Anti-Gay groups working with children.

[RootsBooster]

 

I love it how children are now involved in this conversation. They always pop up in any gay thread (eventually).

 

........ isn't that what the thread's about? Children have been involved in the conversation from the start !

[gravey boat]

not sure anyone is saying services should be witheld from gay people. i, for one, would raise hell at anuone who says as such.

 

the point is, though, that any group( religious, companies, charities etc) have some sort of agenda when they 'help'. that is why we have laws to make sure they don't descriminate. they have to work to those rules.

 

and, for the most part, they do. when they don't the law steps in.

 

if someone is that violently opposed to some parts of the groups' edicts they can simply opt out and find a better one. i would force myself, or my kids, on a group run by the BNP or some such. should the same apply if you feel a group's rules on gay people is not right?

 

Yep, there are laws, you're right. And most adults can simply choose to opt out. But how much opting can a child so, or a vulnerable adult? What concerns me more is that we have choice in the future - so if you were in any area where say the only social support for older people was provided by a faith or social group whose values were at odds with many where do the other older people get there needs met? And where do we draw the line - the best example I can give is perhaps a bit daft and hypothetical but what if the local lunch club was BNP run - would that matter?

[Karis]

........ isn't that what the thread's about? Children have been involved in the conversation from the start !

 

Oy, snarky pants.

 

You're right, though! Serves me right for posting at stupid o'clock!

 

But I do hate it when gays + children are involved. We all know full well that being gay isn't contagious.

[Kaimani]

Yep, there are laws, you're right. And most adults can simply choose to opt out. But how much opting can a child so, or a vulnerable adult? What concerns me more is that we have choice in the future - so if you were in any area where say the only social support for older people was provided by a faith or social group whose values were at odds with many where do the other older people get there needs met? And where do we draw the line - the best example I can give is perhaps a bit daft and hypothetical but what if the local lunch club was BNP run - would that matter?

 

i hear you. and it worries me too, all this 'big society' trickery as it means we will end up with a situation where only faith group or other 'invested' groups run things that really should be done, because of their nature, by the government.

 

your analogy, though extreme, in a sense, is apt. and if there was such a lunch club i wouldn't go to it, but i wouldn't want it shut down, unless and until the BNP becomes illegal.

 

we can't say anything we don't agree with should be banned. the SA, for all their faults do good work. and, for the most part, do work where the last thing you're thinking of is your sexuality.

 

i think, in many ways, we do sexualize kids, and everything else, too much. why should it come up at a pool club, day trip etc for kids? and if it does come up in the fact that someone is being bullied for it then no one in their right mind would stand for it.

 

the club are usually for kids with no else to go to. they can't afford fancy clubs and can't go elsewhere coz everything is shut etc. at least they have somewhere to go. not ideal, but better than the alternative.

[onewheeldave]

I once joked that I was a working-class bloke from Mexborough, and that I was born with a healthy dose of homophobia

 

Which, in a sense was true, back at school, in Mexborough, in those days, hostility towards homosexuality was very much the norm and to be called gay was a dire insult.

 

As a child I very much felt that I was considerably more open-minded and accepting than others my age- However, I realised some years back that, despite being relatively open-minded, that I was in fact also homophobic.

 

Not to the extent that I would wish harm on any homosexuals or that I would fail to speak up for their rights, but more that I find the actual thought of gay sex between males to be fairly disgusting.

 

But, despite that conditioned emotional response, I can, intellectually, see that there are no grounds, or valid arguments, that, if 2 males consent to engage in sexual acts, or romantic relationships, that that is wrong, or harmful.

 

(Some may immediately pick up on the fact that, in the sentence above, I refer to finding gay sex distasteful between 2 males, and, they may cite that as an example of homophobia, because of the implication that, were it gay sex between 2 women, it would be OK. And, in reply, I would say they're probably right- as I stated above, i suspect there are elements of homophobia in me)

 

And, despite that emotional response of mild revulsion, it is nothing compared to the emotional response when, as a child, I learned that there were some who took it upon themselves to physically beat up gay men- that i found sickening, and, that probably very much shaped my (in that time and place) relatively open-minded and accepting attitude towards gays.

 

I suspect there's a lot of people who, if they're being honest, are in the same position.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that, just because you find the idea of sex between 2 men (or women) provokes an emotional response of distaste in you, does not mean that you have to go on to condemn gays in any way, or, that you can't defend their rights and put forward arguments as to why it is not wrong to be gay.

 

Additioanally, in terms of the progress of the human race, any increase in acceptance/tolerance towards homosexuality, can only be a good thing.

 

Look at 2 of the major problems facing humanity- overpopulation and broken families.

 

The more homosexual couples their are, the better, in terms of those issues, because, gay couples cannot breed more humans to further stretch dwindling resourses.

 

They can, however, adopt parentless children and provide them with a family environment.

 

Like many, i was of the opinion that it's totally OK for organisations to promote tolerance towards homosexuals- as long as they didn't cross the line and actually promote it.

 

Now however, I'm not sure that it's a problem- if it's true that homosexuality is, arguably, a good thing (for the future of humanity) then would a degree of promotion necessarily be bad?

[Norbert]

I once joked that I was a working-class bloke from Mexborough, and that I was born with a healthy dose of homophobia

 

<snip>

 

 

What a wonderful post. In great contrast to some of the pinhead statements on here.

 

So long as promoting homosexuality is about it being a fine and normal thing to do/be and not 'go on give it a go' then we are in complete agreement and have similar experiences.

 

[Quinnwok]

Do you think it is acceptable for the Salvation Army to be responsible for activities for children and young people aged six to eighteen when they have a policy that prohibits people joining them unless they 'renounce' their homosexuality (like in the army)?

 

I think the whole thing is creepy. I am also concerned that Big Lottery funded programmes are promoting the Salvation Army activities when it is clear that the organisations discriminate against Gay people.

 

what about pro gay groups working with children?

[Kaimani]

I once joked that I was a working-class bloke from Mexborough, and that I was born with a healthy dose of homophobia

 

Which, in a sense was true, back at school, in Mexborough, in those days, hostility towards homosexuality was very much the norm and to be called gay was a dire insult.

 

As a child I very much felt that I was considerably more open-minded and accepting than others my age- However, I realised some years back that, despite being relatively open-minded, that I was in fact also homophobic.

 

Not to the extent that I would wish harm on any homosexuals or that I would fail to speak up for their rights, but more that I find the actual thought of gay sex between males to be fairly disgusting.

 

But, despite that conditioned emotional response, I can, intellectually, see that there are no grounds, or valid arguments, that, if 2 males consent to engage in sexual acts, or romantic relationships, that that is wrong, or harmful.

 

(Some may immediately pick up on the fact that, in the sentence above, I refer to finding gay sex distasteful between 2 males, and, they may cite that as an example of homophobia, because of the implication that, were it gay sex between 2 women, it would be OK. And, in reply, I would say they're probably right- as I stated above, i suspect there are elements of homophobia in me)

 

And, despite that emotional response of mild revulsion, it is nothing compared to the emotional response when, as a child, I learned that there were some who took it upon themselves to physically beat up gay men- that i found sickening, and, that probably very much shaped my (in that time and place) relatively open-minded and accepting attitude towards gays.

 

I suspect there's a lot of people who, if they're being honest, are in the same position.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that, just because you find the idea of sex between 2 men (or women) provokes an emotional response of distaste in you, does not mean that you have to go on to condemn gays in any way, or, that you can't defend their rights and put forward arguments as to why it is not wrong to be gay.

 

Additioanally, in terms of the progress of the human race, any increase in acceptance/tolerance towards homosexuality, can only be a good thing.

 

Look at 2 of the major problems facing humanity- overpopulation and broken families.

 

The more homosexual couples their are, the better, in terms of those issues, because, gay couples cannot breed more humans to further stretch dwindling resourses.

 

They can, however, adopt parentless children and provide them with a family environment.

 

Like many, i was of the opinion that it's totally OK for organisations to promote tolerance towards homosexuals- as long as they didn't cross the line and actually promote it.

 

Now however, I'm not sure that it's a problem- if it's true that homosexuality is, arguably, a good thing (for the future of humanity) then would a degree of promotion necessarily be bad?

 

goog stuff. you're four-wheel-drive-dave from now on.

[Kaimani]

what about pro gay groups working with children?

 

good question.

[flamingjimmy]

what about pro gay groups working with children?

 

Nothing wrong with that.

 

If they were 'anti-straight' groups that went around teaching that being hetero-sexual is wrong and wouldn't let people join unless they renounced their heterosexuality, then you'd have a point, and I'm sure Bloomdido would complain about it too.

 

As things are, you do not have a point.