It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We're here! We're queer! We're 13!

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
But tell me, is homosexuality equally okay as heterosexuality?


Simple questions require a simple answer. I see no difference to differentiate between the two, so....

Yes.




posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Simple questions require a simple answer. I see no difference to differentiate between the two, so....

Yes.


Ok so if there is no difference and they are equally ok than a world where 100% of the population are heterosexual would be fine.

And a world with 100% of the population being homosexual would also be fine.

But.... wait...... wouldn't that mean the end of the world?
Wouldn't that mean the human race will no longer have a future?

This is a hypothesis, doesn't have to be likely to happen or not.

Do you still think they are equally okay?

Because we both know we can say a world where 100% of the population is heterosexual is fine. But whether it will happen or not, we cannot say the same for homosexuals.

And if you respond by saying well only 10% of people are homosexual, well if you hide behind the lowest denominator then you in fact DO NOT believe that they are equal.


[edit on 27-9-2009 by ModernAcademia]



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
This is a hypothesis, doesn't have to be likely to happen or not.


Sorry - and you won't like me for saying this but theres not much I can do about it - thats not a hypothesis, its gibberish.

Why?

Because you are attempting to try and justify something with an absolute of your own device.

We aren't dealing in absolutes.

We're dealing with the real world and real people.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


bah
that's just realizing that your wrong and not wanting to answer the question

and even IF i agree with you about your argument on absolutes, your argument STILL hides behind the hope of remaining in the lower denominator.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Just jumping in at this point in response to OP. At an age when most children start to feel attractions for the opposite sex (NOT sexual feelings even, just attractions) there are some children who have the same attractions for the same sex.

I am glad to see nowadays honesty about these feelings, on the part of the young people as well as their family members. I saw one too many marriages in past generations degrade into unhappiness and dishonesty, when one spouse finally admitted to not being the heterosexual they claimed to be.

A co-worker's daughter and her partner were married, the daughter became pregnant, and now the couple is a family. Grandpa is proud.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
First of all, as I'm sure a few people have already pointed out but I honestly don't have time to read all the gay=bad-or-good arguments and they would probably just make me mad, so I will just say what I want to say.

So first of all. Being gay isn't about having sex with people. It is about loving people. About wanting a caring relationship with someone of the same gender as you. As the article stated, some of these kids haven't even kissed yet so you OBVIOUSLY did not read the article you are posting about. It says almost none of them have actually had any sort of sexual experiences. You can't say you didn't have any crushes as a kid! It is along those lines. I can verify that I like boys since the second grade, I was maybe 7 or 8! I know of many people who matured quickly, including one boy who learnt how to...ahem....enjoy himself... at six! This is the way the world is going, and there is nothing to change earlier maturation. Hey, this should be a good thing! The earlier your kids mature, the less time you have to spend your money to raise them and feed them, the earlier they can become actually mature enough to go out on their own! Right? (Please do not yell at me saying 16 years olds or whatever aren't ready to move out and be self sufficient. I mean eventually.)

Second of all, this article made me cry. It was amazing and beautiful and I do not even know these kids yet I am so proud of them!
It is VERY hard coming out as anything other than 100% straight.

These kids are being very mature about this, so much more than I think even I could have been/was, and I am only 18, it is not that long since I was in middle school!

I for one, came out in grade 9 and dated a girl, and it was terrifying. Even though I changed schools eventually, and moved to a different city, it followed me around. Which I dealt with.
And hey, if they eventually decide that it was just a phase and they were totally wrong, oh well. They made a little mistake and now they can go on with their lives being straight or whatever. Thousands of people have lived a long time as "straight", even having families! Then they realized they weren't straight. Hey, maybe being straight is "just a phase"!
Wouldn't you all love being told that? "You want to...do what? But...that will make babies! Urgh that's disgusting you are sick"
lol
Seriously though leave these kids alone, it is hard enough dealing with this in your own mind, let alone with people ganging up on you who don't even know you and judge you solely on your orientation.
These kids, at the very least, are being very, VERY brave. They are telling people, "hey, I am something you do not like." and they are prepared to deal with the consequences.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by BiohazardsBack

Please help me to understand this:

Being gay isn't about having sex with people. It is about loving people.

You see, homosexuality as I understand it is about preferring sexual relations with a member of the same gender. As far as loving someone of the same gender, that is IMO completely normal. I loved my father; we are (well, were) both male. I love several of my close friends; we are all males. I am sure if I had a brother, I would love him, even though we were both males. The difference is that I would have absolutely no sexual interest in any of these people.

'Love' does not equal 'sex'. Love is a deep emotion; sex is an act of reproduction (or facsimile thereof; a mating).

So exactly when did simply loving someone define one's sexuality? I missed that memo...


TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Well I think she's talking about romantic love obviously, not just love for a family member or a friend.

Let's face it, humans are complicated animals, and for most of us, there is far more to "sexuality" than just the physical act of intercourse.

For most people, there is an emotional aspect to it as well, your mileage may vary



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex

OK, but does not romantic love include a desire for sexual conduct? I romantically love my wife; that goes well beyond simple lust (sexual attraction), but it does include such.

Believe me I know full well the different types of love. but I am having trouble with the concept that the term 'homosexuality' does not include 'sexuality'. I have no trouble with loving anyone until such a time as that love brings on a sexual component. At that point, sorry, but it's female only for me. I know people who feel the same way, but their sexual attraction is to the same gender. They identify themselves as 'gay' or as 'homosexual'.

Is homosexuality a sexual attraction, or not?

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Hmmmmm, sexuality is an interesting topic. Boy, I'm glad my days of "sex leading to procreation" are over. My husband (he and I are heterosexual....no bi even) and I enjoy sex just to...well...enjoy sex. Of course, being a heterosexual female doesn't mean I'm going to have sex with every male I know.

It's probably like being homosexual doesn't mean you're gonna enjoy a sexual relationship with every person of the same sex you know. You're gonna have friends, then you're going to have that special one who you are intimate with.

Now, I'm going to stop here, 'cause here is not the place to discuss exactly how two people can be physically intimate.

Oh, a heterosexual or homosexual person can decide to be celibate, so there's no physical intimacy with anyone. Or some people can have little to no desire for physical intimacy.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


In a world where 100% of the population were homosexual, there would still be births. It's just that these would be done for the sake of the species, not for selfish reasons as it is often so. You think that out of billions of people, not any of them would feel obligated to preserve the species, even if they didn't want to? I think it would be a good thing, because only the most dedicated and responsible human beings would become parents. And it's a moot point anyway. Homosexuality is either genetic or psychological in that it can come out of an error in the genes, of which there are thousands in every human alive, or from abuse at an early age. In some or possibly many cases it's both, but only one in ten people are homosexual. It's been that way forever. Nothing anybody says will change that. If you want to get rid of the gays, go join the KKK and beat a few to death. I have nothing more to say to you.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Syrus Magistus]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
First, I would accept my children regardless of the sexual orientation.

BUT, when a child is 12 they should be engaged in school, sports, music, art etc. They should not be focused on sexual orientation.

When I was 12, I knew the facts of life but I'm not really sure that I believed them.

I say give kids the time to be kids. We need to slow down societies desire to sexualize children and let them grow up first.


I agree with you wholeheartedly. If people would jump off the PC train for one minute they would recognize that playing on swingsets, playing hide and go seek, playing any freakin' thing on the planet is ten times more fun than growing up. The perks of sex do not in any way, shape, or form outweigh that superfine feeling of playing flashlight tag in the dark, telling ghost stories in a tent or the other wonderful moments of childhood.

All too soon, sex and its consequences, advanced schooling and the loans, mortgage payments, bills, taxes will invade.

Sex is like some crappy trade-off for having to grow up and be responsible.

Were there children that were in my kindergarten that would grow up to be gay? Yes. Did they know it? No. Why? Because sex wasn't talked about. They just hung out and played like other kids. Little girls will say cute stuff like they want to grow up and marry their daddy. They say this because they are innocent and don't know.

Why must we explain to any child what gay OR straight is? Why, when all too soon their little bodies will figure it out for themselves?



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
As to the OP, 13 may be young, but is an extremely normal age to start questioning sexuality. When I was 14 I briefly dated a guy who lost his viriginity at 13 and broke up with me because I wouldn't sleep with him. (At 14!!) So we can say that it's "too young" but kids are going to do what they will. If a 14 year old is dead-set on sleeping with as many women as he can, then clearly 13 years old isn't to young to discover sexuality (for him at least!)

As for some of the ignorant and hateful things in this thread, I personally hope they never find the gene to "fix" homosexuality. I happen to have several homosexual and transgendered friends and I absolutely love them MORE for being the way they are. This world would be so lonely without gays. They have brought unique art, music, fashion, and beauty to this world. The world would be a much less interested place without them.

And if my children tell me they're gay, I'll love them that much more as well.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by desert

It's probably like being homosexual doesn't mean you're gonna enjoy a sexual relationship with every person of the same sex you know.

I understand your point, but one doesn't have to be promiscuous to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. As an example, I am happily married and would never cheat on my wife, bu that doesn't mean I won't bend a few eyeball muscles when some gorgeous creature in skimpy clothing walks across a parking lot. My wife still checks out he guys as well, even though I have no concern over her faithfulness to me.

I would assume that someone who was gay would feel the same way, only about members of the same gender. Check them out, have that lust reaction, but but be able to control it at the same time and remain faithful to their special someone.

I see nothing wrong with that form of lust.

But I find it strange that no one has yet been able to answer my question: if homosexuality is not sexual, what is it? Is there a lust component to it, or is it something completely alien to me?

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by BiohazardsBack

Please help me to understand this:

Being gay isn't about having sex with people. It is about loving people.

You see, homosexuality as I understand it is about preferring sexual relations with a member of the same gender. As far as loving someone of the same gender, that is IMO completely normal. I loved my father; we are (well, were) both male. I love several of my close friends; we are all males. I am sure if I had a brother, I would love him, even though we were both males. The difference is that I would have absolutely no sexual interest in any of these people.

'Love' does not equal 'sex'. Love is a deep emotion; sex is an act of reproduction (or facsimile thereof; a mating).

So exactly when did simply loving someone define one's sexuality? I missed that memo...


TheRedneck

It is actually about prefering fulfilling relationships with the same sex, not just having sex.
Let's put it this way. Your son is 13. He starts dating a girl who is 13 because he thinks she is pretty, funny, and smart. He knows that she will not have sex with him because she has said she is too young. He dates her anyways, because he likes spending time with her.
Now you can replace "girl" with "boy".
It is the EXACT same thing.
Not every single relationship in everyone's life is based around sex.

Do you divorce your wife when she becomes barren, because "it is unnatural" to have sex without a possibility of reproduction?
Is being sterile or hitting menopause disgusting because "if 100% of the population is sterile, the world will end"? Should we shun those who choose to remain in relationships despite the complete inability to procreate due to an illness, or simply age?
I know people who have been sterile their entire life. They are teens/early 20s. Should they be banned from having a relationship just because they cannot make a child?

My whole point was that in this article, there was no mention of 13 year olds having sex. There were several mentions of 13 year olds who had never kissed anyone. They knew they were gay through means OTHER than sex.
I know I had crushes on boys when I was very young, 7 and up essentially. Did I want to have sex with them? No. Did I even know what sex WAS? Not at all. All I knew is that they were cute, or funny, or any other trait that I found interesting.

The whole point I was trying to make is that not all relationships that are romantic are sexual. Kids have "girlfriends" at like, 10. They maybe hold hands, and play together at school and work on homework together. It is not the same thing as them thinking about sex constantly and wanting sex with people. It is just interest in them as a person.

And yes, it can BECOME sexual, once the person themselves becomes sexual.
But you can definitely know you want a romantic relationship with someone before you know you want a sexual one.
Many straight couples date for months before they kiss, if they are that young. If it is not sexual for a 10 year old to say "I have a girlfriend" then why is it sexual for him to say "I have a boyfriend"?
That was my point.
That, and the fact that being gay doesn't mean you are HAVING sex with people of the same sex as you. And people know they are straight from a young age, why shouldn't they know they are gay? I know there are flirts in elementary school, I met a few of them when I was that age!
I am just saying, having a relationship does not mean you are "sorrupting the young children with sex"
Because gay kids don't develop sexual interests sooner than straight kids. They just generate more controversy because it is "abnormal".

Just read the article. There are many mentions of kids who have never kissed, who do not think they are ready for sex yet at all, and who know they are gay. I highly doubt that they will ever change their minds, unless it is to pretend to be straight to avoid conflict, which I have seen MANY people do.

(Oh, and I knew a boy in 6th grade who was maybe 11 or 12, and was definitely gay. I knew it, and I barely knew him at all. It is sometimes VERY obvious.)



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
What is happening to our society is we are unable to be honest with ourselves and society itself.



The irony of that statement is so overwhelming I think I need to have a short nap.

I know a few lesbians, and all of them knew that they preferred women before they ever even had sex. They just knew, half of them lived the normal life until about 20, before outting themselves to their family if they did at all.

I think knowing who you are, and being open about it is being honest with ourselves. To suggest these people should repress their feelings to appease your sheltered view of life in general is almost repulsive. Thus, the immense irony of your statement.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by BiohazardsBack

It is actually about prefering fulfilling relationships with the same sex, not just having sex.

But sex is an essential component, is it not? Even if, as you say, the child is not actively pursuing it, the idea of sexual relations is still there.

I am actually leery of the recent trend to allow such young children to 'date', regardless of sexual activity that may or may not be happening. In my opinion, anything under 15 is too young to even be exposing them to the possibility of sex. Hormones have enough influence as it is without assistance.

I remember a couple of girls I wanted to 'date' back in school. I wasn't ready for sex; heck, I probably wouldn't have been sure enough to figure out what went where.
But there was still a sexual component of the attraction. When I was around other guys, I would act differently with them. I wanted to be around them, but not intimate. With the girls, I wanted to be as close as possible. I wanted to touch them. I wanted to know everything there was to know about them.

That is a sexual component. That is the desire to reproduce coming to life, even though it may not have blossomed yet.

Now, if you say that it is somehow wrong to feel the same way if the child is gay, that it is OK to feel 13 is too young for straight children but not OK if the child is gay, I have a problem with that. If you say that straight or gay should have no bearing on the age when actions are appropriate, that is something I can at least understand.


Do you divorce your wife when she becomes barren, because "it is unnatural" to have sex without a possibility of reproduction?

Of course not! that is a silly question.


Is being sterile or hitting menopause disgusting because "if 100% of the population is sterile, the world will end"?

It was not I who made that argument.

But your response is based on a misunderstanding of the argument. Menopause is a result of a woman's inability to continue having children. It is actually an indication that she had a very good chance of bearing children previously.


Should we shun those who choose to remain in relationships despite the complete inability to procreate due to an illness, or simply age?
I know people who have been sterile their entire life. They are teens/early 20s. Should they be banned from having a relationship just because they cannot make a child?

Again, I did not make those arguments. I asked a question. So, if we are operating in the spirit of assigning arguments arbitrarily, I ask you this: Why do you believe a relationship must necessarily end in children?

Please read the below response carefully. I think it explains the reason the majority of the country has a problem with gays in general, as well as expands on the problems with your assumptions towards me.


I am just saying, having a relationship does not mean you are "sorrupting the young children with sex"
Because gay kids don't develop sexual interests sooner than straight kids. They just generate more controversy because it is "abnormal".

See, I do not agree that allowing formal relationships at such a young age is appropriate for any child. As stated before, anything before 15 is too young. So why am I being branded as 'homophobic' because of this?

If there is any force that is continuing to cause me concern about openly gay activity, it is this double standard: anything seems to be OK as long as a person is gay, even if it is not OK for straights. The argument that sexual preference is a minor difference is made moot when attempts to present it as major are regularly offered.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



Ok for starters, I was not responding ONLY to you. I refuse to double-post and so I fit everything into one post.
And just because you don't think anyone under 15 should be allowed to have any kind of dating relationship doesn't really matter, now does it? You are not the parent of these children.

Many people date at 13 or 14, I know people older than me who had sex at 12. To me, that is messed up and I do not think that girls are physically ready at that point. I also think that sex at that young will lead to emotional and psychological problems. But I also know that people have self-control. I know that I went over 2 years between "I want to date" and "I want to do that"
My hormones didn't overwhelm me, and I was perfectly happy going along my way dating without sex. How happy my boyfriend(s) may have been, I'm not quite sure.


Your statement about how it is bad that this is ok for gay people and not for straight people is flat-out ridiculous. Have you ever walked into a middle school dance? It is full of couples. Obviously you are in the minority, if not in your area, then at least in general. I know I was teased for not having a boyfriend as young as 12. It has become the norm, and if you want to raise your children your own way, obviously nobody is going to stop you from saying they can't date.
Again, if you had READ the article, it included at least 2 kids who were told by their parents "OK. You're gay and that is ok I guess, but you aren't allowed to date until you are (15, 16, 18, etc)"
So no. Being Gay does not even equal HAVING a relationship with someone of the same sex. It means you know that is what you want, even if you only want it eventually. When I was younger I knew a gay friend who did not want to get into a relationship until he was a bit older.

Please, even if you do not have time to read every post which is understandable, if you are going to get into a debate about a news article, at least read it. I know it is long, but if you had read it then none of this would have come up, you see. Because it shows that side of the argument.



EVERYONE - PLEASE ACTUALLY READ THIS ARTICLE BEFORE YOU BASH IT
-sorry but this is obviously necessary because you are at least the third person I have seen who obviously did not finish reading it, as they made points already covered in the article-



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
edit: internet malfunctioned and I got a double post. Oops.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by BiohazardsBack]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
reply to post by neformore
 


bah
that's just realizing that your wrong and not wanting to answer the question

and even IF i agree with you about your argument on absolutes, your argument STILL hides behind the hope of remaining in the lower denominator.

He's right: A simple answer is best sometimes...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join