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.
Originally posted by G.A.G.
reply to post by loagun
it is natural, and part of life(all life Hmmm. How about one example of animals, insects, fish, mammals...any known life form on this planet where same sex intercoarse is natural and normal. If this thread angers you so, get over it. Remember "he who angers you, controls you".
Originally posted by G.A.G.
reply to post by loagun
it is natural, and part of life(all life Hmmm. How about one example of animals, insects, fish, mammals...any known life form on this planet where same sex intercoarse is natural and normal. If this thread angers you so, get over it. Remember "he who angers you, controls you".
Originally posted by AsimpleAbstraction
I would have said: "Because they are biologically malfunctioning, and reverting to animal-like be behaviorism. If social correctness didn't apply to this situation, natural selection would have them diminish rather quickly; in fact, if lineage was imperative, and adoption wasn't an option, they would be considered nil-propagation and labeled worthless. Thank the government for protecting a fodder of species."
** On a side note, for all those who claim that supposed "love (emotional attachment) == lust (sexual desire)" you are a blabbering fool and are completely mistaken. I can love another man without feeling sexually aroused.
Watch where you use this in context, don't confuse love with lust.edit on 25-1-2011 by AsimpleAbstraction because: Commenting on stupidity
Originally posted by beezzer
Bah! My oldest is gay. And yes, I'm still a Tea Party member. Personal choice, personal freedom.
Individual freedom. Isn't this what it is all about?
Originally posted by AsimpleAbstraction
I would have said: "Because they are biologically malfunctioning, and reverting to animal-like be behaviorism. If social correctness didn't apply to this situation, natural selection would have them diminish rather quickly; in fact, if lineage was imperative, and adoption wasn't an option, they would be considered nil-propagation and labeled worthless. Thank the government for protecting a fodder of species."
** On a side note, for all those who claim that supposed "love (emotional attachment) == lust (sexual desire)" you are a blabbering fool and are completely mistaken. I can love another man without feeling sexually aroused.
Watch where you use this in context, don't confuse love with lust.edit on 25-1-2011 by AsimpleAbstraction because: Commenting on stupidity
Originally posted by macman
Those suggested explanations are well and good. But, those may not be another persons take on it.
Why does it matter either way? It is not your kid, not your right to tell them how to react and not your decision.
Originally posted by G.A.G.
reply to post by Sunsetspawn
Honestly sounds a little like low self esteem issues but I am no authority. Also you are trying to impress upon the children that this is "normal" without any scientific basis for your assertion. IT IS WRONG.
Originally posted by jamiejames
Well, the 1st step in waking up....IS TURNING OFF THE, MELT YOUR BRAIN INTO NOTHING, TELEVISION BOX. Then, you should pick up that dusty old BIBLE and actually STUDY IT! Yeah, get to know God for yourself......outside of church, outside of religion. Get into a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with HIM and get a REVELATION, of what the heck God has kept hidden from you!
Yeah, i said it.....God's word is a buried treasure. You have to actually DIG to get the truth. God doesn't REVEAL HIS WORD to unworthy people. STUDY TO SHOW YOURSELF APPROVED!!!
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Which then provides a perfect opportunity to explain to your child that people who hold hands in public do so because they share affection towards each other.
There doesn't need to be a different ''boy-girl'' or ''boy-boy'' scenario in the question that the child asked. That is surely irrelevant.
You appear to be encouraging an attitude of needless social conformity, by thinking that a prevailing attitude of society should interfere with what a parent teaches his child.
Do you really want young children to accept society around them without question ?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
It's only ''different' because of societal norms.
The child grew up viewing men and women holding hands in public, so may well be confused by seeing two men holding each other's hands. Considering that both scenarios are ostensibly the same, then a question about the former should receive exactly the same answer as a question about the latter.
The comment: ''because they like each other'' explains both situations adequately.