ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Brannon Braga calls lack of gay Star Trek characters 'a shame'

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Jul. 12 2013, 5:19 am

People think that Trek will LOSE viewers if they add a gay character, but they will in fact probably GAIN viewers. Some of the highest rated shows have gay characters. Friends had a lesbian couple and they ran strong for 10 years, Modern Family is a current show that is insanely popular and they focus on a gay couple.


if there was a gay character in trek, yes we might loose a few close minded bigoted people, but we'll be better off without them in our fandom anyway

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 12 2013, 7:54 am

Quote: Pooneil @ Jul. 11 2013, 9:19 pm

>

>I can't recall ever being read a story where the focus was about anybody getting married at all back when I was in elementary school, so why do that if not to promote gay marriage? 

>I can remember several. Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Robin Hood, and The 101 Dalmations, for example. Or the Berenstain Bears, for the younger children. Scratch the surface of any children's story and you'll see how it promotes the heterosexual agenda. The point of a great deal of early childhood education is not just math and spelling (which most people never learn anyway), it's supposed to teach children about the society they're living in. If that society includes different ethnicities, or different religions, or nontraditional families, then they should all be part of the curriculum. Including that sort of stuff in a popular franchise like Star Trek would help to normalize it.

>"Doctor Who" has done a fantastic job of including gay and lesbian characters in minor roles. So far I don't think any of the main characters have been gay, but there have been so many off-hand references -- the sort you might not even notice -- that they've managed to create a universe where alternative sexuality is so normal that it's barely worth mentioning. I'd love to see that carefree attitude on Star Trek.

>


Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty are fairy/folk tales, as collected by the Brothers Grimm I believe.  They're classics, so of course they're taught in school (heck I took a highschool class in folklore where we read the original, bloody version of Cinderella).  And heterosexual marriage is not the focus, it's the end of the story as in "they lived happily ever after."  101 dalmatians isn't a book, right?  It's a Disney movie and I don't think, as such, it would be part of an elementary school's curriculum.  In any case, these aren't the books I was referring to.  I'm referring, for example, to the book about the two daddy penguins introduced in a Masschuttes elementary school.  A Mormon father found out that that book was read to his child.  That was one of the incidences that galvanized the Mormon Church's participation in the prop 8 campaign.  That story's entire purpose was to promote gay marriage. 


I generally agree with you wrt to one of the purposes of school being to teach children about society.  I agree that they should all be aware of non-traditional families.  Heck, I knew as a child that several of my friends had divorced/remarried parents, for example.  Similarly, I had friends of all religious, racial, and ethnic backgrounds as well. 


Again, I'm not opposed to kids learning about families with same-sex parents and the like, I just would like to make sure it doesn't confuse or interfere in the natural development of my children.  This is an area where their religious upbringing, what they're taught about marriage, gender roles, and the traditional family structure, will be at odds.  I want to make sure they can handle it.  You probably think that's overly paranoid, and you could very well be right, but, right now, I don't know how they're going to implement the law to add this new aspect of education in CA (and this law, from what I read in the LA Times, was passed).  If they're going to introduce the concept of gay marriage and the like at the elementary school level, I would, at the very least, want to know what it's going to be before they teach it to my kids.  I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I want to know beforehand to make sure I'm ok with it, to say nothing of my wife.


   


 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 12 2013, 8:00 am

Quote: willowtree @ Jul. 12 2013, 5:19 am

>

>People think that Trek will LOSE viewers if they add a gay character, but they will in fact probably GAIN viewers. Some of the highest rated shows have gay characters. Friends had a lesbian couple and they ran strong for 10 years, Modern Family is a current show that is insanely popular and they focus on a gay couple.

>if there was a gay character in trek, yes we might loose a few close minded bigoted people, but we'll be better off without them in our fandom anyway

>


Again, I think it all boils down to how it's done.  If the sexuality is as restrained as it was in TNG, DS9, VOY, and the like, that would be ok with me.


I do agree that it makes sense for ST to eventually have a gay character, or at least a recurring one.  It's certainly in keeping with the franchises' theme of promoting tolerance and diversity.  In that regard, I'm still dissapointed that the franchise, most especially the modern shows, TNG, DS9, and VOY, depict an atheist/agnostic human culture.  I would like to see characters of different religious backgrounds practicing their faiths and working harmoniously together.  In this day and age, that could be an inspriring and helpful element. 


 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

Pooneil

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1023

Report this Jul. 12 2013, 8:28 am

Quote: rocketscientist @ Jul. 12 2013, 7:54 am

Quote: Pooneil @ Jul. 11 2013, 9:19 pm

>

>

>I can't recall ever being read a story where the focus was about anybody getting married at all back when I was in elementary school, so why do that if not to promote gay marriage? 

>I can remember several. Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Robin Hood, and The 101 Dalmations, for example. Or the Berenstain Bears, for the younger children. Scratch the surface of any children's story and you'll see how it promotes the heterosexual agenda. The point of a great deal of early childhood education is not just math and spelling (which most people never learn anyway), it's supposed to teach children about the society they're living in. If that society includes different ethnicities, or different religions, or nontraditional families, then they should all be part of the curriculum. Including that sort of stuff in a popular franchise like Star Trek would help to normalize it.

>"Doctor Who" has done a fantastic job of including gay and lesbian characters in minor roles. So far I don't think any of the main characters have been gay, but there have been so many off-hand references -- the sort you might not even notice -- that they've managed to create a universe where alternative sexuality is so normal that it's barely worth mentioning. I'd love to see that carefree attitude on Star Trek.

>

Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty are fairy/folk tales, as collected by the Brothers Grimm I believe.  They're classics, so of course they're taught in school (heck I took a highschool class in folklore where we read the original, bloody version of Cinderella).  And heterosexual marriage is not the focus, it's the end of the story as in "they lived happily ever after."  101 dalmatians isn't a book, right?  It's a Disney movie and I don't think, as such, it would be part of an elementary school's curriculum.  In any case, these aren't the books I was referring to.  I'm referring, for example, to the book about the two daddy penguins introduced in a Masschuttes elementary school.  A Mormon father found out that that book was read to his child.  That was one of the incidences that galvanized the Mormon Church's participation in the prop 8 campaign.  That story's entire purpose was to promote gay marriage. 

I generally agree with you wrt to one of the purposes of school being to teach children about society.  I agree that they should all be aware of non-traditional families.  Heck, I knew as a child that several of my friends had divorced/remarried parents, for example.  Similarly, I had friends of all religious, racial, and ethnic backgrounds as well. 

Again, I'm not opposed to kids learning about families with same-sex parents and the like, I just would like to make sure it doesn't confuse or interfere in the natural development of my children.  This is an area where their religious upbringing, what they're taught about marriage, gender roles, and the traditional family structure, will be at odds.  I want to make sure they can handle it.  You probably think that's overly paranoid, and you could very well be right, but, right now, I don't know how they're going to implement the law to add this new aspect of education in CA (and this law, from what I read in the LA Times, was passed).  If they're going to introduce the concept of gay marriage and the like at the elementary school level, I would, at the very least, want to know what it's going to be before they teach it to my kids.  I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I want to know beforehand to make sure I'm ok with it, to say nothing of my wife.

   

 


The Hundred and One Dalmations was a 1956 novel by Dodie Smith, on which the Disney movie was based. Like a lot of literature intended for children, it depicts a traditional family -- even if they are canines. The fairy tales I mentioned were the first children's stories that came to mind, and they're still staples in classrooms. While marriage might not be the focus of those stories, it is the end point, and their idea that living "happily ever after" means getting married has become a core principle of Western society. Marriage is the objective in so many classic stories -- the entire Disney animated canon, for example, which are all based on folk tales or other books. They might be just stories to you and me, but their fundamental purpose is to instruct their young readers in the values of their society: gender roles, filial piety, a work ethic, honesty, morality, etc.


The American nuclear family used to be so commonplace in books, movies, and television -- especially the stuff aimed at a "family audience", i.e. children and their parents -- that it bordered on propaganda. As others in this thread have pointed out (including you, rocketscientist, so I'm not exactly arguing with you, just clarifying a point) there are many children today who don't live in traditional two-parent households. I have no opinion on when or how the subject of gay marriage should be taught to schoolchildren, but I do believe that it should be taught at some step. One of the worst things young children can learn from school is that they're "not normal." Indoctrinating them to think that traditional, heterosexual, nuclear families are the only "normal" families can only create inferiority complexes and psychological trauma.


Of course, if parents want to teach their children religious values, or whatever values they choose, that's their business. It's not the public school's job to teach children about the Bible -- nor should they "promote" gay marriage, any more than they "promote" fractions or photosynthesis or plate tectonics.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 12 2013, 8:44 am

Quote: Pooneil @ Jul. 12 2013, 8:28 am

Quote: rocketscientist @ Jul. 12 2013, 7:54 am

Quote: Pooneil @ Jul. 11 2013, 9:19 pm

>

>

>

>I can't recall ever being read a story where the focus was about anybody getting married at all back when I was in elementary school, so why do that if not to promote gay marriage? 

>I can remember several. Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Robin Hood, and The 101 Dalmations, for example. Or the Berenstain Bears, for the younger children. Scratch the surface of any children's story and you'll see how it promotes the heterosexual agenda. The point of a great deal of early childhood education is not just math and spelling (which most people never learn anyway), it's supposed to teach children about the society they're living in. If that society includes different ethnicities, or different religions, or nontraditional families, then they should all be part of the curriculum. Including that sort of stuff in a popular franchise like Star Trek would help to normalize it.

>"Doctor Who" has done a fantastic job of including gay and lesbian characters in minor roles. So far I don't think any of the main characters have been gay, but there have been so many off-hand references -- the sort you might not even notice -- that they've managed to create a universe where alternative sexuality is so normal that it's barely worth mentioning. I'd love to see that carefree attitude on Star Trek.

>

Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty are fairy/folk tales, as collected by the Brothers Grimm I believe.  They're classics, so of course they're taught in school (heck I took a highschool class in folklore where we read the original, bloody version of Cinderella).  And heterosexual marriage is not the focus, it's the end of the story as in "they lived happily ever after."  101 dalmatians isn't a book, right?  It's a Disney movie and I don't think, as such, it would be part of an elementary school's curriculum.  In any case, these aren't the books I was referring to.  I'm referring, for example, to the book about the two daddy penguins introduced in a Masschuttes elementary school.  A Mormon father found out that that book was read to his child.  That was one of the incidences that galvanized the Mormon Church's participation in the prop 8 campaign.  That story's entire purpose was to promote gay marriage. 

I generally agree with you wrt to one of the purposes of school being to teach children about society.  I agree that they should all be aware of non-traditional families.  Heck, I knew as a child that several of my friends had divorced/remarried parents, for example.  Similarly, I had friends of all religious, racial, and ethnic backgrounds as well. 

Again, I'm not opposed to kids learning about families with same-sex parents and the like, I just would like to make sure it doesn't confuse or interfere in the natural development of my children.  This is an area where their religious upbringing, what they're taught about marriage, gender roles, and the traditional family structure, will be at odds.  I want to make sure they can handle it.  You probably think that's overly paranoid, and you could very well be right, but, right now, I don't know how they're going to implement the law to add this new aspect of education in CA (and this law, from what I read in the LA Times, was passed).  If they're going to introduce the concept of gay marriage and the like at the elementary school level, I would, at the very least, want to know what it's going to be before they teach it to my kids.  I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I want to know beforehand to make sure I'm ok with it, to say nothing of my wife.

   

 

The Hundred and One Dalmations was a 1956 novel by Dodie Smith, on which the Disney movie was based. Like a lot of literature intended for children, it depicts a traditional family -- even if they are canines. The fairy tales I mentioned were the first children's stories that came to mind, and they're still staples in classrooms. While marriage might not be the focus of those stories, it is the end point, and their idea that living "happily ever after" means getting married has become a core principle of Western society. Marriage is the objective in so many classic stories -- the entire Disney animated canon, for example, which are all based on folk tales or other books. They might be just stories to you and me, but their fundamental purpose is to instruct their young readers in the values of their society: gender roles, filial piety, a work ethic, honesty, morality, etc.

The American nuclear family used to be so commonplace in books, movies, and television -- especially the stuff aimed at a "family audience", i.e. children and their parents -- that it bordered on propaganda. As others in this thread have pointed out (including you, rocketscientist, so I'm not exactly arguing with you, just clarifying a point) there are many children today who don't live in traditional two-parent households. I have no opinion on when or how the subject of gay marriage should be taught to schoolchildren, but I do believe that it should be taught at some step. One of the worst things young children can learn from school is that they're "not normal." Indoctrinating them to think that traditional, heterosexual, nuclear families are the only "normal" families can only create inferiority complexes and psychological trauma.

Of course, if parents want to teach their children religious values, or whatever values they choose, that's their business. It's not the public school's job to teach children about the Bible -- nor should they "promote" gay marriage, any more than they "promote" fractions or photosynthesis or plate tectonics.


I'm in total agreement with you that children should be taught about all types of non-traditional families.  Absolutely, no child should ever be made to feel inferior due to their family not being the traditional nuclear family.  Again, the only thing I'm concerned about is when and how this issue should be brought up.  The Church of LDS, for example, was obviously very concerned about it interfering with the upbringing of their children.  I'd appreciate some sensitivity to the parents in this regard. 


As for teaching the Bible, when I was in public highschool, they had a Bible as literature class.  Nowadays, I doubt they have one there, given how polarized society has become.


 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

Vulcan merchant

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 77

Report this Jul. 12 2013, 11:28 am

[quote]


I would be so disappointed in an openly gay main character that I would stop watching and move on.  That's why they should keep things as is.  Right now, there is nothing stopping straight people or gay people from watching.  I'm not a big fan of romance in my sci-fi but at least it appeals to most people since most people are straight.  If you start to gay things up, you will lose a large chunk of your audience, which will result in less money.... which is what star trek is REALLY all about.  The studio is out to make money and they want to keep their largest audience happy, not some fringe element. 


Why not a midget captain?  Why not a muslim science officer?  Why not a man who has to deal with his pedofile tendencies?  These things are just not APPEALING, in the same way that a gay character is not APPEALING to the masses.  The gay agenda is simply out of control and people have had enough. 


Gay relationships are gross to me and eating lamb is gross to me as well, I just don't like it.  Peopl who want to see gay stuff on tv have plenty of other stuff to watch without ruining Trek.  Leave it alone, or NONE of us might have Trek once they go gay and the franchise fails. 


 [/quote]


I don´t know if I should laugh or cry about a certain trollic, who obviously is creating a new avatar, not to have to trouble him/herself with the repercussions his normal avatar would have stating an obvious lack of farsightedness, vision, intellect, a concept of dictinctiveness and so on. If this is really meant to be serious, then how abouut having a russian and a japanese piloting the ship in times when sentiments about the second Wolrd War were still alive, or when the cold war was still raging on, what about letting Kirk kiss one of them nig.gers .. oh, they are not supposed to be called nig.gers anymore. And yes, Star Trek is ALL about technology and making money. Well, it is crystall clear that midgets have no place in quality movies and series, I mean, Time bandits is nothing more than shite, and the Narnia books did not inspire generations of children, and game of thrones made a terrible thing in making that Lenister Imp an issue.


I would gladly see Star Trek fall it it fell for defending the gay issue. I´d rather see it go up in flames rather than having it continue to be an excuse for what is once was. How can one miss the entire point of Star Trek ... how can a Trekkie drift off so far ... ?

Vulcan merchant

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 77

Report this Jul. 12 2013, 11:29 am

[quote]


I would be so disappointed in an openly gay main character that I would stop watching and move on.  That's why they should keep things as is.  Right now, there is nothing stopping straight people or gay people from watching.  I'm not a big fan of romance in my sci-fi but at least it appeals to most people since most people are straight.  If you start to gay things up, you will lose a large chunk of your audience, which will result in less money.... which is what star trek is REALLY all about.  The studio is out to make money and they want to keep their largest audience happy, not some fringe element. 


Why not a midget captain?  Why not a muslim science officer?  Why not a man who has to deal with his pedofile tendencies?  These things are just not APPEALING, in the same way that a gay character is not APPEALING to the masses.  The gay agenda is simply out of control and people have had enough. 


Gay relationships are gross to me and eating lamb is gross to me as well, I just don't like it.  Peopl who want to see gay stuff on tv have plenty of other stuff to watch without ruining Trek.  Leave it alone, or NONE of us might have Trek once they go gay and the franchise fails. 


 [/quote]


I don´t know if I should laugh or cry about a certain trollic, who obviously is creating a new avatar, not to have to trouble him/herself with the repercussions his normal avatar would have stating an obvious lack of farsightedness, vision, intellect, a concept of dictinctiveness and so on. If this is really meant to be serious, then how abouut having a russian and a japanese piloting the ship in times when sentiments about the second Wolrd War were still alive, or when the cold war was still raging on, what about letting Kirk kiss one of them nig.gers .. oh, they are not supposed to be called nig.gers anymore. And yes, Star Trek is ALL about technology and making money. Well, it is crystall clear that midgets have no place in quality movies and series, I mean, Time bandits is nothing more than shi.te, and the Narnia books did not inspire generations of children, and game of thrones made a terrible thing making that Lenister Imp an issue.


I would gladly see Star Trek fall it it fell for defending the gay issue. I´d rather see it go up in flames rather than having it continue to be an excuse for what is once was. How can one miss the entire point of Star Trek ... how can a Trekkie drift off so far ... ?

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Jul. 12 2013, 11:58 am

Of course, if parents want to teach their children religious values, or whatever values they choose, that's their business. It's not the public school's job to teach children about the Bible -- nor should they "promote" gay marriage, any more than they "promote" fractions or photosynthesis or plate tectonics.


I don't understand this, what do you mean by promoting fractions or photosynthesis or plate techtonics? That's not promoting, that's teaching math and science.


 

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Jul. 12 2013, 1:04 pm

I'm sorry, but calling 101 Dalmations "heterosexual propoganda" is quite amusing.  I hope that was meant in jest.  You don't get a story about puppies without two, opposite-sex dogs.  


This is where the debate gets problematic, in that there's some sort of assumption that entertainment must cater to everyone.  Whenever you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one.  People become fans of material usually because it speaks to them in a unique way.  That will differ from person to person, but when suggestions start flying that changes should be made, and that touches upon something in that material that the fan identifies with, you're going to get a negative reaction.  Hence, in this thread, we see several different kinds of responses:


"Don't change it."


"I don't care if it gets changed."


"It should be changed."


The reasons on each of those will differ depending on who you talk to, but by and large, I'd bet that most people would fall under "Don't change it."  They might not care enough to speak up on a message board, but people generally prefer the familiar.  I think that's one reason why the new Trek movies have done so well because they touch on characters that span multiple generations.  The characters have been tweeked to give interesting performances, but overall, they resemble their forebearers.  


I think a lot of the responses here that focus on changing the Trek formula see the program in a fundamentally different light than those who oppose their views.  To them, Trek has always been a vehicle for promoting social change/equality.  They point to Uhura, Sulu, and many of the one-off episodes that deal with socially-relevant themes of the day.  What I think drives the opposition is that they don't want their viewpoints to be lambasted across the TV in a show they typically hold dear.  Given that, I don't think we'll see social propoganda one way or the other anymore.  Trek has become valuable again, and I would be shocked if the producers rocked the proverbial boat because it's too valuable to mess with.  In a weekly television format, there's room to try new things and see how the audience responds.  Blockbuster titles with massive budgets are just too big of a gamble.  


If Star Trek goes back to the small-screen again, I wouldn't be surprised if there's more experimentation with gay characters.  I just don't see that happening until Paramount has milked the big-screen potential from Trek dry.

Vulcan merchant

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 77

Report this Jul. 12 2013, 1:15 pm

I agree with whoever said gay relationships should be taught, promoted is completely another thing. And well, christian scientists or any other religious group who believes in a world that has been "made" will always think that to teach science is to promote a different view other than creationism.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jul. 12 2013, 1:50 pm

I don't understand what people mean by "promoted"?  I suspect they really mean "teach my kids about same sex couples but don't teach them to be gay". Which is impossible because you're born gay.


RocketScientist, you're pretty open minded here, but I have to wonder what "gender roles" your kids would/should be taught?  Gender roles are obsolete.  And I think you're more worried about YOU being able to handle your kids learning about same sex marriage, because kids are much more open minded, flexible and adaptable than adults.  Your kids will be fine. YOU may need the Xanax, but that's your own issue and I heartily hope that if your kid comes home one day talking about same sex marriage, that you bite your lip and act like it ain't no thang.  Your kids will learn intolerance, prejudice and phobias from you.  This is not sex education. This is simply changing the phrase "when a man and a woman love each other" to "when two people love each other".   It should be "taught" by including same sex couples in literature, illustrations and above all else, acceptance. 


"Again, I'm not opposed to kids learning about families with same-sex parents and the like, I just would like to make sure it doesn't confuse or interfere in the natural development of my children."


Honestly, that statement sounds like you're afraid they'll "turn" gay.   You can't turn someone gay. If you're gay, you're gay. You're born that way. It just seems that people "turn" gay because it takes years of them living a lie trying to conform to society, ie- dating the opposite sex, before the realize their preference.   If your kid is gay, that will indeed be the natural development of them. 

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 390

Report this Jul. 12 2013, 2:08 pm

rocketscientist - Again, the only thing I'm concerned about is when and how this issue should be brought up.  The Church of LDS, for example, was obviously very concerned about it interfering with the upbringing of their children.  I'd appreciate some sensitivity to the parents in this regard.

Parents raising their children to be willfully ignorant bigots is much more concerning than teachers explaining to their class that not everyone has "one mommy and one daddy."

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 12 2013, 2:51 pm

I don't understand what people mean by "promoted"?  I suspect they really mean "teach my kids about same sex couples but don't teach them to be gay". Which is impossible because you're born gay.


I agree that the majority of gays and lesbians are born that way.  What I'm concerned about is getting questions like "How can a man marry another man?  The church said it was wrong."  Or my kid wondering if they're gay or not when they're 6 years old.  I'd rather not have them thinking about that at that age at all.  I just want them to have a normal childhood.  Perhaps you're right and I'm worrying over nothing.  Like I said, I'm not totally opposed to my twins learning about the existence of same sex couples at a very young age (they probably will anyway).  I just would like to know beforehand how and when that information will be passed on to them so that my wife and I have some choice or input in that matter and so that we can discuss it with them. 


RocketScientist, you're pretty open minded here, but I have to wonder what "gender roles" your kids would/should be taught?  Gender roles are obsolete.  


That was a poor choice of words on my part, I think.  I agree with you on that.  


And I think you're more worried about YOU being able to handle your kids learning about same sex marriage, because kids are much more open minded, flexible and adaptable than adults.


Are they?  How do you know?  Do you have kids?  Are you a child psychologist?  My wife is.  I'll defer to her judgement.  You're right though, that I worry a lot about my twins.  I'm a relatively new dad, so of course I worry!  They're 2 years old now and I'm already concerned about what they're going to encounter in school (primarily, I'm worried about the peer pressure, bad behaviour, etc.).  I want them to grow up to be good, kind, and reasonably successful people.


Your kids will be fine.


I hope so.


YOU may need the Xanax, but that's your own issue and I heartily hope that if your kid comes home one day talking about same sex marriage, that you bite your lip and act like it ain't no thang.  


Not Xanax, beer.


Seriously, though, again, gay marriage isn't a big deal for me, but I'm an adult.  They're not.  It's not me I'm worrying about, it's them.


 Your kids will learn intolerance, prejudice and phobias from you.  


They will?  How do you know?  How am I intolerant?  Do you know me that well?  I married someone raised LDS.  My sister-in-law is a Japanese American.  I have friends and relatives who are Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, LDS, atheist, latino, black, asian, agnostic, gay, and lesbian.  I've attended LDS and Protestant services.  I'm making sure my twins have an appreciation and understanding of their mother's faith, even though we've promised to raise them Catholic. 


This is not sex education. This is simply changing the phrase "when a man and a woman love each other" to "when two people love each other".   It should be "taught" by including same sex couples in literature, illustrations and above all else, acceptance. 


If that's all it is, I can get behind that, as long as I'm informed beforehand.    


"Again, I'm not opposed to kids learning about families with same-sex parents and the like, I just would like to make sure it doesn't confuse or interfere in the natural development of my children."


Honestly, that statement sounds like you're afraid they'll "turn" gay.   You can't turn someone gay. If you're gay, you're gay. You're born that way. It just seems that people "turn" gay because it takes years of them living a lie trying to conform to society, ie- dating the opposite sex, before the realize their preference.   If your kid is gay, that will indeed be the natural development of them. 


I'm not afraid they'll turn gay.  I know it's generally genetic (not always though as in cases of abuse). 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 12 2013, 2:54 pm

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Jul. 12 2013, 2:08 pm

>

>rocketscientist - Again, the only thing I'm concerned about is when and how this issue should be brought up.  The Church of LDS, for example, was obviously very concerned about it interfering with the upbringing of their children.  I'd appreciate some sensitivity to the parents in this regard.

Parents raising their children to be willfully ignorant bigots is much more concerning than teachers explaining to their class that not everyone has "one mommy and one daddy."

>


Thanks for that.  BTW, my nieces and nephews weren't raised to be "willfully ignorant bigots."  They're the nicest and smartest kids I know.  I hope I can raise my kids as well as my in-laws raised theirs.


Dr. H


 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46331

Report this Jul. 12 2013, 3:15 pm

Quote: bunkey @ Jul. 12 2013, 1:50 pm

>

>I don't understand what people mean by "promoted"?  I suspect they really mean "teach my kids about same sex couples but don't teach them to be gay". Which is impossible because you're born gay.
I can't agree with that opinion.  People say they're born a certain way when they're trying to abdicate responsibility for their actions... "It's not my fault, I was born that way!"  People are not born homosexual like we are with pigmentation - it is an act made by a choice.  People choose that "alternate lifestyle."  This is why some people and have chosen to stop.


Anyone that can argue for a homosexual lifestyle can also use the same arguments for any other lifestyle there is.


As everyone knows, if we change one of the variables in the equation, then the results also change.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: miklamar

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum