On consideration, I would rephrase this as follows:
“I’m too stupid to cloak my prejudices in language that a six-year-old won’t see through.”
Using the logic that things that are difficult or uncomfortable for some people to explain to their children, I have come up with a list of other things we need to ban from society.
Child asks: “Daddy, why is that man acting funny?”
Result: We ban beer from all public events.
Child asks: “Daddy, why is that man in a chair?”
Result: We ban all handicapped and disabled people from public events.
Child asks: “Daddy, why does that woman have a dot on her head?”
Result: We ban all religious symbols from sporting events unless they’re Christian. :rolleyes:
Child asks: “Mommy, why is that woman so fat?”
Result: We ban pregnant women from public areas. Sex is hard to explain.
Child asks: “Mommy, why does that man have a big belly?”
Result: We ban fat people from public events. It’s insensitive to speak openly of someone’s weight.
Child asks: “Daddy? Why does that girl have writing on her butt?”
Result: We ban anyone with a tramp stamp, or any visible tattoo. Sexual attraction is difficult to explain, too.
Child asks: “Daddy? Why don’t you like those women?”
Result: Finally, we ban bigots from public areas.
Why can’t the parent just say “I’ll explain when we’re at home?” or “I’ll explain when you’re older?”
I think he meant those homos shouldn’t exist at all or, at least don’t show themselves in public; that way, nothing has to be explained at all in this regard.
Or, why not ask the kid what they think? Then you don’t have to “explain” anything.
I suspect most kids are going to come up with “they must like each other a lot” or “they’re related” before they come up with anything super “embarrassing” for the parent. (Kindly note the “most” in that statement, please.)
As far as the eating of garlic fries while kissing - as long as they were both eating the garlic fries, I have no problem with that. If only one of them were eating the fries? That’s just weird.
Not necessarily. A couple I know have a very nice arrangement. She loves garlic, and he has no sense of smell!
I suffer through the garlic, but it’s worth it.
JOhn.
The mascot is a flower painted by Georgie O’Keeffe.
Marc
And it’s exactly the same reasoning behind the USMilitary’s stance on gays in the service.
In a word. No.
Acting discriminatory toward any group of people different than you is not morally justified; however, those who do so are convinced of their moral superiority and “right-ness” that they lose sight of all else.
I don’t think you’ll get a single doper to say that they agree with the so-called parents who use the “think of the children” tactic. I’m afraid the general population here would eat them alive (and rightly so).
I have to disagree with you on that one.
As far as I know, there is no way to spell this, but I’m sure everyone will know what I mean. You can say “I dunno” with a three tone thing from your throat, without opening your mouth at all. It’s so subvocal, it’s not even an “mMMm” sound. Making this sound thoroughly dismisses any question asked as irrelevent to anything.
THAT is the way to respond to many childrens’ questions. Not ALL their questions, fer sher, but in this case it would be very appropriate. It would seem that right-wing rednecks haven’t figured that out yet.
If you start with that premise, then you hardly need appeal to, or gain anything from using, “I’ll have to explain it to my children!” to justify antipathy to homosexuality; such reasoning would be mostly inert over and above what was already assumed. So, even then, it doesn’t seem as though “I’ll have to explain it to my children!” is particularly useful/reasonable as a method of justification.
So don’t explain the details?
I can fathom why someone who thought that way about homosexuality would want to avoid getting into a detailed conversation about it with their kids. I can fathom why they’d feel uncomfortable with a very simplistic explanation. But for me “I feel uncomfortable talking about this” is pretty much better than “You may never show affectionate behaviour in public”.
So no, I don’t think it’s an unacceptable justification because I just can’t gosh darn wrap my heads around the thoughts of another human being. I can understand. I just think that their uncomfortableness is better than the alternative. Would you disagree?
Mostly, I can’t imagine why a little kid would ask the question. People kiss them all the time. They know people kiss each other, and beyond that it doesn’t need more exploring.
Once in a CS thread I pressed RikWriter on why he finds Boondocks objectionable; he replied that he doesn’t want to have to explain racial politics to his kid when he reads the funnies. Not a good reason; no better WRT lesbianism, etc.
Watching hockey games with Viagra ads on the boards leads to interesting discussions with kids. Try explaining “erectile dysfunction” to a 10 year old.
“Gross,” he said, making puking noises.
2 women kissing? What’s to explain? “I guess they like each other a lot,” will do just fine.
Ironically, the most difficult thing I’ve ever had to explain to my daughter was the first bloody crucifix she saw on the wall of a church. We’ve explained the birds and bees to her, and even homosexuality, and she accpeted those things with a shrug. I found myself absolutely stumped with trying to explain the crucifixion, though.
Ah, memories. Once, while taking a half dozen kids to the zoo for a field trip, I made a wrong turn and ended up driving through the middle of the gay pride festival in DC. From the back seat comes a startled “what are those men doing!?” I never did figure out what they saw because I was trying to drive. When asked “why are they dressed like that” I did figure out they were talking about guys in chaps, of which there were a lot. I resisted the temptation to tell the kids the rodeo was in town.
My answer to questions was a factual “that’s the gay pride festival” and everybody seemed to be satisfied. I mean, come on, we were going to the zoo, so half necked men kissing each other wasn’t going to get much attention from a bunch of 5-6 year olds. So far as I know none of the kids was scarred for life - only one kid was mine and he doesn’t seem to be drawn to wear chaps.
Kids are more resilient than parents give em credit for. The kind of people mentioned in the OP are just hopelessly closed minded.