Ultimate cuk disgusted of Tunbridge Wells thread

[xoggoth]

It's ok really. This is fairy tales. As soon as the prince kisses this chap he will immediately turn into a beautiful princess and they will live happily ever after.

Seriously, while all in favour of gay rights because peoples' private lives are their own business, I cannot see any point in actively promoting the gay concept in children's literature. I did not personally have this 'gay' period in my life (I fancied Eartha Kitt when I was 7) but assuming the idea that kids can be confused about their sexuality is true, I think the points others have made are valid, why confuse children further?

Unecessary too, as prominent homosexuals have said in recent years, the attititude to homosexuality has changed greatly over a short period. Much bollox is talked about "predudice", it is mostly very rational. People only fear what they perceive as a threat and when they are shown that no real threat exists, the "predudice" dies.

[maximus]

I'd like to suggest that the whole point behind what is really going on is the gay movement having had the prejudice, discrimination,illegality and stigma surrounding homosexuality removed, now need to move it on to become accepted as 'normal' ;but by definition 'normal' can only apply to one state, one notion, one truth ( normal to individuals does not count btw) thus anything other than this would be classed as abnormal.

Since the majority of people in this country practice hetrosexual relationships and can therefore be considered the norm, the way forward for the gays is to undermine that model by suggesting alternatives are equally valid and of equal worth meaning two normals (or is it three with lesbians?)which is patent nonsense.

Governments (especially this one) try to accomodate the gay lobby groups by allowing what is an obvious indoctrination of impressionable young minds in order to avoid charges of discriminatory practice.

Children pick up clues about acceptable behaviour from hearing fairy stories or books being read to them- to hear more than one 'norm' being portrayed can only be confusing and ultimately is an insult to the majority of hetrosexual parents (i.e. the ones who have the children) who have their way of life demeaned and diluted if an alternative is presented as of equal worth.

In short you should tolerate homosexuality but never promote it

[The Lone Gunman]

Unecessary too, as prominent homosexuals have said in recent years, the attititude to homosexuality has changed greatly over a short period.

No homophobes here Xoggy eh, being gay is accepted? <cough>bulltulip</cough>

All the posters on this site claim to be unprejudiced, but by the very fact they oppose these books they are demonstrating their prejudice.
If they realy have no problem with being gay then why are they so upset by gay characters in childrens books?
If there are plenty of gay characters around then why shouldn't there be gay characters in childrens books?

If you realy don't want to twist childrens minds then how about banning child wizards, trolls under bridges and talking animals et al.
After all these must be confusing and frightening the poor little mites.



BTW Not picking on you Xog it just seemed an apropriate point to reply.

[SallyAnne]

Teaching children to be gay is wrong, period!

If you decide that you want to become gay

Most gay people I know would agree that being homosexual is a choice

You dont know any. No gay person would say that.

Same sex couples shouldn't have children

[Churchill]

You dont know any. No gay person would say that.

But they do have a choice about being "open" about their preference.

Btw, notice the keyword...

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Ardesco

Same sex couples shouldn't have children

Agreed

[Churchill]

Same sex couples shouldn't have children

Same sex couples can't have children, naturally.

Same sex couples can't have children naturally.

[ASB]

If you realy don't want to twist childrens minds then how about banning child wizards, trolls under bridges and talking animals et al.
After all these must be confusing and frightening the poor little mites.

They've largely done that within the state education system.

.......

I'm confused by how you seem to define homophobia. I don't think homesexuality is natural or "normal". I can't really understand male-male sexual realations. By your definition I would appear to fit into the category of homophobe. I don't believe that to be the case.

My lack of understanding doesn't prevent me from accepting that there are gay people, it doesn't mean I'm frightened by them, intolerant of them or prejudicial towards them.

[SallyAnne]

I'd like to suggest that the whole point behind what is really going on is the gay movement having had the prejudice, discrimination,illegality and stigma surrounding homosexuality removed, now need to move it on to become accepted as 'normal' ;but by definition 'normal' can only apply to one state, one notion, one truth ( normal to individuals does not count btw) thus anything other than this would be classed as abnormal.

Since the majority of people in this country practice hetrosexual relationships and can therefore be considered the norm, the way forward for the gays is to undermine that model by suggesting alternatives are equally valid and of equal worth meaning two normals (or is it three with lesbians?)which is patent nonsense.

Governments (especially this one) try to accomodate the gay lobby groups by allowing what is an obvious indoctrination of impressionable young minds in order to avoid charges of discriminatory practice.

Children pick up clues about acceptable behaviour from hearing fairy stories or books being read to them- to hear more than one 'norm' being portrayed can only be confusing and ultimately is an insult to the majority of hetrosexual parents (i.e. the ones who have the children) who have their way of life demeaned and diluted if an alternative is presented as of equal worth.

In short you should tolerate homosexuality but never promote it

"The norm" they are trying to teach children is no different from when I was a kid - it is normal to grow up, fall in love, and live happily ever after.
Thats the message in all of these books.

These books aren't saying "be gay like us", they've just put different people in the lead roles.

I remember when I was about 8 or 9 I read a book (I bloody wish I could remember the author now) which was a Prince/Princess fairytale style book, but it waa for the "modern day" (and aimed at slightly older children). The prince wasn't a prince at all, he was a bin man. The princess's dad had lost his job and she had to work in a cafe or something. she met the bin man (prince), fell in love, and lived happily ever after, but in a small council house!!
I remember thinking this book was hilarious, and excellent. All I'd ever read when I'd been younger was about the rich prince, and castle's and stuff which really didn't seem that likely or relevant to me. I just remember this book (for it to stick in my head all these years) telling me that love on a council estate was just as real as love in a castle. It makes me fill up now actually <wipes tear from face thinking of child hood>

Anyway...all these books are doing is demonstrating yet another way of life. You lot are acting like this is the ONLY book kids will ever be able to read! And they'll have it read to them 20 times a day for their entire child hood until they are brain washed into being gay! For gods sake - give your kids more credit than this! They're no more likely to be "turned" by having a book read to them once, than they are by playing Grand Theft Auto and turning into joyriding criminals!
These books will serve 2 purposes really: -
1) letting all kids know that some people in life are gay.
2) letting the kids out there who are gay, or who will realise later in life that they are gay, feel normal and acepted.

I'm still honestly baffled that anyone can take any issue with this.

[SallyAnne]

But they do have a choice about being "open" about their preference.

Btw, notice the keyword...

Yeah but that's like saying you have a choice, or I have a choice.

Do you choose to be straight Churchill?