Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemical_bex)
    I just don't see how it's difficult :dontknow:
    Because they may have a hard time understanding the mental aspects of it as well.

    (Original post by amizzle91)
    But it is normal. Why can't you explain gay sex the same way you explain hetero sex?

    They'd only think it was confusing and difficult if you made it out to be that way.
    At an older age you could but at five it would be difficult, especially as you can't evenm use reproduction to help kids understand why. I'm not saying reproduction is the sole purpose of sex, it's not, just you don't want to be going into vast amounts of detail when the kids are young.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    But it isn't normal. It's not wrong, it's just different. It would be difficult simply because of the biological factors. How do you explain gay sex to a child for example? THAT would be utterly confusing, and best left until they were a lot older. Whereas hetrosexualality is easier as you can see that humans were meant to function that way.
    You don't need to explain sex to a 5 year old. You just tell them that (random kid) has two daddies because they love each other, just as (random kid) has two mommies cause they love each other. I really don't see the problem. And for you to judge it as 'not normal' well its been around a hell of a lot longer than you have.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Because they may have a hard time understanding the mental aspects of it as well.



    At an older age you could but at five it would be difficult, especially as you can't evenm use reproduction to help kids understand why. I'm not saying reproduction is the sole purpose of sex, it's not, just you don't want to be going into vast amounts of detail when the kids are young.

    Why would you need to use reproduction to explain sex? People, straight and gay, have sex for pleasure as well. "When two people love each other very much..." Done.

    I'm really not seeing your reasoning here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helevorn)
    You don't need to explain sex to a 5 year old. You just tell them that (random kid) has two daddies because they love each other, just as (random kid) has two mommies cause they love each other. I really don't see the problem. And for you to judge it as 'not normal' well its been around a hell of a lot longer than you have.
    But they ask about it. I knew what sex was from about 6 or 7, 5 isn't that far off. Don't you think the mental aspect would be difficult to understand? For example, you have different bonds with your mum and your dad. How could you have two mums and not a dad? Would one feel like the mum and the other the dad? Would they both feel like mum? Would neither?

    It isn't normal but it isn't wrong either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amizzle91)
    Why would you need to use reproduction to explain sex? People, straight and gay, have sex for pleasure as well. Why not just tell them that?

    I'm really not seeing your reasoning here.
    Because at five, kids wouldn't understand sexual pleasure and stuff would they?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think some people understand how hard it is for gay people to be themselves, it would be easier for people to just accept the fact that some people are different. I guess there is always going to be someone somewhere who is going to make it difficult.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Because at five, kids wouldn't understand sexual pleasure and stuff would they?

    Erm, well no that's why you explain it to them.

    I can't understand why you're willing to explain sex in terms of reproduction but not for pleasure. I've always known humans have sex for both reasons.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    But in a typical family, you have mum, dad and a child/children. Call me old fashioned, but that's how I see it. Again I'm not saying there's anything wrong with single parents or whatever, just that it's not usual. I still think it would be confusing for them to understand, I know I would have found it really weird trying to understand how someone could possibly not have a mother figure or a father figure. I still do tbh, and think how confusing it would be for the child of the gay parents.



    It's not even because it isn't the majority, it's because humans weren't originally designed to have same sex relationships. I don't think it would, there are plenty of things that are not normal but aren't wrong either. Maybe normal isn't the best word to be using. The harm it will do is lead to a bit of confusion, and it could underpin the values of the traditional family. No I don't as I believe it's not a choice it's something you are.
    I do think you hold a very old fashioned traditional view but it is a lot more common than you think for a child to be raised by a single parent or even by their grand parents

    When you was growing up did all your friends come from the traditional mummy & daddy + child set up? I'm just curious as my experience was somewhat different. Maybe we are of different generations but I had quite a few friends from single parents and I have to say it never confused me. As i child if you are introduced to something or told that something is how it is then you generally do not question it or become confused. Confusion only happens when given two conflicting ideas, (i.e homosexuality is not normal, homosexuality is normal).

    Saying that humans weren't originally designed to have same sex relationships is beyond the point. The biological side of the argument is completely irrelevant. If you tell a child about Bill and Bob who got married and they say will they have children or how will they have children then you can easily answer with one my earlier points and the fact that the child would ask such a question means that they are more than likely old enough to understand the answer. To talk about evolution and how the success of any species relies on their ability to reproduce is obviously way beyond the point as it is 5 year olds we are talking about.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Because at five, kids wouldn't understand sexual pleasure and stuff would they?
    Just tell them that those two people love each other.. it doesn't matter if its a man and a woman or two women or two men.

    They are going to be exposed to it sooner or later at school or on the tv. Kids understand a lot more than we give them credit for.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    But they ask about it. I knew what sex was from about 6 or 7, 5 isn't that far off. Don't you think the mental aspect would be difficult to understand? For example, you have different bonds with your mum and your dad. How could you have two mums and not a dad? Would one feel like the mum and the other the dad? Would they both feel like mum? Would neither?

    It isn't normal but it isn't wrong either.
    Well as a gay man that wants to adopt, i assume both me and my partner would be both maternal and paternal. I don't think it would be difficult, your thinking it would be difficult because you didn't see it as a child. If a child was used to it at a young age then they would view it as no different from having a mum and dad.

    Though on a side note i always wondered who would answer when our kid would shout 'dad!'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amizzle91)
    Erm, well no that's why you explain it to them.

    I can't understand why you're willing to explain sex in terms of reproduction but not for pleasure. I've always known humans have sex for both reasons.
    Yes but you don't go into detail about it. So you say that sex is pleasurable, but if you explain gay sex you get awkward questions being asked.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smophy)
    I do think you hold a very old fashioned traditional view but it is a lot more common than you think for a child to be raised by a single parent or even by their grand parents

    When you was growing up did all your friends come from the traditional mummy & daddy + child set up? I'm just curious as my experience was somewhat different. Maybe we are of different generations but I had quite a few friends from single parents and I have to say it never confused me. As i child if you are introduced to something or told that something is how it is then you generally do not question it or become confused. Confusion only happens when given two conflicting ideas, (i.e homosexuality is not normal, homosexuality is normal).
    A lot of them did, there were a few single parents and step families, but a lot of the time it was mum, dad and one or two children. I guess it depends where you've been brought up and how you've been brought up. I think the mental aspect is the most confusing. As I said to another poster, you bond differently with your mum and your dad, so if you have tow mums, what's it like? Is one mum and one dad? Do they both feel like mum? Are neither of them mum? etc.

    Saying that humans weren't originally designed to have same sex relationships is beyond the point. The biological side of the argument is completely irrelevant. If you tell a child about Bill and Bob who got married and they say will they have children or how will they have children then you can easily answer with one my earlier points and the fact that the child would ask such a question means that they are more than likely old enough to understand the answer. To talk about evolution and how the success of any species relies on their ability to reproduce is obviously way beyond the point as it is 5 year olds we are talking about.
    I guess you could say they may adopt, but I still think it would be confusing even without the details due to the bonding point I mentioned above.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    The same one as you. No it isn't. It may be in some areas, but it's not changing that much. Obviously there are more step parents and things now, but it honestly hasn't changed a lot. There's still more married families than single parents.
    But it is changing. Again, to deny the facts is just being naive.
    I think its around a quarter of children live in single parent households now. It has roughly trippled since the 70's. While it is obviously still a minority, it is large enough to call it "usual" IMO.

    Without sounding too stalkerish or judgmental, I think your upbringing has sheltered you from a lot of the "real world". I hope you don't take that the wrong way, and feel free to say I am wrong, but that does seem to be the case with a few things (this and money / wages being two obvious examples). Not that it is nesessarily a bad thing, but it can come as a bit of a shock to realise the world isn't always as you thought it was.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helevorn)
    Well as a gay man that wants to adopt, i assume both me and my partner would be both maternal and paternal. I don't think it would be difficult, your thinking it would be difficult because you didn't see it as a child. If a child was used to it at a young age then they would view it as no different from having a mum and dad.

    Though on a side note i always wondered who would answer when our kid would shout 'dad!'
    That's an interesting point about that the child would be used to it, I hadn't actually considered that. What about when they come into contact with other families though and see a typical mum and dad, do you think it would be confusing for the child?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    That's an interesting point about that the child would be used to it, I hadn't actually considered that. What about when they come into contact with other families though and see a typical mum and dad, do you think it would be confusing for the child?
    I don't think so, because they would probably see their aunts and uncles from a very young age, and understand that different types of family exist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    But it is changing. Again, to deny the facts is just being naive.
    I think its around a quarter of children live in single parent households now. While it is obviously still a minority, it is large enough to call it "usual" IMO.

    Without sounding too stalkerish or judgmental, I think your upbringing has sheltered you from a lot of the "real world". I hope you don't take that the wrong way, and feel free to say I am wrong, but that does seem to be the case with quite a lot of things.
    As you said though, it's still a minority. It's not 'usual', but not unheard of either.

    Nah I don't take it the wrong way, in some ways I would agree with you. I've had a very traditional upbringing, and there are some things that I am (or was until recently) unaware of. I've always known about gay people though.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    As you said though, it's still a minority. It's not 'usual', but not unheard of either.

    Nah I don't take it the wrong way, in some ways I would agree with you. I've had a very traditional upbringing, and there are some things that I am (or was until recently) unaware of. I've always known about gay people though.
    Personally, I'd say 1 out of 4 children is enough to be "usual". Think about it. That means that in an average class of 30, statistically speaking, 7 or 8 of those kids would be from a single parent household.

    And of course it depends on your upbringing and where you are from. But it doesn't define you and what you think. You learn a lot about the world through various means, and parenting and childhood experiences are just one.

    I suppose this brings up another question though. What on earth is "normal" or "usual". We are all different, and so in reality there is no such thing as normal or usual. I think someone else made a good point about eye colour earlier (something about green eyes). Why do we feel the need to have these labels?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    A lot of them did, there were a few single parents and step families, but a lot of the time it was mum, dad and one or two children. I guess it depends where you've been brought up and how you've been brought up. I think the mental aspect is the most confusing. As I said to another poster, you bond differently with your mum and your dad, so if you have tow mums, what's it like? Is one mum and one dad? Do they both feel like mum? Are neither of them mum? etc.
    Well like with single parents, either the single parent takes on both roles, or a friend/s or other family member/s make up for the other role.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Surely by making it seem normal we encourage children to treat gay people normally?

    Surely if being gay is biological then you cannot encourage it?
    I normally agree with your posts, at least in part, but being gay isn't biological. Therefor should not be tought about.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rugbyladosc)
    i'm not clicking that ****
    Don't be such a pussy, this is a democracy and people are allowed to air their views no matter how vile and pointless they are, your only an idiot if you choose to believe in them.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.