I respect your opinion but perhaps we are talking past each other.

You kind of ignore my referencing the whole bisexuality point....and more heterosexual competition for females when women have always operated on the Pareto principle as it is.

Also only you are referring to this as 'looking down', that's how you want to characterise my position perhaps but it isn't how I see it.

You want to highlight possible benefits you think might be possible for one minority. Whereas I'm taking what I think is a holistic viewpoint.

I'm highlighting why I hold the views on homosexuality that I do. It's not bad or un-natural it's just a sexuality that leads to less births. It isn't a simple matter of there are a 'set' number of homosexuals and that's it.

A society that has no bias towards heterosexuality will eventually have less heterosexual relationships due to the reality of higher female bisexuality.

So I feel there is a scientific argument that is lost in all the 'feels'.

Sure again, I agree with elements of this.

Still we differ on emphasis, you appear to believe that truths about the less easy facts of life mean that we are 'looking down on people'. Again, I don't believe in that characterisation.

Life is nuanced and complicated and equality is a human concept that the current law presents as some factual part of nature. I just say it's better to talk in general principles in how you treat people rather than focusing on specific groups.

Essentially I made the argument that I did for many years that identity politics should be kept out. You make the opposite argument for the identity group you're focused upon.

I know in reality that this can was opened a while ago as your side won and mine has lost due to social liberalism via generational change. So my response in that case is 'identity politics for all' not just selected parties.....and I will highlight the value of the traditional family unit to my children as having a societal breeding point and that their sexual choices ultimately do have an importance.....because if one or both of them are bisexual or gay....I still regard that there is value in the continuance of their genetic line and that every child has an intrinsic right to both a father and mother.

However, I will also teach that homosexuality is a natural occurrence in nature just as being left handed is and that an individual makes as big a deal about it as they choose to.....and that shame is a ridiculous emotion. No child of mine will regard themselves as less than......independent of what sexually interests them. They will understand that they are, as we all are, products of our genes and the variations within.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2019 10.06pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Everything in proportion of course.....a guy who turned up the event deliberately (lied about it as he was there for hours) a guy who previously had tried to get to Robinson pushing aside women (on video and ignored).....assaults Robinson with the milkshake (lies about it saying it slipped)..All on video but ignored in favour of lying to fit a narrative....Held up and celebrated by various and many figures.....the editor of the Daily Mirror being one that particularly annoyed me.

People have a right to oppose and criticise Robinson....but the truth should matter. What this event shows...as with the violent Muslim gang protest a few days later....is that the truth doesn't matter.

It's just another chip chipped away.

I think a long memory is better at the moment.

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 May 2019 9.43am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

As always you make a good case, and in lots of your points in this thread I agree with you. I’m thinking this education shouldn’t go the whole way. But how far should it go? I don’t know. The problem with children at all ages and the acceptance of gay people (or children who they think are gay and most probably are, but not all) is that the general messages of accept all and treat others how you’d like to be treated go in one ear and out of the other once the end of form time or year group weekly morning assembly goes. As soon as effeminate Edward walks into the corridor with the other beta males or unpopular and unattractive girls who’ve befriended him he’s going to get the same treatment as yesterday. Unfortunately at that age the confident boys at teenage level would get the message more if the effeminate boy was friends with all the popular good looking girls, although probably unlikely as most at that age are image conscious to extreme levels.

At junior school or even 6 or 7 the effeminate boy will be noticed and treated differently regardless of a general message to treat others fairly.

COYP

Society will of course always have an inbuilt bias towards heterosexuality because there won't ever be a time where the vast majority of relationships aren't heterosexual. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be vastly more portrayals of straight couples than gay, because that's just reality. Appreciating and valuing different types of people doesn't change that fact though. Censoring people out of the picture doesn't benefit anyone but does damage some.

Again though, who's suggesting that most people ending up in a male-female couple raising kids is an idea that shouldn't be front and centre? Not me. Acknowledging the existence of non straight individuals or couples doesn't detract from that one bit. It's just the reality for some. It certainly isn't the 'us vs them' that you appear to unnecessarily view it as here, as gay people are part of families, not separate from them. You can't magic your kids into being anything other than what they will be. Whether you get grand kids or not is clearly profoundly unlikely to be impacted by them realising that gay people and couples exist.

Adding that your kids will be A-OK if they're gay means very little being that it's simply a self declared glowing interpretation of how your outlook 'should be processed' rather of what it actually means to others. You're hardly going to acknowledge that it could and may have already been damaging to your family are you? Taking your kids out of school and away from their friends and social circle over a simple lesson covering same sex couples would clearly mess with their heads if they ended up being gay. There's no way of getting around that. It would be a self indulgent decision, both damaging and disproportionate. As would your 'lifestyle I don't like' type comments. Both sentiments, by the way, are also clearly grossly disrespectful and damaging to gay members of your family. So much for family values.

Edited by dollardays (25 May 2019 11.31pm)

There’s also the issue of the poor s0ds who are raised in same sex households and face the bullying behaviour at school. I really do feel for them in any way they suffer.

COYP

Too many chav or irresponsible parents though and I don’t see the rise in that part of the population decreasing, but growing.

COYP