Me, as a child - “Daddy, what’re they doing?” “Well, some men are attracted to other men. Some women are attracted to other women.” “Oh.”
Please do not tell me what I knew as a child.
I used to be a kid.
Now I’m a parent.
yguy, let me say this. As a kid, I didn’t know squat until it was either a) taught to me by someone else, or b) I learned it on my own, either by actively seeking the knowledge or finding it out accidentally.
My kids (ages 6 & 4) are the same way. I can tell my son not to touch the burner on the stove because it’s hot, because I know it’s hot. He doesn’t. And if he backs up, it’s only because I told him to, not because he actually knows it. He won’t actually know it’s hot until he touches it for himself and finds out. Until then, he just believes me (or not…he’s a pistol). But that burners are hot when they’re turned on and functioning properly is an absolute fact.
It’s different with homosexuality.
That homosexuality is a perversion is a thought. A belief held by some people (myself absolutely NOT included). A child’s first reaction to walking in on two people engaged in sexual activity isn’t going to be “that’s wrong!” It’s going to be “what are you doing?” Doesn’t matter whether those two people are Mom and Dad, or Mom and Mom, or Dad and Dad.
It is my job, as a parent, to teach my children. Teaching them that stoves are hot is easy. Teaching them about the way some people believe isn’t. All I can do is my best, and hope that they learn that there’s black and white, and then there’s some really, really gray areas. I can share my beliefs, explain to them why I believe a certain way about certain things that fall into those gray areas, then just cross my fingers and hope I’ve given them the tools to be decent human beings.
And while I know it’s gonna hurt them and me, I’ll use myself as an example if I need to.
Equate much or just post in a psychotic daze?
I’ll take Psychotic Daze for $200 Alex.
By the way, Ditto to Persephone. As a child I learned by being taught by others, by trying things, and often by being told things, ignoring them, then finding out the hard way that what I was told was correct. At no point did I learn that homosexuality was a “perversion” and I don’t believe it is.
So, does that make me abnormal, or did I have an abnormal childhood?
NO.
With all due respect, why are you fine folks continuing to argue with this yguy? It’s a waste of time and bandwidth.
Will no one think of the hamsters?
Hello again.
I wasn’t too surprised to see what approach you had taken, yguy, with regards to my answers, but can we discuss proportion first?
I (admittedly) accused you of “misrepresenting your case”. And I still think that you did, and do. You started off with the premise that your opinions were based on science and logic, and after much ado it turns out it is based on “obvious truths” (as opposed to scientific, factual or logical truths) and your famous “gut feeling”.
You interpret that as me “calling you a liar” and respond by accusing me of being a:
“idiot”, “lamentable paragon of poltroonery”, “moron”, “craven, prevaricating scoundrel”, “weasel” and of “intellectual cowardice”.
Hrm. I accuse you of misrepresenting your case and you accuse me of all that. Can you substantiate it? Which brings me to something else.
I, and several others, asked you to clarify your position and state your actual beliefs, since you were obviously in a “why-guy” mode that is common to creationist debating technique. Basically the strategy is to never divulge any positions that can be attacked but instead by semantical tricks, logical fallacies, revisionism (I never said that), backtracking, misdirection and other dishonest debating tricks attack the other persons arguments ad nauseum. Often, the other debater will finally grow tired of this infertile way of discussing and just quit the debate, then the creationist claims victory. It is basically just a slightly more sophisticated version of answering everything with “why?” until the other person grows tired of it and walks off.
Yes I am sure that you do, because A) It would make your “points” meaningless, and B) It is true.
I don’t agree. This is a debate in a Forum dedicated to fighting ignorance. It is completely in line with your dishonest debating technique not to answer questions however. Also, It strikes me as a bit childish to first refuse to answer questions then throw a tantrum when someone simply post what they believe is your position in lack of a response from you. Actually, no, that is also a creationist debating technique. Don’t claim anything that can be refuted or debunked, then hysterically deny any claims made against you.
Anyway, to go to a debate with the attitude that you aren’t “under no obligation” to answer questions is inherently stupid and improductive. The point of the forum is to answer questions, can you imagine how incredibly uninteresting the threads would be if everyone was posting like you are?
I swear that when I read this sentence there was a bubble above my head with the letters “ZZzzzzz” in it. I’m sorry if this offends you but even though I was somewhat interested in your opinion at the start of my interaction with you, that has passed now. I have a pretty good idea of who you are (even though this is vastly different from who YOU think you are, I know that).
Also, I would like you to note that I don’t “have” to substantiate my opinions, I don’t “have” to explain why or defend what I say, I can just do like you and say it is “obvious” that this is what you are and that I have a “gut feeling” that you live under a bridge and try to eat children. I have however substantiated them anyway, because it is the polite thing to do and it furthers good debate. Since I know that your technique will just be to question everything ad nauseum, I won’t do it beyond what is reasonable to convince a more honest debater.
You refuse to openly reveal and argue your beliefs, which is understandable under the circumstances (you can’t argue them), you also refuse to give cites for the few “factual” claims you make, which is also understandable (they aren’t facts). I am not a Moderator, in fact I am a newbie on these forums, but my understanding is that your refusal to do so is in direct conflict with the rules and purposes of this board. So no, you don’t “have” to do it but neither do you “have” to continue posting here.
To Ed: Yes indeed, I am [CoFR]Stoneburg, and you are? 
(CoFR is an international gaming community for “mature gamers”, www.cofr.net for more info)
To everyone else: Thank you for the (very) kind words, I have been in a constantly humbled by the quality of posters and posts here, and because of that have been very anxious not to cause (too much) trouble. Now you have (foolishly) bolstered my ego to such an extent that I will undoubtedly be a cause of much irritation in the future.
Ps. Does anyone know where that list of creationist behaviour is? I’d really like to see it again.
But you did equate theft and murder: they are equal in that they are both illegal. When you say “Theft and murder are both illegal” you are equating theft with murder. Similarly, when you say “If homosexuality isn’t a perversion, I don’t see why necrophilia should be considered one either,” you are equating homosexuality and necrophilia.
Actually, I think the problem is that we are, mostly, well-versed in the principles of logic. Which is why you’re completly out-gunned in this fight.
I’m also surprised this exchange has gone so long without comment:
Because, of course, the definition of “homosexual” is “someone who has anal sex.” Which is why you can’t be a lesbian without the right props.
By way of egging on the complete disassembling of yguy, I must say:
Stoneburg? That’s only about 4 posts from you that I’ve read, and they were all pretty damn fantastic. Well done.
Were you ever treated unjustly before you had words to express the concept?
But that is intellectual knowledge. I’m talking about intuitive knowledge. If you’ve ever looked at someone and just gotten a bad feeling about them, and you can’t say why, you know what I’m talking about.
And why does he know he should believe you?
To be sure. As I tried to explain, the knowing comes before the thought.
His first reaction won’t be either of those things. He might think those things immediately afterward, but his reaction will be shock - even if only subtly manifested, or not at all to the point where you notice it.
True enough. Human sexuality of any stripe is a shock to young children. Why is an interesting question, but I’m not sure I care to tackle it just now.
Guess you’re a liar too.
Apparently, then, when I say 1 and 2 are both positive integers, I am equating 1 and 2.
Right?
Stoneburg, Miller (and everyone else who’s brought intelligence, reason, thoughtfulness, and honesty to this thread) – I admire the masterful way you’ve refuted the OP’s nonsense. Were you debating with someone who had a mind to be changed, or opened, or at least reoriented a bit, it would be a worthwhile conversation. But I repeat my previous comment – why continue to argue with someone who’s here, IMHO, only to rile you up, not to expand his mind? It’s an exercise in futility, serving only to feed his bottomless need for attention. I’d vote for ignoring the twerp.
ETF - how many times have I told you to stay out the Pit with rational thoughts? Sheesh…
Without evidence, it’s not an explanation, it’s only a claim.
Except the children in that study you cited, you mean?
You know, yguy, you sure sling the label of “liar” around pretty easily, you fucking liar.
Um, are you sure you know the definition of the word “equate”? For example:
You treated necrophilia and homosexuality as comparable. I trust you can follow from there?
Kindly produce the quote.
You are, of course, conveniently confusing my claims with regard to the knowledge of consciousness possessed by the scientific community with my beliefs about consciousness, abortion and the like.
To your satisfaction? You gotta be kidding. 
Here, of course, you give your true motives away. Just as most of these miscreants have completely forgotten the OP, choosing to try to divert attention from it by drawing me into endless debates about peripheral issues, you tried to sidetrack the abortion thread the same way, because you’re too much of a coward to challenge my arguments on their merits.
Actually, I believe I have answered the questions by now. For the few that have tried to be respectful, I will gather them up into a single post on request. The rest of you can find them yourselves in my previous responses on this thread, or go to the devil.
If you are referring to my your first post to me, again, you’re a liar.
Of course it is. That was just my insolent way of letting certain people know that I’d do it when I saw fit.
You have GOT to be kidding.
You have done nothing of the kind. You’re the same lying weasel you were from the beginning.
Probably. But, before I had words to express the concept would have meant that I was a very young child, and didn’t understand the concept of “just.” However, having the parents that I had, they actually took the time to tell me why they were doing what they were doing. And they also took the time to listen to me. More than once I got blamed for something my brother did (or my brother for something I had done). And more than once, my parents learned that they had been in the wrong. And more than once, my parents apologized to us. And that is how a child learns the concept of “just.”
“Intuitive knowledge” is a nice phrase, but it’s a contradiction in terms. “Intuition” and “knowledge” are two different things. Yes, I can say “I just know X is going to happen” until the cows come home, but the truth is, I don’t. I believe it will. And I trust you understand the difference.
Because right now, he’s only four years old, and I’m the Mama. And he knows that Mama gets mad when he does something that Mama says he shouldn’t do. That is something that he does, in fact, have intellectual knowledge of.
No it doesn’t. Intellectually, the thought comes before the knowing. That’s how theories are either proven or disproven. Intuitively, the thought comes before the belief.
I’m gonna need to see a copy of your degree in Child Psychology before I’ll buy this one at all.
It’s only a shock if they are raised to believe that it is. Surprising, fascinating, and mysterious, yes. But shocking, no.
Right.
And I should have presumed he meant “comparable” rather than “equal” or “equivalent” because…?
Pluto is comparable to Jupiter, since they are both planets. It is in that sense that theft is comparable to murder, and homosexuality is comparable to necrophilia.
Hope that helps.
Evidently I’m missing something. Care to share?