12 y.o traumitized by Brokeback Mountain, Grandparents sue school (Harsh Debate within)

ORIGINAL: Nitro

And you judge homosexuals.

No, I don' t. As I' ve said this entire damn thread, I' m not okay with the act of gay sex. I don' t judge the people. Obviously you can' t read.

XBL Gamertag: Rampage99

" Basically, pollute the air all you want, your just speeding up the inevitable. Our future generations are f*cked as it is and there' s really nothing we can do about it. Have a nice day "

You judge the acts they commit. It' s them commiting them, so you' re judging them.

I understand that you are uncomfortable with the act of anal sex, but it' s everything else i don' t get. Why is it wrong to have same sex sex?

You judge the acts they commit. It' s them commiting them, so you' re judging them.

No, judging an act isn' t judging a person.

You' ve already crossed the line and have been reported. I have nothing more to say to you or in this thread. I' m sorry you were incapable of an educated non-hateful debate.

XBL Gamertag: Rampage99

" Basically, pollute the air all you want, your just speeding up the inevitable. Our future generations are f*cked as it is and there' s really nothing we can do about it. Have a nice day "

Every creature has instinctive enemies, it is our instinct to despise faggots, no matter how much you try to spin it.

People who DON' T hate homosexuals are the ones that have been CONDITIONED to tolerate a natural enemy.

If the Wii was only capable of 480i, it would have to be deinterlace it. - Emotep

Learn to use proper English. - Emotep

I have an American kid failing Geography. - Emotep

" I still disagree with most of what you wrote in your message, especially your claim of distortions of the brain being labeled as a specific reason for sexual orientation."

You do realize that hormones have a role in the development of the brain? There is a difference between the male and female brain. No one is the perfect male or perfect female, everyone is on a continuum. That doesn' t mean certain people who aren' t perfect are wrong it just means they' re human. Homosexuality is very complex and I doubt there is one clear explanation for it. It' s not black and white. Most likely it' s a mixture of many things. I believe it' s part genetic and part environmental. Being sexually abused at a young age for example can change your sexuality. Most often though these things are decided before we' re born. Some people just don' t care. They' ll fuck anyone.

All you have to do is look at chimps and other animals. If you study monkeys long enough you' ll inevitably learn that many of them don' t really care what gender their partner is. They just fuck anything that moves pretty much. In some cases they' re not even the same species as there partner. I' ve seen cats and dogs fuck.

You could argue that Humans are different from other animals because we have the choice. Homosexuals could deny their " instincts" or urges. But what' s the point? They' d still be gay, the action is meaningless. Homosexuality is defined by what they want not what they do.

Frankly I don' t care what they do. They' re not affecting my life. Infact, I don' t even care what is wrong or right. As far as I' m conserned there is no such thing. Everyone has their own morals. Even Christians can' t agree with eachother. So why do we even need this primitive idea of universal morality? I think we need to look past the things we can' t control and just accept it.

ORIGINAL: Rampage99
I probably have a lot more experience with gay people then you have unless you in fact are gay yourself...

...You' re a ***ing douche bag.

Bingo.

If the Wii was only capable of 480i, it would have to be deinterlace it. - Emotep

Learn to use proper English. - Emotep

I have an American kid failing Geography. - Emotep

ORIGINAL: Evil Man

Every creature has instinctive enemies, it is our instinct to despise faggots, no matter how much you try to spin it.

People who DON' T hate homosexuals are the ones that have been CONDITIONED to tolerate a natural enemy.

You' re inferring that people who are Gay are somehow a threat to heterosexuals.

Actually it is the opposite. The more gay males there are, the more pussy is for the taking by straight males. :)

Sure they are a threat.

Think back when humans lived in small packs and tribes, what if you have a struggling tribe of 30 people, with 10 able to healthily reproduce but 8 of them are faggots?

Exactly.

If the Wii was only capable of 480i, it would have to be deinterlace it. - Emotep

Learn to use proper English. - Emotep

I have an American kid failing Geography. - Emotep

Theoretically they are a threat to the survival of the human race: if everyone became gay then no more children, or if less and less groups were procreating then ultimately you are limiting the gene pool, which is not a good idea in evolutionary terms.

" Theoretically they are a threat to the survival of the human race: if everyone became gay then no more children, or if less and less groups were procreating then ultimately you are limiting the gene pool, which is not a good idea in evolutionary terms."

That' s stupid and unlikely. Gays make up less than .5% of the population. Firstly homosexuality have zero impact on population. Population is derived mostly from economics. Poor countries breed faster because children can help with the family, rich countries have people with fewer kids becuase kids are expensive. That' s the primary control for population right there. As for speculating about tribes as Evil Man' s example, who gives a shit about tribes? None of us live in tribes.

Besides pinning the extinction of the human race on gays is unfair. The human race will be extinct eventually. But it won' t happen because everyone went gay.

I find it kind of ironic when people say they don' t want " gay genes" in the gene pool yet they blame gays for not contributing to reproduction.

ORIGINAL: Evil Man

Sure they are a threat.

Think back when humans lived in small packs and tribes, what if you have a struggling tribe of 30 people, with 10 able to healthily reproduce but 8 of them are faggots?

Exactly.

But how does that differ from racism? Is it instinctive to procreate with our own race?

I was being deliberately ludicrous, I did say theoretically; it won' t happen, we are far more likely to kill off the human race through over-population, so maybe being gay will save the human race.

Theoretically they are a threat to the survival of the human race: if everyone became gay then no more children

Not neccesarily, there would still be sperm banks. The gays technically wouldnt have to be strait to have kids, they could just donate sperm to the lesbians.... but as far as raising the kid, i have no idea how that would work

I was being deliberately ludicrous, I did say theoretically; it won' t happen, we are far more likely to kill off the human race through over-population, so maybe being gay will save the human race.

I know you weren' t serious but I responded because some people do use that as a real argument to justify their point of view.

I agree that it would be a threat back in the day when humanity wasn' t insanely overpopulated. But in this day in age it' s more like a remedy because way too many people are having way too many kids. Kind of the same way as disease can be seen as a form of population control. The human population is certainly in no danger of diminishing any time soon.

Personally I think homosexuality is more of a fetish. Some guys are just turned on by other guys the same way some guys are turned on by women with chocolate and other messy food poured all over them. A very small case could be made about being " born gay" , though. Although I don' t think that every homo is born with a predetermined gay destiny, a friend of my sister' s was EXTREMELY tomboyish for her entire childhood, even going so far as getting boyish haircuts and the like no matter what her parents did. She grew up to be a carpet muncher.

especially your claim of distortions of the brain being labeled as a specific reason for sexual orientation.

Studies have clearly shown that homosexuals show signs of having a brain that is more like the opposite sex in the area that supposedly controls sexuality. You can deny it all you want but it' s a fact.

Trust me I' ve done my research. I also have a professor/doctor at my school who is a published author, that has lived in 13 countries (just to throw your American bias argument out the window) who is a psychologist, and teaches sexual education class (college level, no birds and bees bullshit). Since sex is her primary focus for studies homosexuality is a common discussion for her. She' s read all the research, all the reports, etc... nothing can conclusively explain what makes a person gay.

I think you' re being selective when it comes to what research you choose to believe in. You' ve chosen to believe in the person that has arguments that supports your own view.
Also, the research I' m talking about is relatively new, and while it cannot entirely explain the reasons for homosexuality, it is a clear sign that much of what controls our sexuality is determined before we are born. It' s a fact.
Of course, I might be selective too but at least I' m not saying a group of people are doing something wrong just because I have a different preference.
I say that someone is not guilty until the opposite has been proved. I have seen no proof that homosexuality in any way would be harmful to other people.

Now anyway, back to the quote I took from your post, let' s compare that with what Nitro is doing right now. He' s telling me I' m wrong. He' s telling me my beliefs are garbage. He' s making vast generalizations, picking out a certain group of people and attacking them and my directly. Yes it sucks. I' m sure it sucks for gay people to. I know it sucks for gay people to be hated. I' ve had plenty of conversations with my gay friends about it. Some things you just have to deal with. People are told they are wrong all the time. I' ve been attacked for my beliefs all my life, too. My gay friends and I complete accept each other' s opinion on the matter. It really boggles my mind that straight guys are sitting here getting all crazy about it when gay people are accepting my opinion.

There is a difference. You have an opinion or a belief that' s being attacked. Why do we attack you? Because we hate you? No, because through discussions your opinion might change.
Homosexuality can' t change. No matter how much you tell gay people are wrong, they can' t stop being gay.
That' s a very important difference between attacking ones opinions and ones sexuality.

On that note, you guys keep telling me just because I think somethings gross or disturbing doesn' t make it wrong. Well who decides what' s right and wrong? Why do you guys get to tell me I' m wrong for saying having gay sex is wrong? Just because you find my opinion mean or disturbing? Please... What gives you the right to judge me when I can' t judge others? Once again, hypocritical bullshit.

Telling what' s right or wrong is a difficult thing.
But the thing is, right or wrong is based on choices. Gay people can' t choose to become straight. I bet lots of them would if they could, just to stop hearing people like you telling them they' re wrong. But they can' t change.
We might say you are wrong about some things, but you always have a choice.
That' s what I think is the difference.

I' m not saying sex for pleasure was after religion. I' m just saying at its core, sex is for reproduction and should be viewed as such.

Humans have become much more than animals following instinct. We now choose what to do with our lifes. We are supposed to eat in order to get nutrition and survive. But you like good food don' t you? Or candy, donuts, soda, snacks? We have chosen to make eating to something more than just " surviving" and that' s what makes life worth living.
Even though the initial function of sex was to reproduce, it has become much more.

Give me it' s a reason acceptable to have sex without reproduction being the focus.

It' s enjoyable and stimulating.

That having gay relations are complete fine and acceptable

Because some people enjoy it and it doesn' t hurt anyone.

The core of my way of thinking is that the only reason something should be considered to be wrong is if it hurts someone.
Gay sex, as annoying and gross it can be, does not hurt anyone (unless someone is raped of course).
I really don' t want to think of two men being intimite with each other. I feel kinda uncomfortable with the thought but I do not consider it to be wrong. Because I know everyone is not like me. I cannot base my moral values on my own personal feelings. I have to take into account the way others think and how they work, both from a psychological perspective as well as from a biological perspecitve.

So your saying that no matter what someone can be diagnosed with homosexuality at birth? What happened to people having a choice? Personally i think that is impossible to determine what will happen

Theoretically, it is possible to diagnose the probability of someone becoming homosexual from birth. Some scientists claim that they can tell if your gay just by seeing how your brain reacts to male feromones.

He' s stated that he doesnt hate gays, he just doesnt like their life style, which has nothing to do with him being a stereotype.

Saying someone is wrong when all they do is being something they cannot choose not to be is down right mean. Maybe he doesn' t hate them, but it' s just as bad as hate.

No, I don' t. As I' ve said this entire damn thread, I' m not okay with the act of gay sex. I don' t judge the people. Obviously you can' t read.

I' ll say the same thing. I' m not judging YOU. I' m just discussing one single opinion you have. Other than this I find most of your opinions agreeable.

Think back when humans lived in small packs and tribes, what if you have a struggling tribe of 30 people, with 10 able to healthily reproduce but 8 of them are faggots?

Gay people actually reproduce anyway. There' s a theory that when we lived in the wild gay couples would reproduce with a woman and let her give birth to a child. Once the child was born they would dump her and take care of the child themselves. The chances of survival for the kid would increase by more than 30% due to the strength of the second male compared to a couple of a woman and a man. Sounds weird that a gay guy would have sex with a woman but it' s actually possible. There has been sightings of this situation in certain animal societies.

Btw, I don' t think gay couple should be allowed to marry.
Why? Well it' s against the church' s teachings. If gay people disagree then they' ll have to accept the fact that THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIAN. So no marriage for them.
They can do some other ceremony to celebrate their love if they want to, but not a christian marriage.

ORIGINAL: ginjirou

Btw, I don' t think gay couple should be allowed to marry.
Why? Well it' s against the church' s teachings. If gay people disagree then they' ll have to accept the fact that THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIAN. So no marriage for them.
They can do some other ceremony to celebrate their love if they want to, but not a christian marriage.

That' s the issue I wanted to bring into this discussion.

Personally I think there' s no reason for the STATE not to allow gay people to marry, but no church could, because it' s against the teachings of the church. The church reserves the right to teach what it wants and bar members as it pleases, and the government shouldn' t be bound by the rules of any religious organization.

Anyone should be able to be married by a judge and receive the same benefits like tax breaks and credit consideration as any other married couple.

Obviously that doesn' t apply if the government doesn' t claim separation of church and state.

No one wants separation of State and Church more than I do and lets say that eventually it does happen. The problem we' d have now is that, who gets to govern " marriage" ? The Church or the State?

I think the easy solution is to just leave marriage to the church and let them decide wheather or not they perform the ceremony for gays. Then simply give State unions the same status and legal benefits that marriages bring. As you suggested.

Here we have the queen as the nominal head of state, but also titled as defender of the faith for the Church of England, so both are entwined.

Marriage however as a legal position is controlled by the state, so getting married in a church while having all the Christian extras has the same legal mandate as one which takes place in registry office, hotel, temple, or rollercoaster. Gays can engage in civil partnerships which entitle them to some benefits of a heterosexual marriage, but as far as I am aware they are still denied some things.

It seems to work, people get married where they are comfortable, the documentation at the end is the same.

When you marry in church you get Gods blessing and it' s a little more magical.
I think that' s why gay couples would like to marry in a real church. Lots of gay people are religious and maybe even semi-christian so they probably want to marry with Gods blessing. The thing is, they will never get the blessing of the one true God of christianity. It would be against his teachings.
If they think they can get Gods blessing then they have their own non-christian belief. And as such, they have no right to be married in a true christian church.
So my advice for them is to start their own religion or something.

So religion should dictate how a person or persons should life their lives? Is that what you are saying, if 2 people who love and respect each other just happen to be the same sex, but happen to follow the christian faith, then they should be denied the chance to make their commitment to each other in their place of worship? Well I thought religion was based on hypocrisy and now my thoughts are true.

Homosexuality is against the norm but then again, so is cacophilia, foot fetishists, S&M worshipers. Would you deny them a wedding in a church too? Homosexuality is not something that should be publically displayed or forceible taught to children, which was the case in question, however it should not be totally irradicated, otherwise you are starting to want to clean up the gene pool, and where would that end, maybe we should get rid of the blacks or the Asians, I know we' ll get rid of all those without Blond hair, are jewish and don' t live in Germany...hmmm sound familliar to anyone.

Studies have clearly shown that homosexuals show signs of having a brain that is more like the opposite sex in the area that supposedly controls sexuality. You can deny it all you want but it' s a fact.

Thats not fact, that is a theory. It cant be proven and it never will be able to be proven that you will be gay before you' re even born, its idiotic to even think that its possible. Thats like a doctor walking in and saying " Im afraid I have bad news. According to our test results.... you' re gay!"

Thats not fact, that is a theory.

These are undeniable facts:
-Differences exist in the structure of the brains from different genders. You can actually see if a brain belongs to a male of female. In some cases males have the structure of a female brain and vice versa. In those cases, the persons also had characteristics that belonged to the opposite sex.
Undeniable facts measured by instruments. It' s NOT a theory.

-Homosexual men had, in almost all cases, the same structure as females have when it comes to the regions that are believed to control sexuality. It was closely measured by very accurate instruments.

Those are facts, the rest are theories. But considering the facts above, it is most likely that a persons sexuality and behaviour (in terms of female/male behaviour) is to some extent determined before we are born.

its idiotic to even think that its possible.

Why? What research are you basing that on? How did you make such a conclusion?

Thats like a doctor walking in and saying " Im afraid I have bad news. According to our test results.... you' re gay!

That could very well be reality in the future if research is continued and society approves such tests.

-Homosexual men had, in almost all cases, the same structure as females have when it comes to the regions that are believed to control sexuality.

See the bolded text? That basically shatters the whole theory. If their not positive that the region of the brain controls sexuality, then its impossible for them to be sure that gay men have the sexual structure of a woman.

Yes but let' s pretend that the mentioned part of the brain doesn' t control sexuality.
Do you not find it rather interesting that gay men have one part of the brain, all of them the same part of the brain, that is just like a female brain?
So even if it' s not the part that controls sexuality, it still shows that gay men have a common structure in their brains. And since the structure is just like womens, it would make no sense if it did not have anything to do with their sexuality.
In any case, it shows that gay men have a common biological structure that they can' t control.
Are you afraid of research on sexuality? To me it sounds like it. You really try todeny the fact that science can actually calculate the probability of someone being gay.
What is the problem with that anyway?

Yes but let' s pretend that the mentioned part of the brain doesn' t control sexuality.
Do you not find it rather interesting that gay men have one part of the brain, all of them the same part of the brain, that is just like a female brain?

What if a man that has never had a thought of gayness had a brain like that of a female?

Are you afraid of research on sexuality? To me it sounds like it. You really try todeny the fact that science can actually calculate the probability of someone being gay.
What is the problem with that anyway?

I just think its stupid because what if they decide that they' re right but cant prove it? Are they just going to treat you like you are gay when you are just a child? In America they always talk about how we can have a choice to do what we want to, which i only believe to a certain extent and this is one of those that i believe. I dont think they can just determine your future by comparing brains. Is it not possible that men can have feminine brains and not be gay? I know many feminine males that are strait. I just dont think they can determine your sexual orientation by doing a simple test, i think its entirely up to the person.

What if a man that has never had a thought of gayness had a brain like that of a female?

Then he is what you call " an exception" . Also, other factors affect sexuality, like childhood and such. Your genes and your biological structure only lays the foundation and shows what' s most likely to become of you.
But you' re using the words " what if" . Well, if that would happen then it will be difficult to determine why he has not become gay. But so far, I have not seen such situations where a gay-brained guy is not homosexual. It is of course interesting to see if further studies will show such examples and the research in the area will be truly interesting to follow.

I just think its stupid because what if they decide that they' re right but cant prove it?

Professional scientists never say they' re 100% certain. They only show what their research has shown to be a probably answer to a question. But they are never certain. If we do not follow logic and chose to believe in what' s most likely, than what would you prefer us to believe in? Word on the street? Personal feelings? Pure chance? I prefer to follow science that presents studies that show what is most likely to be an answer to a question. If you have a better way then please tell me.

Are they just going to treat you like you are gay when you are just a child?

And what do you mean by that? Should gay people be treated differently?

I dont think they can just determine your future by comparing brains.

Of course they can' t. they can only measure the probability of certain things. But their calculations can often be very accurate. I do not see any reason to diagnose a persons sexuality anyway. I think people need to discover their sexuality for themselves. And try not to care too much. Just enjoy the things they are interested in. Science has no need to butt in and tell people how they should be. However, it can be useful when questions are asked.

Is it not possible that men can have feminine brains and not be gay?

That is true, the studies I' m refering to never intended to study homosexuals. The studie was supposed to focus on differences between males and females. The facts about homosexuals came as a surprising " bonus" .
The brain have different regions that handle different tasks. Many men can be female in almost every region and still be hetersexual. Just as long as the part that is believed to control sexuality isn' t female. That' s why I find it very likely that homosexuality is partly controlled by that particular area. Because it' s when that area alone, is like the opposite sex, that a person is more likely to be a homosexual.

I know many feminine males that are strait.

It' s very hard for amateurs like us to determine if a persons behaviour is based on his biological structure or other factors. And many things that are considered to be manly or girly are created by society and does not have anything to do with biology at all.

I just dont think they can determine your sexual orientation by doing a simple test, i think its entirely up to the person.

So you' re saying that a person chooses his sexual preferences?

And what do you mean by that? Should gay people be treated differently?

Im reffering to the people the child grows up around such as parents. Like the parent trying push them into being gay just because a doctor runs a test that says he has a gay brain

I think people need to discover their sexuality for themselves.

Thats exactly how i feel

So you' re saying that a person chooses his sexual preferences?

Yes, i think everyone has a free will to choose/like/think what ever they want.

Im reffering to the people the child grows up around such as parents. Like the parent trying push them into being gay just because a doctor runs a test that says he has a gay brain

Well, that would be wrong of course. And diagnosing someones sexuality would be pretty unnecessary IMO. Tests can sometimes show the wrong result when you do them on the individual level, so it' s better to keep the research at a level where it' s simply pure genus science.

Yes, i think everyone has a free will to choose/like/think what ever they want

I' d love to believe that myself, and I do in many cases. However I' ve seen and read many things that says otherwise, especially in areas such as the one being debated here right now.

The thing is, they will never get the blessing of the one true God of christianity.

Who says that the Christian God is the one true god? You most likely say that because you were raised to believe so. There are many other religions out there. Are they all wrong and Christians just happened to get it right? Religion is only a way for primitive societies to rationalize their existence since they couldn' t really comprehend anything else. Those teachings got passed down through the generations.

I' m not religious so I have no opinion of Gods.
But withinchristianity they only have one true God
Gay people do not follow his teaching as written in the Bible and as such they should respect the rules of the teachings they have chosen to follow, by not marrying. If they believe that God has nothing against homosexuals and that they should be allowed to marry, then they' re not christian because they' re opposing the core teachings of christianity. They can be neu-christians or whatever, I don' t care.
Religions constantly evolve in order to survive through the times. Perhaps now is a time when christianity will decline (as it already has in Sweden) and new religions will rise. Religions adapted to gay people.

In The Simpsons they often say
" I' d like to hear from Sideshow Mel"

Well, since this is Kikizo I' ll say
" I' d like to hear from Eddie_the_Hated"

OK I gotcha. I agree that it is up to the churches themselves to decide whether they like that kind of stuff.

Well, since this is Kikizo I' ll say
" I' d like to hear from Eddie_the_Hated"

Eddies probably using common since and doesnt want to get involved with this pointless argument. Im not saying its pointless because it involves gay rights and what not, im saying its pointless to argue over opinions, especially when we all come from different parts of the world and were raised differently. The thread has been blown way out of its original proportion and has caused many arguments such as the Majik vs Rampage debate which wasnt exactly a good outcome

Eddie probably does have something to say on the subject. I' m pretty sure he' s Gay...

I believe Rampage is right. I don' t necessarily agree with his opinions, but he has his beliefs, and he' s living them. Not just saying that he' s Christian, but actually living the life. That' s not an easy feat. Much respect for that!

And I have news for you, Nitro. Not all Christians are bad people. You act as though Rampage is going around condemning gays. As if he' s saying that their gay acts must be stopped at all costs! All he said was that he believes it' s wrong. You know what he means. God says that it' s an abomination, so it' s wrong. Anybody can sit here and ask him to come up with a " scientific" or " logical" explanation, but we all know that it' s based on religion, so why argue? Rampage is a good kid. He' s not hurting anyone by saying that homosexuality is wrong by his religions standards, so let' s just let that dog lie.

As far as this scientific data mapping the brain; it' s horse-shit! Scientists are tinkerers and theorists. The bottom line is that they don' t know. There' s compelling arguements on BOTH sides of that camp, so let' s just wait and see if they come up with something concrete in the future. I mean, when they can turn a gay person straight, and a straight person gay, then I' ll believe! (and I' ll stay away from those MFers!)

To recap:

Rampage has a belief that is inline with his religion, which he has patterned his life after. Nitro has decided that Rampage cannot have this opinion because he doesn' t like Christianity, and therefore he cannot like Rampage (or his mom, obviously). Rampage is being a bit sensitive and should probably just leave this thread alone.

He doesn' t have an opinion " inline" with his religion. His opinion has been formed by his religion. If he hadn' t been brought up as an orthodox Christian then there' s a good chance he would view it differently.

No i don' t like Christians. I don' t like any religion.

But it' s like ginjirou said, i' m not judging him as a whole. I' m judging his opinion on Gay people, and his opinion is tied directly to his religious beliefs.

Like Joe said...

Religion is only a way for primitive societies to rationalize their existence since they couldn' t really comprehend anything else. Those teachings got passed down through the generations.

Religion teaches you that homosexuality is wrong, but not why. That' s why Rampage couldn' t explain why it' s wrong. It' s ok to have an opinion if you can explain it, but opinions formed because of bullshit like religion are hardly opinions at all. It' s like his vow to refrain from having sex until he' s married. Why? Because his religion says so? Well then it' s not an opinion at all is it.

Oh, and his...

Make another comment about my mom again and I will actively fight to have you banned from this forum.

I will be talking to Adam about this.

...shit is laughable.

But hey, it' s good to see you back Chee Saw. It' s been a while since you last posted right?

Now its some time since I did Bible studies (I dabbled in Evangelism at Uni but decided it wasn' t my cup of tea), but I don' t think Jesus ever said ' don' t be gay' . It certainly says it in the Old Testament, but then it says a lot of tripe there that Christians don' t follow. Jesus said it was far more important how you lived that it was far more important being nice to one another, doing good deeds, rather than living life to some rigidly defined set of rules.

If we all loved one another like brothers then the world would be a much happier place.

But going back to the original thread, children of a young age shouldn' t be shown sexual material (homo or hetero) until they are emotionally ready, and after parental consent. Religious beliefs on this are irrelevant, it is just common sense.