The Game of LIFE...

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sao123
I think parents have the right to determine when to and when not to expose their kids to sexual issues.

its not unreasonable for her to not want her child to be exposed at six years old to sexual issues. Hell, many parents dont want their children dating until they are 16.

Also, since the game of life is rated for ages 5 to adult, I dont see a problem her logic.
People who create items for young children need to stop the propoganda and issue pushing in childrens products. there is no need for "gay" Life game, "gay" sesame street, or "gay" barbie.

Sao, this question is for both you and TechBoyJK. I notice you mention that children should not be exposed to sexual discussions at six years old. I agree with you. But I'm curious how you talk about heterosexual relationships with your children. Is it impossible to raise the point of a mommy and daddy loving each other because, really, isn't that just talking about sex? At what age would you let your children play the game of Life, since it's just going to raise issues about sexuality in opposite-sex relationships? And since the game also involved procreation, there's really just no way around the issue, is there?

Hey.. some civility.

I'd say 10-12 years old is when I would probably just sit down with my kids and lay it all out for them. Possibly sooner if the situation called for it. But I think 6 is just way too young. I would probably seperate the Loving aspect from the sex aspect. This is where I would bring up homosexuality. I'd leave sex out, but talk about how some people choose to be comfortable with the same gender. That some guys and girls want to spend their lives with their best friends.

With sex, I would discuss from a stricly scientific, biological perspective about reproduction, etc.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK


No, it's not ok for homos to marry.

Yea, because they don't deserve the same rights as you. You saw how that worked out with the women and blacks. Give them an inch, and next thing you know they're eating next to at the diner, and voting :^S

Homosexuallity is on a different level of morality than women voting and blacks having rights. I vote in favor of civil unions for homosexuals. I also say, if a church wants to marry some homos, let them. I'm not saying what the law should be, JUST my personal opinion.
You should see how I feel about left lane cruisers.

This is your personal opinion of which you condemn others ?

That doesn't sound very tolerant. You can have an opinion. You can NOT agree with the gay lifestyle. You can committ to never practicing gay sex. But you, in previous comments, said that gay is sinful. That is condemning others based on your opinion/faith. That leaves no room open to allow others to think differently than you.

At which point I would argue that your position is bigoted. Look up the word if you don't believe me

So what if I condemn murder?

murder is easily condemned because the act harms another man/woman.

why condemn homo-sex? because you think it is icky? or because the bible tells you so?

don't equate murder to homo-sex...that really is apples and oranges.

edit: btw- I still argue your position on being gay is bigoted.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK


No, it's not ok for homos to marry.

Yea, because they don't deserve the same rights as you. You saw how that worked out with the women and blacks. Give them an inch, and next thing you know they're eating next to at the diner, and voting :^S

Homosexuallity is on a different level of morality than women voting and blacks having rights. I vote in favor of civil unions for homosexuals. I also say, if a church wants to marry some homos, let them. I'm not saying what the law should be, JUST my personal opinion.

You should see how I feel about left lane cruisers.

You subscribe to Wing Nut Daily?

Too nutty

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Thank you Sao And Techboy for chiming in on the ignorant, twisted, and bigoted side of the issue. It's always nice to see both sides represented.

I'm sure pedofiles feel the same way about people who don't understand them too. Their just ignorant and twisted because they don't understand their love for little sally. She looks so good in that little school girl outfit you know.

I feel embarrassed for your woeful lack of intellect if you equate pedophilia with homosexuality.

I feel sorry for your soul if you don't realize both are sinful.

religion card thrown down = argument fail

When does having a SOUL equate to religion?

'religion card thrown down = argument fail' = argument fail

I think they are both wrong. Granted PEDOHILIA is more worse, but it's still deviant from our design imho. But I'm a faithful, God fearing person, so I suppose our opinions will differ.

Just go away. Christ, you write like a coked up nine year old. No one gives any credence to your opinions and no one takes you seriously.

Bye bye.

How, much of an elitist are we?

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK


No, it's not ok for homos to marry.

Yea, because they don't deserve the same rights as you. You saw how that worked out with the women and blacks. Give them an inch, and next thing you know they're eating next to at the diner, and voting :^S

Homosexuallity is on a different level of morality than women voting and blacks having rights. I vote in favor of civil unions for homosexuals. I also say, if a church wants to marry some homos, let them. I'm not saying what the law should be, JUST my personal opinion.
You should see how I feel about left lane cruisers.

This is your personal opinion of which you condemn others ?

That doesn't sound very tolerant. You can have an opinion. You can NOT agree with the gay lifestyle. You can committ to never practicing gay sex. But you, in previous comments, said that gay is sinful. That is condemning others based on your opinion/faith. That leaves no room open to allow others to think differently than you.

At which point I would argue that your position is bigoted. Look up the word if you don't believe me

So what if I condemn murder?

murder is easily condemned because the act harms another man/woman.

why condemn homo-sex? because you think it is icky? or because the bible tells you so?

don't equate murder to homo-sex...that really is apples and oranges.

edit: btw- I still argue your position on being gay is bigoted.

I agree, and even in my position, I see murder as something incredibly worse than homosexuality. But I would also feel like my child is being harmed pyschologically if he is being taught that it isn't immoral to engage in homosexual behavior. So I condemn it.

BUt you know what? By definition, my view on the morality of homosexuality does create a bit of intolerance for the group. So in that case, I am a Bigot. No argument there. In this case, I am proud to be a bigot. I'm standing up for something I believe in.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Proprioceptive
This is fun! My wife and I are getting a good chuckle out of all this "conversation". :laugh:

Gays are cool, but I don't plan on buying a game which accepts it as "the norm".

This seems like an awful lot of to-do about the fact that you can have TWO PLASTIC PEGS OF THE SAME COLOR in a little plastic car.

:thumbsup:

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

You know what? By definition, my view on the morality of homosexuality does create a bit of intolerance for the group. So in that case, I am a Bigot. No argument there. In this case, I am proud to be a bigot. I'm standing up for something I believe in.

I am proud of you for acknowledging as much.

Just for arguments sake lets say that I too do not agree with the gay lifestyle, I would never participate in gay sex. SOund familiar right? but I would not condemn others for wanting to. I wouldn't condemn others for loving people of the same sex. I can't rationalize how gay love (which ultimately leads to gay-sex..whether you like it or not) can be sinful...it is love. Love is not sin.

If God or Jesus has a problem with that they can take it up with me in the afterlife, I am sure it will be quite an interesting discussion.

Stand up for what you believe in. In the case of gays if you believe they are sinful stand up and say so. But dont expect others to not call you bigoted...because you have no evidence nor support to legitimize your position/claim other than your faith and understanding of the bible. Which, btw is left open to huge interpretation.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sao123
I think parents have the right to determine when to and when not to expose their kids to sexual issues.

its not unreasonable for her to not want her child to be exposed at six years old to sexual issues. Hell, many parents dont want their children dating until they are 16.

Also, since the game of life is rated for ages 5 to adult, I dont see a problem her logic.
People who create items for young children need to stop the propoganda and issue pushing in childrens products. there is no need for "gay" Life game, "gay" sesame street, or "gay" barbie.

Sao, this question is for both you and TechBoyJK. I notice you mention that children should not be exposed to sexual discussions at six years old. I agree with you. But I'm curious how you talk about heterosexual relationships with your children. Is it impossible to raise the point of a mommy and daddy loving each other because, really, isn't that just talking about sex? At what age would you let your children play the game of Life, since it's just going to raise issues about sexuality in opposite-sex relationships? And since the game also involved procreation, there's really just no way around the issue, is there?

Hey.. some civility.

I'd say 10-12 years old is when I would probably just sit down with my kids and lay it all out for them. Possibly sooner if the situation called for it. But I think 6 is just way too young. I would probably seperate the Loving aspect from the sex aspect. This is where I would bring up homosexuality. I'd leave sex out, but talk about how some people choose to be comfortable with the same gender. That some guys and girls want to spend their lives with their best friends.

With sex, I would discuss from a stricly scientific, biological perspective about reproduction, etc.

OK, so you can discuss a relationship without discussing the sexual nature of it (which of course is important when talking to children). But your response makes it sound as though you would wait until your child was old enough to hear about sexual relationships before bringing up homosexual relationships at all. What if your child came home from elementary school and mentioned that his new friend only had a mom, no dad? What if they came home and tell you their new friend had two mommies? How would you deal with families that fall outside the norm of "one mother, one father," if you're only willing to discuss them from a sexual perspective?

Would you let your children play the game of Life if it didn't offer the option of gay couples?

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK


No, it's not ok for homos to marry.

Yea, because they don't deserve the same rights as you. You saw how that worked out with the women and blacks. Give them an inch, and next thing you know they're eating next to at the diner, and voting :^S

Homosexuallity is on a different level of morality than women voting and blacks having rights. I vote in favor of civil unions for homosexuals. I also say, if a church wants to marry some homos, let them. I'm not saying what the law should be, JUST my personal opinion.
You should see how I feel about left lane cruisers.

This is your personal opinion of which you condemn others ?

That doesn't sound very tolerant. You can have an opinion. You can NOT agree with the gay lifestyle. You can committ to never practicing gay sex. But you, in previous comments, said that gay is sinful. That is condemning others based on your opinion/faith. That leaves no room open to allow others to think differently than you.

At which point I would argue that your position is bigoted. Look up the word if you don't believe me

So what if I condemn murder?

murder is easily condemned because the act harms another man/woman.

why condemn homo-sex? because you think it is icky? or because the bible tells you so?

don't equate murder to homo-sex...that really is apples and oranges.

edit: btw- I still argue your position on being gay is bigoted.

I agree, and even in my position, I see murder as something incredibly worse than homosexuality. But I would also feel like my child is being harmed pyschologically if he is being taught that it isn't immoral to engage in homosexual behavior. So I condemn it.

BUt you know what? By definition, my view on the morality of homosexuality does create a bit of intolerance for the group. So in that case, I am a Bigot. No argument there. In this case, I am proud to be a bigot. I'm standing up for something I believe in.

Well, you're an admitted bigot who doesn't believe in evolution.

You sound like a credible source and I would like to subscribe to your website.

 

[gorcorps]

If a parent isn't ready to answer questions like that, then they weren't ready to be parents period. When you have a kid you have to prepare yourself for everything headed your way.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I agree, and even in my position, I see murder as something incredibly worse than homosexuality. But I would also feel like my child is being harmed pyschologically if he is being taught that it isn't immoral to engage in homosexual behavior. So I condemn it.

I can think of no logical basis for this statement.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sao123
I think parents have the right to determine when to and when not to expose their kids to sexual issues.

its not unreasonable for her to not want her child to be exposed at six years old to sexual issues. Hell, many parents dont want their children dating until they are 16.

Also, since the game of life is rated for ages 5 to adult, I dont see a problem her logic.
People who create items for young children need to stop the propoganda and issue pushing in childrens products. there is no need for "gay" Life game, "gay" sesame street, or "gay" barbie.

Sao, this question is for both you and TechBoyJK. I notice you mention that children should not be exposed to sexual discussions at six years old. I agree with you. But I'm curious how you talk about heterosexual relationships with your children. Is it impossible to raise the point of a mommy and daddy loving each other because, really, isn't that just talking about sex? At what age would you let your children play the game of Life, since it's just going to raise issues about sexuality in opposite-sex relationships? And since the game also involved procreation, there's really just no way around the issue, is there?

Hey.. some civility.

I'd say 10-12 years old is when I would probably just sit down with my kids and lay it all out for them. Possibly sooner if the situation called for it. But I think 6 is just way too young. I would probably seperate the Loving aspect from the sex aspect. This is where I would bring up homosexuality. I'd leave sex out, but talk about how some people choose to be comfortable with the same gender. That some guys and girls want to spend their lives with their best friends.

With sex, I would discuss from a stricly scientific, biological perspective about reproduction, etc.

OK, so you can discuss a relationship without discussing the sexual nature of it (which of course is important when talking to children). But your response makes it sound as though you would wait until your child was old enough to hear about sexual relationships before bringing up homosexual relationships at all. What if your child came home from elementary school and mentioned that his new friend only had a mom, no dad? What if they came home and tell you their new friend had two mommies? How would you deal with families that fall outside the norm of "one mother, one father," if you're only willing to discuss them from a sexual perspective?

Would you let your children play the game of Life if it didn't offer the option of gay couples?

Well, thats why I said "probably sooner" if the situation called for it.

From a certain range of ages (6-10) I wouldn't let them play. Any older, than I don't see any point of hiding the issue any longer if it means taking an otherwise fun game away from them.

By whole problem was the age thing.

I was the kid in grade school who only had a mom, no dad. But its because my parents were divorced, not becuase my mom was a lesbo. However, the reasons my parents got divorced was not something I was proud of either.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I agree, and even in my position, I see murder as something incredibly worse than homosexuality. But I would also feel like my child is being harmed pyschologically if he is being taught that it isn't immoral to engage in homosexual behavior. So I condemn it.

I can think of no logical basis for this statement.

When I read Tech's response I thought of this:


"It demands great spiritual resilience not to hate the hater whose foot is on your neck, and an even greater miracle of perception and charity not to teach your child to hate." - James Arthur Baldwin

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I agree, and even in my position, I see murder as something incredibly worse than homosexuality. But I would also feel like my child is being harmed pyschologically if he is being taught that it isn't immoral to engage in homosexual behavior. So I condemn it.

I can think of no logical basis for this statement.

Because it's my opinion, not yours. Any opinion you don't agree with is probably not going to make sense to you, and that's understandable.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I agree, and even in my position, I see murder as something incredibly worse than homosexuality. But I would also feel like my child is being harmed pyschologically if he is being taught that it isn't immoral to engage in homosexual behavior. So I condemn it.

I can think of no logical basis for this statement.

When I read Tech's response I thought of this:


"It demands great spiritual resilience not to hate the hater whose foot is on your neck, and an even greater miracle of perception and charity not to teach your child to hate." - James Arthur Baldwin

I'm not sure who that is directed to. I would never teach my kids to HATE anybody. Dissaproving of behavior and thinking certain behaviors are immoral is a completely different thing than hating someone.

I have close friends who are gay that I would die for. But, just like I tell them they shouldn't speed down the highway, I'll tell them I don't approve of their sex lifes. Some of my friends haircuts are so bad, they should be sins too.

There's a huge line that has to be drawn about hate, and simply not approving of behavior.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sao123
I think parents have the right to determine when to and when not to expose their kids to sexual issues.

its not unreasonable for her to not want her child to be exposed at six years old to sexual issues. Hell, many parents dont want their children dating until they are 16.

Also, since the game of life is rated for ages 5 to adult, I dont see a problem her logic.
People who create items for young children need to stop the propoganda and issue pushing in childrens products. there is no need for "gay" Life game, "gay" sesame street, or "gay" barbie.

Sao, this question is for both you and TechBoyJK. I notice you mention that children should not be exposed to sexual discussions at six years old. I agree with you. But I'm curious how you talk about heterosexual relationships with your children. Is it impossible to raise the point of a mommy and daddy loving each other because, really, isn't that just talking about sex? At what age would you let your children play the game of Life, since it's just going to raise issues about sexuality in opposite-sex relationships? And since the game also involved procreation, there's really just no way around the issue, is there?

Hey.. some civility.

I'd say 10-12 years old is when I would probably just sit down with my kids and lay it all out for them. Possibly sooner if the situation called for it. But I think 6 is just way too young. I would probably seperate the Loving aspect from the sex aspect. This is where I would bring up homosexuality. I'd leave sex out, but talk about how some people choose to be comfortable with the same gender. That some guys and girls want to spend their lives with their best friends.

With sex, I would discuss from a stricly scientific, biological perspective about reproduction, etc.

OK, so you can discuss a relationship without discussing the sexual nature of it (which of course is important when talking to children). But your response makes it sound as though you would wait until your child was old enough to hear about sexual relationships before bringing up homosexual relationships at all. What if your child came home from elementary school and mentioned that his new friend only had a mom, no dad? What if they came home and tell you their new friend had two mommies? How would you deal with families that fall outside the norm of "one mother, one father," if you're only willing to discuss them from a sexual perspective?

Would you let your children play the game of Life if it didn't offer the option of gay couples?

Well, thats why I said "probably sooner" if the situation called for it.

From a certain range of ages (6-10) I wouldn't let them play. Any older, than I don't see any point of hiding the issue any longer if it means taking an otherwise fun game away from them.

By whole problem was the age thing.

I was the kid in grade school who only had a mom, no dad. But its because my parents were divorced, not becuase my mom was a lesbo. However, the reasons my parents got divorced was not something I was proud of either.

Look, if your father was gay, that's not a reason to take it out on the rest of the gay community.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sao123
I think parents have the right to determine when to and when not to expose their kids to sexual issues.

its not unreasonable for her to not want her child to be exposed at six years old to sexual issues. Hell, many parents dont want their children dating until they are 16.

Also, since the game of life is rated for ages 5 to adult, I dont see a problem her logic.
People who create items for young children need to stop the propoganda and issue pushing in childrens products. there is no need for "gay" Life game, "gay" sesame street, or "gay" barbie.

Sao, this question is for both you and TechBoyJK. I notice you mention that children should not be exposed to sexual discussions at six years old. I agree with you. But I'm curious how you talk about heterosexual relationships with your children. Is it impossible to raise the point of a mommy and daddy loving each other because, really, isn't that just talking about sex? At what age would you let your children play the game of Life, since it's just going to raise issues about sexuality in opposite-sex relationships? And since the game also involved procreation, there's really just no way around the issue, is there?

Hey.. some civility.

I'd say 10-12 years old is when I would probably just sit down with my kids and lay it all out for them. Possibly sooner if the situation called for it. But I think 6 is just way too young. I would probably seperate the Loving aspect from the sex aspect. This is where I would bring up homosexuality. I'd leave sex out, but talk about how some people choose to be comfortable with the same gender. That some guys and girls want to spend their lives with their best friends.

With sex, I would discuss from a stricly scientific, biological perspective about reproduction, etc.

OK, so you can discuss a relationship without discussing the sexual nature of it (which of course is important when talking to children). But your response makes it sound as though you would wait until your child was old enough to hear about sexual relationships before bringing up homosexual relationships at all. What if your child came home from elementary school and mentioned that his new friend only had a mom, no dad? What if they came home and tell you their new friend had two mommies? How would you deal with families that fall outside the norm of "one mother, one father," if you're only willing to discuss them from a sexual perspective?

Would you let your children play the game of Life if it didn't offer the option of gay couples?

Well, thats why I said "probably sooner" if the situation called for it.

From a certain range of ages (6-10) I wouldn't let them play. Any older, than I don't see any point of hiding the issue any longer if it means taking an otherwise fun game away from them.

By whole problem was the age thing.

I was the kid in grade school who only had a mom, no dad. But its because my parents were divorced, not becuase my mom was a lesbo. However, the reasons my parents got divorced was not something I was proud of either.

Look, if your father was gay, that's not a reason to take it out on the rest of the gay community.

No, it's because he was lying and cheating on my mom, engaging in adultery, etc.

 

[Jschmuck2]

You know, after all of these posts, I'm genuinely starting to feel for you. What you're talking about here, combined with your previous posting history really, really makes it sound like you're a Goddamn mess. Really. Maybe take some time off of the internet and get your head together. When you come back, maybe you'll start to make some sense.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

I'm not sure who that is directed to. I would never teach my kids to HATE anybody. Dissaproving of behavior and thinking certain behaviors are immoral is a completely different thing than hating someone.

I have close friends who are gay that I would die for. But, just like I tell them they shouldn't speed down the highway, I'll tell them I don't approve of their sex lifes. Some of my friends haircuts are so bad, they should be sins too.

There's a huge line that has to be drawn about hate, and simply not approving of behavior.

Nope, sorry I wasn't implying you are teaching your child to hate. All I was saying was that your response reminded me of that quote

You can teach your children of things that you do not approve of, without condemnation. Of course there are things you don't approve of that you can condemn...I guess it all depends on where you choose to draw that distinction.

And just to add...I don't think kids can intellectually make such a distinction. Grown ups have a hard enough time doing so evidently.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
You know, after all of these posts, I'm genuinely starting to feel for you. What you're talking about here, combined with your previous posting history really, really makes it sound like you're a Goddamn mess. Really. Maybe take some time off of the internet and get your head together. When you come back, maybe you'll start to make some sense.

What, because you don't agree with me? I'll commend you, that paragraph is better than just saying "OMG BIGOT" but you don't need to feel anything for me.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

I'm not sure who that is directed to. I would never teach my kids to HATE anybody. Dissaproving of behavior and thinking certain behaviors are immoral is a completely different thing than hating someone.

I have close friends who are gay that I would die for. But, just like I tell them they shouldn't speed down the highway, I'll tell them I don't approve of their sex lifes. Some of my friends haircuts are so bad, they should be sins too.

There's a huge line that has to be drawn about hate, and simply not approving of behavior.

Nope, sorry I wasn't implying you are teaching your child to hate. All I was saying was that your response reminded me of that quote

You can teach your children of things that you do not approve of, without condemnation. Of course there are things you don't approve of that you can condemn...I guess it all depends on where you choose to draw that distinction.

And just to add...I don't think kids can intellectually make such a distinction. Grown ups have a hard enough time doing so evidently.

You're right. The one thing I've learned to accept is that I can only steer my kids in the direction I think is right. It's my job to be a parent, not let other people parent my kids. But when they start to get older, aka 15-16, etc. they will begin to draw their own conclusions, so it will be less me saying what's right and wrong, and more me sitting down and saying "well, I don't think its right to do x or y, what do you think?"

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I agree, and even in my position, I see murder as something incredibly worse than homosexuality. But I would also feel like my child is being harmed pyschologically if he is being taught that it isn't immoral to engage in homosexual behavior. So I condemn it.

I can think of no logical basis for this statement.

Because it's my opinion, not yours. Any opinion you don't agree with is probably not going to make sense to you, and that's understandable.

You are quite incorrect, sir. I can understand how a great many opinions I don't agree with make sense to the people that hold them. That's different than there being a logical basis for belief that a child could be psychologically harmed by the above. I can understand how your belief makes sense to you--but it's still illogical.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
You're right. The one thing I've learned to accept is that I can only steer my kids in the direction I think is right. It's my job to be a parent, not let other people parent my kids. But when they start to get older, aka 15-16, etc. they will begin to draw their own conclusions, so it will be less me saying what's right and wrong, and more me sitting down and saying "well, I don't think its right to do x or y, what do you think?"

If/when you have kids, you'll find out that they pick up ideological garbage from their friends that have idiot parents, too.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sao123
I think parents have the right to determine when to and when not to expose their kids to sexual issues.

its not unreasonable for her to not want her child to be exposed at six years old to sexual issues. Hell, many parents dont want their children dating until they are 16.

Also, since the game of life is rated for ages 5 to adult, I dont see a problem her logic.
People who create items for young children need to stop the propoganda and issue pushing in childrens products. there is no need for "gay" Life game, "gay" sesame street, or "gay" barbie.

Sao, this question is for both you and TechBoyJK. I notice you mention that children should not be exposed to sexual discussions at six years old. I agree with you. But I'm curious how you talk about heterosexual relationships with your children. Is it impossible to raise the point of a mommy and daddy loving each other because, really, isn't that just talking about sex? At what age would you let your children play the game of Life, since it's just going to raise issues about sexuality in opposite-sex relationships? And since the game also involved procreation, there's really just no way around the issue, is there?

Hey.. some civility.

I'd say 10-12 years old is when I would probably just sit down with my kids and lay it all out for them. Possibly sooner if the situation called for it. But I think 6 is just way too young. I would probably seperate the Loving aspect from the sex aspect. This is where I would bring up homosexuality. I'd leave sex out, but talk about how some people choose to be comfortable with the same gender. That some guys and girls want to spend their lives with their best friends.

With sex, I would discuss from a stricly scientific, biological perspective about reproduction, etc.

OK, so you can discuss a relationship without discussing the sexual nature of it (which of course is important when talking to children). But your response makes it sound as though you would wait until your child was old enough to hear about sexual relationships before bringing up homosexual relationships at all. What if your child came home from elementary school and mentioned that his new friend only had a mom, no dad? What if they came home and tell you their new friend had two mommies? How would you deal with families that fall outside the norm of "one mother, one father," if you're only willing to discuss them from a sexual perspective?

Would you let your children play the game of Life if it didn't offer the option of gay couples?

ill say the same thing as i said earlier.

a child grows up generally having 1 mom and 1 dad, and needs no (non sexual)explanation. Yes, this "typical" child will eventually become aware there are different family formations. When that happens, yes I will explain, at whatever age this may be.
At that time and place, I can also explain what we view as morrally acceptable and not acceptable, by our own family standards, without the intrusion by outside agendas.


What you are losing sight of here is simple... this isnt just a board game life, where some one played the game and just put 2 blue chips in the same car. I have 3 copies of Life which i routinely play with my wife and other mature family members. The computer game of Life (same as board game) asked the child player what type of spouse was wanted, same sex or hetero sex. this is a question that does NOT need to be actively posed to young children. Nothing but pure propoganda aimed at early exposure of young children in hopes that they will be more "ok" with it later in life.


This was an ACTIVE attempt at pushing politically correct gay agenda into a setting which it had no business being, thus prematurely forcing the parent into confronting a situation which she felt her child was not ready to deal with. Maybe her child was too young to be playing the game, and maybe she should have been ready to deal with it. but it is not fair for a toy maker to push her into a situation, which perhaps she felt it best to wait for a natural exposure in real life...

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sao123
I think parents have the right to determine when to and when not to expose their kids to sexual issues.

its not unreasonable for her to not want her child to be exposed at six years old to sexual issues. Hell, many parents dont want their children dating until they are 16.

Also, since the game of life is rated for ages 5 to adult, I dont see a problem her logic.
People who create items for young children need to stop the propoganda and issue pushing in childrens products. there is no need for "gay" Life game, "gay" sesame street, or "gay" barbie.

Sao, this question is for both you and TechBoyJK. I notice you mention that children should not be exposed to sexual discussions at six years old. I agree with you. But I'm curious how you talk about heterosexual relationships with your children. Is it impossible to raise the point of a mommy and daddy loving each other because, really, isn't that just talking about sex? At what age would you let your children play the game of Life, since it's just going to raise issues about sexuality in opposite-sex relationships? And since the game also involved procreation, there's really just no way around the issue, is there?

Hey.. some civility.

I'd say 10-12 years old is when I would probably just sit down with my kids and lay it all out for them. Possibly sooner if the situation called for it. But I think 6 is just way too young. I would probably seperate the Loving aspect from the sex aspect. This is where I would bring up homosexuality. I'd leave sex out, but talk about how some people choose to be comfortable with the same gender. That some guys and girls want to spend their lives with their best friends.

With sex, I would discuss from a stricly scientific, biological perspective about reproduction, etc.

OK, so you can discuss a relationship without discussing the sexual nature of it (which of course is important when talking to children). But your response makes it sound as though you would wait until your child was old enough to hear about sexual relationships before bringing up homosexual relationships at all. What if your child came home from elementary school and mentioned that his new friend only had a mom, no dad? What if they came home and tell you their new friend had two mommies? How would you deal with families that fall outside the norm of "one mother, one father," if you're only willing to discuss them from a sexual perspective?

Would you let your children play the game of Life if it didn't offer the option of gay couples?

ill say the same thing as i said earlier.

a child grows up generally having 1 mom and 1 dad, and needs no (non sexual)explanation. Yes, this "typical" child will eventually become aware there are different family formations. When that happens, yes I will explain, at whatever age this may be.
At that time and place, I can also explain what we view as morrally acceptable and not acceptable, by our own family standards, without the intrusion by outside agendas.


What you are losing sight of here is simple... this isnt just a board game life, where some one played the game and just put 2 blue chips in the same car. I have 3 copies of Life which i routinely play with my wife and other mature family members. The computer game of Life (same as board game) asked the child player what type of spouse was wanted, same sex or hetero sex. this is a question that does NOT need to be actively posed to young children. Nothing but pure propoganda aimed at early exposure of young children in hopes that they will be more "ok" with it later in life.


This was an ACTIVE attempt at pushing politically correct gay agenda into a setting which it had no business being, thus prematurely forcing the parent into confronting a situation which she felt her child was not ready to deal with. Maybe her child was too young to be playing the game, and maybe she should have been ready to deal with it. but it is not fair for a toy maker to push her into a situation, which perhaps she felt it best to wait for a natural exposure in real life...

A simple yes or no will do:

Milton Bradley is trying to indoctrinate our children with pro-gay propaganda through their board game, which was invented in 1860.

Yes or no?