Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., is apparently worried about how parents will explain the world to children if the military doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals:
What do mommas and daddies say to a seven-year-old child about this issue? I don’t know. I think it would be a family issue that would concern me the most … What they might see in their discussions among the kids.
As the parent of a seven-year-old child, let me reassure the congressman. It isn’t that hard. Here’s how I explained it.
You see, when they grow up, most boys want to date girls, and most girls want to date boys. Like your mom and I did, or your grandparents. But sometimes, boys want to date boys, or girls want to date girls. There’s nothing wrong with that — it doesn’t happen as much, but it’s not a bad thing, it’s just different.
Now, some people do want to say it’s wrong, or it’s bad, because they want to say anything different is bad. But your mom and I don’t believe that, and you shouldn’t, either.
When you grow up, you’ll probably want to date boys. But you might want to date girls. Who knows, you might not want to date anyone. No matter who you fall in love with, we just want you to be happy and to be with someone who makes you happy. And we will love you no matter what.
You see, congressman? My daughter was able to understand that just fine. After our conversation, she saw a TV show with a gay couple, and identified that they were two boys who were married, and that they seemed nice. And that was the end of it — she didn’t seem overly concerned about it, because it’s not something one should be overly concerned about.
Of course, I started from the position that discrimination is bad. I suppose if you want to raise your children to believe that homosexuals are monsters, that may be a problem. But the problem isn’t that we want to extend equal rights to homosexuals. The problem is that you’re a flaming bigot. The rest of us — the tolerant majority — don’t have this problem. You should try it.
Jeff, your experience with your little girl mirrors our experience with our daughter a decade ago. She was about the same age when we had friends visit from Canada – a Lesbian couple. We put them up in the rec room on the same sofa bed, without any particular remarks at all, as we would any couple among our friends.
A couple of years later, she asked, “Why did K and D sleep in the same bed when they were here?” We told her, “Because they love each other.” She was unfazed, did not question any further, and went about her 9-year-old business. By the time the subject had any deeper meaning to her, she was becoming aware of gay classmates at school, and everything simply made sense.
And as shocking as it may seem to Ike, some of those mommies and daddies ARE gay. Not only that, some of those kids he wants to protect from “the gay” are themselves gay. I guess he just doesn’t give a damn about THOSE children.
It’s funny, isn’t it, how easily the kids figure it out? My 9yo is currently going through a spate of curiosity about whether gay couples can have children, because he’s got something of a fuzzy handle on the whole sex-makes-babies concept. It’s been a lovely jumping off point to explain that there’s different ways to have sex, but only one way sex leads to babies, and people who can’t have babies by having sex can have medical help or adopt, whether they’re a gay couple or a straight couple. And that’s been a lovely way to start conversations about how very many ways there are to make a family, and that the important part about a family is that they love, support and take care of one another.
He also thinks that bans on gay marriage are sort of stupid. His latest comment was, “That’s dumb. If they love each other, they should be able to get married if they want.”
Basically the logic is: if we acknowledge the existence of individuals, it will confuse children?
But we do acknowledge them already. they are in movies, and tv. so what does acknowledging them one more place have to do with confusing children?
If we don’t discriminate against them, children will realize that they exist?
I mean, I am pretty sure they already do. The “what does gay mean” conversation is already one that most parent have with their children. So the question that he is afraid of is not “what does gay/ bi mean?” but “why are the military people not being mean to gay people anymore?” I would think a simple “because being mean to people because they are gay/bi is wrong” would suffice.
More likely he wants to raise them to believe that homosexuals are either confused or mistaken. But then it’s easier to teach people that he thinks they’re monsters – that makes it easier to demonize him.
Yes, when won’t someone think of how we’re demonizing pro-discrimination homophobes? Oh those poor poor men.
Why, if this keeps up, pretty soon they won’t be able to get married, or serve in the military! Presidential candidates will talk about how pro-discrimination homophobes are unfit to be parents, and should be barred from adoption! Perhaps, worst of all, they will be prohibited from participating in the Boy Scouts, and, as we all know, participation in an organization that protects child rapists from the authorities is every American’s birthright.
—Myca
I might think Christians are confused or mistaken about the way they want to devote their life to Christ, but that’s not my place to tell them that they should hide their identities, that they shouldn’t be accepted in every day life, and that they should have to lie about who they are as people in order to serve in the military.
I don’t see why the reverse should be any different.
Huh. I guess any attempts at fixing the oil spill shouldn’t be allowed, either. I mean, how will I explain such a complicated process to my children?
Actually, now that I think of it, maybe, “I am bad at talking to my children,” should not be a determining factor in our public policy in the first place.
—Myca
People like Ike Skelton aren’t worried that their children won’t understand why gay people are now allowed to serve in the military; they’re worried that they will. In fact, they’re worried that it will make so much sense it will be harder to pass on bigoted views to the next generation. They are also projecting their own discomfort with LGB sexuality onto their children, who haven’t yet learned to be squicked out by specific types of sexuality and are actually more likely to be squicked out by all sexuality.
But I’ve been hearing this “I don’t hate gay people or think they’re monsters, I just think they’re confused” thing a lot lately and I have to say I am flummoxed. What are we confused about? Am I not really attracted to and in love with my wife? Am I actually in love with someone else? Am I just confused to think that I could actually be happy in the life I’m leading? This is a semi-serious question, actually, and would love to hear more of an explanation for that particular choice of words. To me, this is on par with people who say they don’t “believe” in homosexuality, like we’re the tooth fairy or something. Obviously what they mean is they don’t believe homosexuality is morally right, but for whatever reason have decided that a euphemism that makes no sense is somehow kinder to say.
Yes, when won’t someone think of how we’re demonizing pro-discrimination homophobes? Oh those poor poor men.
My point being that the original comment presumed that there are two alternatives; teach that there’s nothing wrong with boys wanting to sleep with boys and girls wanting to sleep with girls, or teach that such people are monsters. There are alternatives; but presenting those might keep us from classifying the people who hold them as unthinking or ignorant bigots, which is not going to keep people on message. So it appears that people just want to ignore that anyone would even perform such alternatives.
You know what I have a hard time explaining to my daughter? Discrimination. I told her the other day that some people think people with brown faces aren’t as good as people with pink faces, and her response was, “Well that’s just stupid.” If “hard to explain to children” is a good enough reason to get rid of something, I vote that one goes first.
I told her the other day that some people think people with brown faces aren’t as good as people with pink faces, and her response was, “Well that’s just stupid.” If “hard to explain to children” is a good enough reason to get rid of something, I vote that one goes first.
I still find that one mind-bending, and I’m in my thirties.
I think part of the problem is that rather than thinking of homosexuality in the terms that Jeff uses like “love,” “dating,” and “marriage,” which convey normality, parents with this objection conceive of homosexuality only as a sexual perversion. So in their mind talking to their kids about gays being married or in the military means they have to talk to them about sex and a rather in depth talk at that. After all you can’t really get across why lying with a man as one lies with a woman is something to be upset about without getting into what that euphemism means.
Admittedly this impression of mine is mainly based on the age of the kid that’s given as an example, but I think especially for the kind of parents who’d object to repealing DADT it could be an issue.
Nick @13 – seriously. You explain to them that some people think it’s better to have white skin than dark skin, and they give you that same look as when you explain what a “record player” is. Like, what, mom, can you possibly be serious?
Xelgaex, good point. These people can’t think about “gay” without bracketing it with the words “hot” and “sex”.
I don’t think that works, Ron. If someone says “that homosexuals are either confused or mistaken” and that’s why they’re gay, I would still classify that person as a bigot.
In my experience, the “confused or mistaken” people are just looking for a kinder, gentler way of justifying that they want laws that make lesbian and gay people into second-class citizens. That’s being a bigot, no matter how much pretty language it’s dressed up in.
If someone says “that homosexuals are either confused or mistaken” and that’s why they’re gay, I would still classify that person as a bigot.
YES. There are still a lot of people that think women who take “men’s” jobs are “confused or mistaken”—or for that matter, women who take any job other than housewife. That doesn’t mean that our public policy should give credence to that thought or feeling.
Public policy is supposed to be for the entire citizenry. Why should gay and lesbian people be second-class citizens in terms of their legal rights, merely because it makes a portion of the straight populace uncomfortable?
Uh, no, no, no. Teaching me throughout my childhood that my own sexual orientation was perverse and exotic, rather than something real and natural and right there in front of them, was an unthinking and ignorant thing to do and the people who did it were unthinking and ignorant bigots. They generally had dimensions to their characters beyond their unthinking and ignorant bigotry, but it was a part of every one of them.
And this is starting to sound suspiciously like all the ‘but you can’t talk about racism because people will get upset if you say that they’re racists!’ conversations I have ever heard ever, if you get my drift.
I’ll give the good man a real shocker: my teacher in primary school was gay. Everyone knew. Nobody cared.
Well, we cared about him, he was a nice enough guy.
If someone says “that homosexuals are either confused or mistaken” and that’s why they’re gay, I would still classify that person as a bigot.
Which has nothing to do with what I’m talking about. The point is that not everyone who thinks homosexual behavior is wrong is teaching their kids that gays are monsters. In fact, I’d say they’re a minority.
I would agree with you, Ron, but not quite. I think most people who think that homosexual behavior is wrong aren’t teaching their kids *anything* about gay people. They are letting their kids learn about gay people from outside sources. When the prevailing opinion was that gay people are monsters, that was perfectly fine with them. As those opinions change, folks like Skelton are forced to take a more active role in a conversation in which they are increasingly on the losing side.
When it’s all tallied up, whether anti-gay parents are doing it actively or passively, the desired result is that the children in question see gay people as monsters.
There are alternatives;
Like what? I can’t think of any.
@RonF – it seems like you’re worried that the parents who are still against homosexual behavior, but don’t portray homosexuals as depraved monsters, will be unfairly maligned.
Bottom line: your judgment has an effect on your kids. What you think is right and wrong, they listen to that and internalize it. I’m not sure where you fall in the debate of genes vs. choice in homosexuality, but I’m going to take a stab and say that you think it’s a choice or a depravity that a certain amount of piety can cure. At least, that’s close to what I was taught in my Southern Baptist church. Homosexuality is wrong, it’s a sin, and there’s nothing good that is associated with it. Homosexuals can be fine people, but they’re still going to Hell.
I’m 30 years old and in law school. I’m a productive member of society, but because I was raised to think of homosexuality as wrong, I cannot begin to fathom a relationship with a woman. STILL. I think about it and it makes me start to shake and close myself off emotionally. I’m not even terribly religious anymore, and I still can’t shake the ghosts of “You’re going to Hell.” I’m lucky enough to be attracted to both sexes, so I can pass off as “normal” but I know I’ll probably never be comfortable enough to be really fulfilled.
So yeah, if you’d like to defend a parent’s choice to do this to a child…well, you can go to hell. How many stories does it take of how people get scarred by this condemnation before you realize “Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself” actually was supposed to mean something?
RonF @21: lots of perfectly nice and well-meaning people teach their kids that interracial marriage is evil, too.
But even a parent who doesn’t believe same-sex relationships are moral should be putting their foot up Rep. Skelton’s ass. Does he really think parents never encounter couples they disapprove of, and are too fucking stupid to explain it to their kids? Does he truly believe that children are too fucking stupid to notice that sharp tone in Mommy’s voice when she explains that Julie’s parents are not married to each other any more, but that nice young man Mrs. Julie always brings with her to school events is her husband?
Pingback: Interesting posts, weekend of … missed weekends « Feminists with Female Sexual Dysfunction