that genetics may only play the role of making a child more susceptible to suggestion of enviromental factors.


This is pretty much the view of scientists on this matter, I don't think anyone with an informed opinion argues that it is uniformly either nature or nurture.

Does it matter?

Sorry for the terrible wording. I've been working on a research paper for the last two days on the mating habits of fruit flies :p

No, I'm not aware of any research that has been done on the subject, and these are merely my opinions from personal experience in the area. The first post, however, is completley factual in basis.

Sorry.

Even if the study is true, it might only prove the fact that genetics may only play the role of making a child more susceptible to suggestion of enviromental factors.


This is pretty much the view of scientists on this matter, I don't think anyone with an informed opinion argues that it is uniformly either nature or nurture.

Does it matter?

Here? Yes - some people on this thread don't seem to know, hence it is pertinent to correct their statements. In regards to the issue? Nope.

(it is worth noting that the book in question has no content advisory on it, and anyone reading it would not know until the end what the subject matter at hand is. Sneaky - especially with children)

Where would you place the content advisory? Would this be a PG-13?

And just who is trying to be sneaky? Are you implying that springing the moral of a story on the last few pages is something new? Again, who is all of this really to protect - your child from having to deal with this, or you from having to deal with it?

on the nurture vs nature thing:

i guess my genetics were just too strong for my environment.... unless the minority-hostility in the towns of Bassett in Henry Co VA and Henry in Franklin Co VA were really just a thin vanier. i don't believe in the fact that it has anything to do with nurture. it isn't me trying to "cop out of my wrongdoing" or whatever. i grew up in a place that was hostile to gays, if the issue was even brought up (which it usually wasn't... i didn't even hear the word until 4th or 5th grade, as i mentioned in my other post).

on the real topic, and not the tangent this has turned into:

i don't understand what the big deal with the book is. it's there, some people don't want it, some people do, deal with it. put it on a parental watch list and make the parents come in and look at the book before the child can check it out if you want to, but don't deprive children whose parents will not mind if they read it. and if you want to ban it, ban the following fairy tales as well (reasons included):

Rumplestilskins: in the original, he wanted to woman's baby so that he could eat it. he was also a demon, which could be very detrimental to the children's minds.
Cinderella: as mentioned before, the step-sisters cut their toes off to try to fit in the shoe. also, the prince leaves her at the end for a coluptious milkmaid or somesuch.
Snow White: the witch kills babies and uses their fat to make a potion to retain her youthful looks.
Princess and the Pea: the prince has sex with the princess on top of the pile of matresses.
Alladin and the Wonderful Lamp: lots of modern versions of this one.... but in the original, the reason Shaherizad, who the king forced to marry him, tells the story is because the king is going to rape her and then kill her the next morning if she doesn't distract him, so she tells 1001 stories, one each night (all but the ending so he is left in anticipation and won't kill her until the story is finished, then jumps into a new one immediately). this also violates Christian morals because the woman disobeys her husband's right to bed her (at least, according to Baptists, which is what my mom and step-dad are.. that's the only wedding i've attended and been in the passenger's seat).
Hansel and Gretel: cannibalism. also, the kids kill a woman, even in the newer versions. in the older one, though, she actually succeeded in eating Hansel.

there's a few others, too. especially if it was written by the Brothers Grimm, then it isn't appropriate for kids. fairy tales weren't originally for children to make them feel good and to give them enjoyment. they were originally to scare the kids into obeying, which is why the theme of disobediant children is so common in them. maybe if this King and King book had one of the princes being executed for being with a man when his parents told him to be with a woman, then this debate wouldn't be happening. from what i'm gathering, at least from some of you, this isn't a debate about whether a book about homosexuality is okay for kids, even if it doesn't actually condone it. the real debate is the fact that the child wasn't taught that it is "wrong."

so, addendum to the poll: how many of the people who are against this book would be for it if the gay prince were reprimanded or punished for his evil homosexual ways?

I'm disappointed at the lack of love between Bottle, God's Bowels, Sliders and, erm, the other one whose name I can't remember. Maybe I should write a gloomy sequel.

Ahem.

As for the subject in hand, I think Roma Moon has summed up the general content of 'acceptable' children's stories pretty well.

Incidentally, anyone arguing from the 'religion says homosexuality is wrong' perspective would do well to acknowledge that, no matter how strong their faith, they may be wrong about God's existence. And His opinions. And Their gender. And the 'truth' of the Bible. It had editors, you know...

An extremely valid point. No one can be sure if any god truly does exist. But beliefs rule this world. The belief in god, the believe that homosexuality is right, wrong, or otherwise is merely speculation, and may turn out to be completly wrong, or not even a valid argument. So bringing the belief that there is no god dosen't matter.

Edit: Ahem. Replaced 'fact' with 'belief'... :shock:

...from what i'm gathering, at least from some of you, this isn't a debate about whether a book about homosexuality is okay for kids, even if it doesn't actually condone it. the real debate is the fact that the child wasn't taught that it is "wrong."

Congratulations, I think you just cut right to the heart of it.

Even if the study is true, it might only prove the fact that genetics may only play the role of making a child more susceptible to suggestion of enviromental factors.


This is pretty much the view of scientists on this matter, I don't think anyone with an informed opinion argues that it is uniformly either nature or nurture.

exactly. it's like how musical talent is in part genetics (with some people having brains better designed for complex pitch comprehension etc) but also in part environment. some people will seek out music however they can, but most will only discover their talent if somebody gives them music lessons or encourages them to give it a go.

The special talent is in the genes.

It takes lessons/encouragement and an outlet to nuture it.
Not necessarily...my psych textbook mentioned an autistic savant who had never had any musical traing yet could play complex piano pieces after hearing them once. (one time he played a song with one hand, another with the other, and sang a third...although you do almost have to be brain damaged to do that...)
Now back to reading the rest of the posts!
EDIT: By the way, I love Bottle :D
I'm afraid of how the gloomy sequel might end

I am not saying the book is unacceptable because it contains a homosexual theme, I am saying it is un acceptable because sex should have no place in a 1st grade classroom.

Once again, if I had my way, it wouldn't even be up to the parents to decide what the child could read.

Let alone decide to ban other people's children from reading it.

In fact, I believe I would go far enough to say that homophobes who preach to their children are not fit to raise them. Think of the psychological damage it could cause the child when he starts to realize he's gay!

I don't care what some people say, it's your right to be a homophobe, not to fuck up your child's life.

I am not saying the book is unacceptable because it contains a homosexual theme, I am saying it is un acceptable because sex should have no place in a 1st grade classroom.

that's just it, the book has NO SEX IN IT. the only thing even close to sex in it is holding hands and kissing at the end, just like in your standard children's story where a prince meets a princess.

Why in hell has this turned into learned behaviorvs inherent behavior? I though it was about what is suitable reading material for a six year old child and if schools have a right to overule his parents wishes?

My position is still, suitability, one way or another, can only be determined by parents for a child that young.

There is an age where a parent should no longer be able shelter their children, but nobody has proposed what that age is.... 18, 14, 12?

The MPAA has ratings systems that start at 13, and based on content go up from there. This may be one of those few occasions where I actually agree with them; though a parent can instruct their children not to go to a PG-13 picture it is nobody elses responsibilty but the child for that wish to be honored.

(it is worth noting that the book in question has no content advisory on it, and anyone reading it would not know until the end what the subject matter at hand is. Sneaky - especially with children)

Fine, then the next time an athiest parent says they find biblical stories and stories portraying Christians are offensive to them and they don't want their children exposed to that kind of filth, I'm assuming you will completely support them. As you said, parents have the absolute right to filter what their children see and hear. Of course, this completely discounts all those other parents out there who might not have a problem with it, but so what? They're obviously wrong.

If this was porno with graphic sexual depictions, I would be inclinded to agree with you. However, this is simply a story where two people meet and fall in love, like so many other children's stories. By focusing all this attention on this one book, you turn it into an issue when it doesn't have to be one. In all likelihood, the little girl would have picked up the book, read the story, been fascinated by the pretty pictures and nice colors and then taken it back to the library with NO QUESTIONS ASKED because she wouldn't have realized there were any to be asked. Do little children ask why Snow White falls in love with her Prince? Do they ask why Sleeping Beauty's Prince hacks through briars to get to her? No, because it doesn't occur to them to ask. These idiot parents have made a self-fulfilling prophecy by their own unlawful actions.

And what about that? What are these parents teaching their child by holding the book hostage? A completely inappropriate attitude to law and property rights. Yet no one seems to mind that.

Perhaps this book should be taken out of that school and the people of that district should be allowed wallow in their ignorance. The problem is, we can't prevent them from mixing with the rest of society.

Alas, the book is already banned from the library.

And to think, it's from the same country as me, Holland. :(

I bet if the book had been about 2 girls there wouldn't have been half the fuss.

I bet if the book had been about 2 girls there wouldn't have been half the fuss.

I was just about to say that myself. :p

...from what i'm gathering, at least from some of you, this isn't a debate about whether a book about homosexuality is okay for kids, even if it doesn't actually condone it. the real debate is the fact that the child wasn't taught that it is "wrong."

Congratulations, I think you just cut right to the heart of it.

No, the heart of this issue is if parents do not have the right to determine what age to introduce adult issues to their children.

...from what i'm gathering, at least from some of you, this isn't a debate about whether a book about homosexuality is okay for kids, even if it doesn't actually condone it. the real debate is the fact that the child wasn't taught that it is "wrong."

Congratulations, I think you just cut right to the heart of it.

No, the heart of this issue is if parents do not have the right to determine what age to introduce adult issues to their children.

funny how that "issue" never reared its ugly head when the prince was ending up with a princess...i guess heterosexuality isn't an adult issue, but homosexuality is?

...from what i'm gathering, at least from some of you, this isn't a debate about whether a book about homosexuality is okay for kids, even if it doesn't actually condone it. the real debate is the fact that the child wasn't taught that it is "wrong."

Congratulations, I think you just cut right to the heart of it.

No, the heart of this issue is if parents do not have the right to determine what age to introduce adult issues to their children.

funny how that "issue" never reared its ugly head when the prince was ending up with a princess...i guess heterosexuality isn't an adult issue, but homosexuality is?

*gasp* you mean the price ended up with the princess? PREMARITAL HANKY PANKY

BURN THE BOOKS!

...from what i'm gathering, at least from some of you, this isn't a debate about whether a book about homosexuality is okay for kids, even if it doesn't actually condone it. the real debate is the fact that the child wasn't taught that it is "wrong."

Congratulations, I think you just cut right to the heart of it.

No, the heart of this issue is if parents do not have the right to determine what age to introduce adult issues to their children.

funny how that "issue" never reared its ugly head when the prince was ending up with a princess...i guess heterosexuality isn't an adult issue, but homosexuality is?

*gasp* you mean the price ended up with the princess? PREMARITAL HANKY PANKY

BURN THE BOOKS!

and watch out if the prince ends up with the faerie princess...that's inter-racial marriage!!!! BURN THE LIBRARY!!!

...from what i'm gathering, at least from some of you, this isn't a debate about whether a book about homosexuality is okay for kids, even if it doesn't actually condone it. the real debate is the fact that the child wasn't taught that it is "wrong."

Congratulations, I think you just cut right to the heart of it.

No, the heart of this issue is if parents do not have the right to determine what age to introduce adult issues to their children.

funny how that "issue" never reared its ugly head when the prince was ending up with a princess...i guess heterosexuality isn't an adult issue, but homosexuality is?

*gasp* you mean the price ended up with the princess? PREMARITAL HANKY PANKY

BURN THE BOOKS!

and watch out if the prince ends up with the faerie princess...that's inter-racial marriage!!!! BURN THE LIBRARY!!!

She kissed a frog! BESTIALITY!

BOMB THE AUTHOR CLINIC! I mean...

...from what i'm gathering, at least from some of you, this isn't a debate about whether a book about homosexuality is okay for kids, even if it doesn't actually condone it. the real debate is the fact that the child wasn't taught that it is "wrong."

Congratulations, I think you just cut right to the heart of it.

No, the heart of this issue is if parents do not have the right to determine what age to introduce adult issues to their children.

funny how that "issue" never reared its ugly head when the prince was ending up with a princess...i guess heterosexuality isn't an adult issue, but homosexuality is?

*gasp* you mean the price ended up with the princess? PREMARITAL HANKY PANKY

BURN THE BOOKS!

and watch out if the prince ends up with the faerie princess...that's inter-racial marriage!!!! BURN THE LIBRARY!!!

She kissed a frog! BESTIALITY!

BOMB THE AUTHOR CLINIC! I mean...

the prince kissed Snow White, who he thought was dead!! NECROPHILIA!!!

let's just simplify and KILL ALL CHILDREN BEFORE THEY CAN BE CORRUPTED BY THEIR PICTURE BOOKS!!!

:roll:

...from what i'm gathering, at least from some of you, this isn't a debate about whether a book about homosexuality is okay for kids, even if it doesn't actually condone it. the real debate is the fact that the child wasn't taught that it is "wrong."

Congratulations, I think you just cut right to the heart of it.

No, the heart of this issue is if parents do not have the right to determine what age to introduce adult issues to their children.

funny how that "issue" never reared its ugly head when the prince was ending up with a princess...i guess heterosexuality isn't an adult issue, but homosexuality is?

*gasp* you mean the price ended up with the princess? PREMARITAL HANKY PANKY

BURN THE BOOKS!

and watch out if the prince ends up with the faerie princess...that's inter-racial marriage!!!! BURN THE LIBRARY!!!

She kissed a frog! BESTIALITY!

BOMB THE AUTHOR CLINIC! I mean...

the prince kissed Snow White, who he thought was dead!! NECROPHILIA!!!

let's just simplify and KILL ALL CHILDREN BEFORE THEY CAN BE CORRUPTED BY THEIR PICTURE BOOKS!!!

Okay! But we can't have an abortion, because Jesus says that's babykilling.

the prince kissed Snow White, who he thought was dead!! NECROPHILIA!!!

let's just simplify and KILL ALL CHILDREN BEFORE THEY CAN BE CORRUPTED BY THEIR PICTURE BOOKS!!!

Okay! But we can't have an abortion, because Jesus says that's babykilling.

that's okay, if God killed all the first born i am sure he won't mind us following in his footsteps. hell, he drowned the whole planet, so killing a few post-birth fetuses shouldn't even register on his charts.

http://www.grif.lv/img/products/514l.jpg

Whoops.

*hugs Bottle.*

Back on topic methinks

Whoops.

*hugs Bottle.*

Back on topic methinks

hehehehe, indeed. enough of our foolishness.

*hugs*

i guess heterosexuality isn't an adult issue, but homosexuality is?

correct

i guess heterosexuality isn't an adult issue, but homosexuality is?

correct

:shock:

wow. talk about warped values. now we can all look forward to having our tax dollars pay for the teen pregnancies and medical bills from your children's complete lack of sexual education and values. joy and rapture.

i guess heterosexuality isn't an adult issue, but homosexuality is?

correct

And why is heterosexuality not an adult issue? I know I get up to some heterosexual activities that I wouldn't want my children to know about until they could understand it...

For that matter family members are not allowed to know about these particular ones until they're older than the Marquis de Sade is.

i guess heterosexuality isn't an adult issue, but homosexuality is?

correct

Incorrect. Sexuality is an adult issue.

But the kids (note: kids != children) definitely have to learn about it before they are adults.

so basically, some people don't want their children to know about relatioships, in any way. Understandable, but where is the difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual relationship (besides the obvious)? Both partners love each other. And on the subject of children learning about homosexuality and certain peoples beliefs... the earlier children find out about it, the more comfortable they will be with it. This won't make them gay, but it will mean that they are comfortable with gay people. If children are taught from a young age is it wrong, it's likey thats the view they will take.

Basically, the earlier they encounter it, the more time they have to decide how they feel about it.

PS. Berkylvania you are my hero! :wink:

i guess heterosexuality isn't an adult issue, but homosexuality is?

correct

Incorrect. Sexuality is an adult issue.

But the kids (note: kids != children) definitely have to learn about it before they are adults.

They should be exposed to the pretty version of heterosexuality when they are very young; the "where do babies come from"... then when they are pre-teen they should have almost a full understanding of sexuality, at least on a basic/general level.

After all, kids aren't as stupid as we seem to think...

The only grounds for distinction really is that the first stage of sex education is simply 'x and y spend time together and produce z', where z is a baby. When the child's at the stage that they're not being told anything about what the 'spending time together' entails, then for homosexuality that would be an empty subject, just 'y and y or x and x spend time together'.
Once you're telling the kid anything about the sort of pair bonds that develop, or about the mechanics of sex, there's no real reason to discriminate.
Parents don't need to tell their child which orientation to have- it's superfluous and possibly damaging.
To my mind the book sounds asinine and twee, probably hideously written to push an 'agenda', but not offensive. I can't personally stand all these politically correct "Jamie's two daddies", "Percy and his magic wheelchair", "My mummy and her dildo", "Stuart and his artificial face" books- they talk down to children, and they're written by social workers who, frankly, can't write for toffee, but that doesn't mean they're damaging or 'bad'. So, maybe remove the book because it's too juvenile for the first grade, but not because it might give them 'dangerous' ideas- there's no such thing.

The only grounds for distinction really is that the first stage of sex education is simply 'x and y spend time together and produce z', where z is a baby. When the child's at the stage that they're not being told anything about what the 'spending time together' entails, then for homosexuality that would be an empty subject, just 'y and y or x and x spend time together'.
Once you're telling the kid anything about the sort of pair bonds that develop, or about the mechanics of sex, there's no real reason to discriminate.
Parents don't need to tell their child which orientation to have- it's superfluous and possibly damaging.
To my mind the book sounds asinine and twee, probably hideously written to push an 'agenda', but not offensive. I can't personally stand all these politically correct "Jamie's two daddies", "Percy and his magic wheelchair", "My mummy and her dildo", "Stuart and his artificial face" books- they talk down to children, and they're written by social workers who, frankly, can't write for toffee, but that doesn't mean they're damaging or 'bad'. So, maybe remove the book because it's too juvenile for the first grade, but not because it might give them 'dangerous' ideas- there's no such thing.

Y'know, that's probably the most thought out post I've seen all day...

Well done...

Oh, suggestion: Get out of this forum before it's too late! Begone! It's for your own health! :? :P

I jest... : )

The only grounds for distinction really is that the first stage of sex education is simply 'x and y spend time together and produce z', where z is a baby. When the child's at the stage that they're not being told anything about what the 'spending time together' entails, then for homosexuality that would be an empty subject, just 'y and y or x and x spend time together'.
Once you're telling the kid anything about the sort of pair bonds that develop, or about the mechanics of sex, there's no real reason to discriminate.
Parents don't need to tell their child which orientation to have- it's superfluous and possibly damaging.
To my mind the book sounds asinine and twee, probably hideously written to push an 'agenda', but not offensive. I can't personally stand all these politically correct "Jamie's two daddies", "Percy and his magic wheelchair", "My mummy and her dildo", "Stuart and his artificial face" books- they talk down to children, and they're written by social workers who, frankly, can't write for toffee, but that doesn't mean they're damaging or 'bad'. So, maybe remove the book because it's too juvenile for the first grade, but not because it might give them 'dangerous' ideas- there's no such thing.

*applauds*

Im Christian and Republican, and anti-gay, but i dont think the book should be banned completly, just from the elemenatry school library, if the principles want to waste their school money buying that type of book let them.
And just for the record homosexual relations ARE more dangerous then heterosexual <well gay realtions only>
In fact when AIDS was first identified they thought it was a gay disease only because they were the people who were getting it because blood is involved in gay relationships
I figure everyone will be happy if i dont elaborate

And just for the record homosexual relations ARE more dangerous then heterosexual <well gay realtions only>
In fact when AIDS was first identified they thought it was a gay disease only because they were the people who were getting it because blood is involved in gay relationships
I figure everyone will be happy if i dont elaborate

sorry, you are incorrect. promiscuity is the danger, not homosexuality. anal sex is higher risk than vaginal sex, but heterosexuals engage in anal sex too. and lesbians (why do people always forget about them?!) are at much much LOWER risk for STDs than heterosexual women. lesbians are also safer in terms of how likely they are to be abused by a romantic partner.

also, while gay men were the original critical group in the AIDS epidemic, that resulted in huge changes in the gay community and heightened AIDS awareness. today, the fastest growing group of AIDS patients is heterosexual women, not gay people, and only in America do gay people make up even a significant portion of infectees...world-wide, heterosexual men and women far dominate the numbers of infected people.

please get your facts straight, you're out of date by about 20 years.

all gay relationships involve blood?

<sarcasm>wow, i wish someone had told me about that... i hate blood. terrified of the sight of it. it's good to know that me and my boyfriend are the exception to that rule, because in the year and a half we've been together, never once has there been any blood. i feel so lucky now that i know that blood is involved in all gay relationships. </sarcasm>

i agree that sexuality is an adult issue. but two people holding hands really doesn't have anything more to do with sexuality than a prince and a princess living happily ever after... so if you ban one, ban the other. i'm personally disturbed by the children's story Rumplestiltskins, because it gives children a false conception of midgets and the organic nature of straw, but you don't see me crusading to get that banned.