A friend of mine from high school posted a facebook status asking if anyone else on her friend list was considering home-schooling their children.

My opinions on the issue, as with a lot of issues, are pretty particular and I'm not personally a fan.

Now, it is true that some children benefit from home-schooling, as a more public setting is either distracting or in some other way detrimental to their education. I do not, however, feel that this is the case in the majority, but rather that most parents do it because they're not willing to let go of their children, even for a second.

Home-schooling children is a very delicate balancing act, because many parents home-school their children for the exact reason that children go to school: so that they can be introduced into the general population and develop the social skills they will need when they become adults and enter the "real world." If you home-school your children from pre-K through high school...when your child goes to college, the potential for them to wind up in dangerous or unhealthy situations is increased by a degree of magnitudes, because they've had little to no continual exposure to what it means to exist in a social environment. This makes them more prone to suggestion and peer pressure, because they haven't been given the opportunity to develop the social skills necessary to make intelligent, informed decisions about their life.

I believe the boom in home-schooling trends in the last 15 years is less a result of parents wanting to take an active role in their children's education and more to simply keep them away from the "dangers of the outside world," which is a short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating idea.

I'm not saying that this is unanimously the case, because it's not, but in my personal experience, the people I've met who have been home-schooled have been at a SERIOUS social and emotional disadvantage when they are released into the population (often during high school, which is the WORST time to introduce a young mind to an entire world of new stimuli.)


In terms of developmental psychology, the age at which the developing youth begins to actually start to create an autonomous identity is 2-3 years according to the Erikson life-stages model.

As the child gains control over eliminative functions and motor abilities, they begin to explore their surroundings. The parents still provide a strong base of security from which the child can venture out to assert their will. The parents' patience and encouragement helps foster autonomy in the child. Highly restrictive parents, however, are more likely to instill the child with a sense of doubt and reluctance to attempt new challenges. As they gain increased muscular coordination and mobility, toddlers become capable of satisfying some of their own needs. They begin to feed themselves, wash and dress themselves, and use the bathroom. If caregivers encourage self-sufficient behavior, toddlers develop a sense of autonomy- a sense of being able to handle many problems on their own. But if caregivers demand too much too soon, refuse to let children perform tasks of which they are capable, or ridicule early attempts at self-sufficiency, children may instead develop shame and doubt about their ability to handle problems.

At 3-5 years, the child begins to start the process of separation from the family identity and begin to attempt things for themselves.

Initiative adds to autonomy the quality of undertaking, planning and attacking a task for the sake of being active and on the move. The child is learning to master the world around them, learning basic skills and principles of physics. Things fall down, not up. Round things roll. They learn how to zip and tie, count and speak with ease. At this stage, the child wants to begin and complete their own actions for a purpose. Guilt is a confusing new emotion. They may feel guilty over things that logically should not cause guilt. They may feel guilt when this initiative does not produce desired results.

The development of courage and independence are what set preschoolers, ages three to six years of age, apart from other age groups. Young children in this category face the challenge of initiative versus guilt. As described in Bee and Boyd (2004), the child during this stage faces the complexities of planning and developing a sense of judgment. During this stage, the child learns to take initiative and prepare for leadership and goal achievement roles. Activities sought out by a child in this stage may include risk-taking behaviors, such as crossing a street alone or riding a bike without a helmet; both these examples involve self-limits. Within instances requiring initiative, the child may also develop negative behaviors. These behaviors are a result of the child developing a sense of frustration for not being able to achieve a goal as planned and may engage in behaviors that seem aggressive, ruthless, and overly assertive to parents. Aggressive behaviors, such as throwing objects, hitting, or yelling, are examples of observable behaviors during this stage.

Preschoolers are increasingly able to accomplish tasks on their own, and can start new things. With this growing independence comes many choices about activities to be pursued. Sometimes children take on projects they can readily accomplish, but at other times they undertake projects that are beyond their capabilities or that interfere with other people's plans and activities. If parents and preschool teachers encourage and support children's efforts, while also helping them make realistic and appropriate choices, children develop initiative- independence in planning and undertaking activities. But if, instead, adults discourage the pursuit of independent activities or dismiss them as silly and bothersome, children develop guilt about their needs and desires

From ages 6-11, the child is developing a more concrete understanding of the intangible elements of the surrounding environment, like time and distance, morality and responsibility.

The aim to bring a productive situation to completion gradually supersedes the whims and wishes of play. The fundamentals of technology are developed. To lose the hope of such "industrious" association may pull the child back to the more isolated, less conscious familial rivalry of the oedipal time.

"Children at this age are becoming more aware of themselves as individuals." They work hard at "being responsible, being good and doing it right." They are now more reasonable to share and cooperate. Allen and Marotz (2003) also list some perceptual cognitive developmental traits specific for this age group. Children grasp the concepts of space and time in more logical, practical ways. They gain a better understanding of cause and effect, and of calendar time. At this stage, children are eager to learn and accomplish more complex skills: reading, writing, telling time. They also get to form moral values, recognize cultural and individual differences and are able to manage most of their personal needs and grooming with minimal assistance (Allen and Marotz, 2003). At this stage, children might express their independence by being disobedient, using back talk and being rebellious.

Erikson viewed the elementary school years as critical for the development of self-confidence. Ideally, elementary school provides many opportunities for children to achieve the recognition of teachers, parents and peers by producing things- drawing pictures, solving addition problems, writing sentences, and so on. If children are encouraged to make and do things and are then praised for their accomplishments, they begin to demonstrate industry by being diligent, persevering at tasks until completed, and putting work before pleasure. If children are instead ridiculed or punished for their efforts or if they find they are incapable of meeting their teachers' and parents' expectations, they develop feelings of inferiority about their capabilities.

And then comes the 12-19 stage of development, called adolescence. That nightmare time of puberty and sexual awakening, the development of the emotional-response centers of the brain (but NOT the emotional control centers) that every person looks back on with a look of sadness and goes "if I only knew then what I know now."

The adolescent is newly concerned with how they appear to others. Superego identity is the accrued confidence that the outer sameness and continuity prepared in the future are matched by the sameness and continuity of one's meaning for oneself, as evidenced in the promise of a career. The ability to settle on a school or occupational identity is pleasant. In later stages of Adolescence, the child develops a sense of sexual identity.

As they make the transition from childhood to adulthood, adolescents ponder the roles they will play in the adult world. Initially, they are apt to experience some role confusion- mixed ideas and feelings about the specific ways in which they will fit into society- and may experiment with a variety of behaviors and activities (e.g. tinkering with cars, baby-sitting for neighbors, affiliating with certain political or religious groups). Eventually, Erikson proposed, most adolescents achieve a sense of identity regarding who they are and where their lives are headed.

Erikson is credited with coining the term "Identity Crisis"[2] Each stage that came before and that follows has its own 'crisis', but even more so now, for this marks the transition from childhood to adulthood. This passage is necessary because "Throughout infancy and childhood, a person forms many identifications. But the need for identity in youth is not met by these."[3] This turning point in human development seems to be the reconciliation between 'the person one has come to be' and 'the person society expects one to become'. This emerging sense of self will be established by 'forging' past experiences with anticipations of the future. In relation to the eight life stages as a whole, the fifth stage corresponds to the crossroads:

What is unique about the stage of Identity is that it is a special sort of synthesis of earlier stages and a special sort of anticipation of later ones. Youth has a certain unique quality in a person's life; it is a bridge between childhood and adulthood. Youth is a time of radical change—the great body changes accompanying puberty, the ability of the mind to search one's own intentions and the intentions of others, the suddenly sharpened awareness of the roles society has offered for later life.[4]

Adolescents "are confronted by the need to re-establish [boundaries] for themselves and to do this in the face of an often potentially hostile world."[5] This is often challenging since commitments are being asked for before particular identity roles have formed. At this point, one is in a state of 'identity confusion', but society normally makes allowances for youth to "find themselves," and this state is called 'the moratorium':

The problem of adolescence is one of role confusion—a reluctance to commit which may haunt a person into his mature years. Given the right conditions—and Erikson believes these are essentially having enough space and time, a psychological moratorium, when a person can freely experiment and explore—what may emerge is a firm sense of identity, an emotional and deep awareness of who he or she is.[6]

As in other stages, bio-psycho-social forces are at work. No matter how one has been raised, one’s personal ideologies are now chosen for oneself. Oftentimes, this leads to conflict with adults over religious and political orientations. Another area where teenagers are deciding for themselves is their career choice, and oftentimes parents want to have a decisive say in that role. If society is too insistent, the teenager will acquiesce to external wishes, effectively forcing him or her to ‘foreclose’ on experimentation and, therefore, true self-discovery. Once someone settles on a worldview and vocation, will he or she be able to integrate this aspect of self-definition into a diverse society? According to Erikson, when an adolescent has balanced both perspectives of “What have I got?” and “What am I going to do with it?” he or she has established their identity:[7]

Dependent on this stage is the ego quality of fidelity—the ability to sustain loyalties freely pledged in spite of the inevitable contradictions and confusions of value systems.[8]

Given that the next stage (Intimacy) is often characterized by marriage, many are tempted to cap off the fifth stage at 20 years of age. However, these age ranges are actually quite fluid, especially for the achievement of identity, since it may take many years to become grounded, to identify the object of one's fidelity, to feel that one has "come of age." In the biographies Young Man Luther and Gandhi's Truth, Erikson determined that their crises ended at ages 25 and 30, respectively:

Erikson does note that the time of Identity crisis for persons of genius is frequently prolonged. He further notes that in our industrial society, identity formation tends to be long, because it takes us so long to gain the skills needed for adulthood’s tasks in our technological world. So… we do not have an exact time span in which to find ourselves. It doesn't happen automatically at eighteen or at twenty-one. A very approximate rule of thumb for our society would put the end somewhere in one's twenties.

And a psychologist by the name of Jeffery Jensen Arnett has added yet another developmental stage (which coincides in the time-line with the young adult stage in Erikson's model) called "Emerging Adulthood."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/ma...od-t.html?_r=1
Welcome to the homepage for Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, Ph.D.

I'd like to hear your experiences, opinions, and beliefs on the matter.

Be respectful.

Interesting and well thought-out, I think.

I just want to preface this with the fact that I was homeschooled. I hope that won't make anyone disregard things I say, it just means I have a different point of view.

Re: Sheltering.

This can go either way. I believe the definition of "sheltering" kids can be misused. I've been accused of being a stupid "sheltered homeschooler" when the kid merely disagreed with my not doing something that they did. People are taught different things and, as they grow up, they need to decide whether they're going to continue believing and doing it or not. It's about priorities. I disagree with many "normal" things in today's world, but it doesn't mean I was sheltered, just that I've decided what I agree with.

However, sheltering can be taken to an extreme. Parents can be controlling as opposed to just looking out for their kids. There needs to be interaction and conversation about things, not just sweeping topics under the rug until they're "old enough to handle it." This, I agree, can be an issue in homeschooling.

Re: Socialization in relation to college and other activities.

That could also go both ways. In public education, as well as home schooling, but it seems to me that people tend to be confused over homeschooling, applying the "unsocialized" label, because they don't fully understand the mechanics of it. True, it's schooling at home, but that doesn't mean a kid is required to sit down with legs straight and never waver from their textbook until the lesson is finished. Homeschooling is often chosen because of flexibility in lesson planning, allowing for education outside the home, though not in an official institute. Because there are no age regulations on classes, homeschoolers have the opportunity to socialize with a much wider range of people--if they take advantage of it.

It can also help a mentality of respect for others, since they're not in a group that is precisely their age. They have the chance to talk more easily with adults, which can help in college. The college thing is a myth.

Originally Posted by rblackbird

Interesting and well thought-out, I think.

I just want to preface this with the fact that I was homeschooled. I hope that won't make anyone disregard things I say, it just means I have a different point of view.

Re: Sheltering.

This can go either way. I believe the definition of "sheltering" kids can be misused. I've been accused of being a stupid "sheltered homeschooler" when the kid merely disagreed with my not doing something that they did. People are taught different things and, as they grow up, they need to decide whether they're going to continue believing and doing it or not. It's about priorities. I disagree with many "normal" things in today's world, but it doesn't mean I was sheltered, just that I've decided what I agree with.

However, sheltering can be taken to an extreme. Parents can be controlling as opposed to just looking out for their kids. There needs to be interaction and conversation about things, not just sweeping topics under the rug until they're "old enough to handle it." This, I agree, can be an issue in homeschooling.

Re: Socialization in relation to college and other activities.

That could also go both ways. In public education, as well as home schooling, but it seems to me that people tend to be confused over homeschooling, applying the "unsocialized" label, because they don't fully understand the mechanics of it. True, it's schooling at home, but that doesn't mean a kid is required to sit down with legs straight and never waver from their textbook until the lesson is finished. Homeschooling is often chosen because of flexibility in lesson planning, allowing for education outside the home, though not in an official institute. Because there are no age regulations on classes, homeschoolers have the opportunity to socialize with a much wider range of people--if they take advantage of it.

It can also help a mentality of respect for others, since they're not in a group that is precisely their age. They have the chance to talk more easily with adults, which can help in college. The college thing is a myth.

To be perfectly honest, I wanted to draw out some people who HAD been home-schooled because my experience is very limited, and I believe that what I have witnessed have been fairly extreme cases of the kind of sheltering you're talking about, wherein the child is basically kept out of school to keep them from interacting with people their own age at all. Granted, some of these were also those ridiculous like "we send your school work in the mail and you mail it back to us so we can grade it" things...where the parent basically just gave the adolescent their work and expected it to be done without any direct educational interaction.

I come from a very small, rural, uber-religious area...so a lot of people that keep their kids home-schooled...the kids don't actually spend ANY time around anyone who isn't family (granted we're talking extended family as well here) especially their own age, and then get dumped into high school freshman or sophomore year, and it's an incredible disservice to the children.

My father has been a high-school teacher for most of my life, and when he wasn't teaching and coaching, he's been working in an administrative function in the school system, so I've spent my entire life in the education system from the teacher's perspective.

And what I mean about it being dangerous when they get to college: you end up dealing with a bunch of people age 18-22, many of whom have learned some pretty subtle and sophisticated manipulative techniques...there are a lot of people who will take advantage of the naive, and the pressure for some of these kids to "fit in" or avoid alienation is strong enough that they will do things that they might not otherwise do. Granted, it's not fair to blame this on the fact that they were home-schooled necessarily, but is probably more indicative of the particular flavor and justification for home-schooling as it relates to the parents' agenda.

So no, I'm not going to disregard your opinion because you were home-schooled. I'm actually going to put a bit more weight on your opinion BECAUSE you've witnessed this system first-hand. I would like to ask the following questions, and please don't be offended by any of them, I don't mean to imply anything. My BA is in Anthropology, asking questions is part of the game:

How long were you home-schooled?

How was social interaction with your peers handled in your case?

How long has it been since you were last home-schooled?

Did you pursue a continued higher education after your primary education was finished?

If so, what field did you pursue and how was your experience?

If not, why?

Have you ever had instances where you feel that other people seem to have a better grasp of certain social situations?

Were there periods of your life after your home-schooling that you found yourself in situations or circumstances that you weren't really able to effectively handle at first because you needed to develop skills that hadn't been developed socially/emotionally?

Would you home-school your children?

I'm not sure how to do partial quotes, so I'll just use the punctuation.

How long were you home-schooled?

All my life or organized academics, which was until my eighteenth birthday. Due to finishing the classes I needed to, I actually graduated in October of that year, and the graduation party was also a birthday party.

How was social interaction with your peers handled in your case?

I think it was handled fairly well. I am a Christian, so much of that was at church, but I came from a town that was extremely easy to get around in, which helped that aspect. Not so much near the end, because of where I live now, which is, for lack of a better word, "uptight" about roads and people seeing each other. Overall, being with people was promoted. Because of scheduling and being homeschooled, I was able to be around kids on their spring breaks, snow days, and other things like that, when I might have had school had I been in a public system.

How long has it been since you were last home-schooled?

About a year and a half.

Did you pursue a continued higher education after your primary education was finished?

In a formal sense, no. I'm not of a personality to pursue higher certifications such as Engineer, Doctor, Lawyer, etc... As for personal education, I spend my time in my own study and writing of literature. And replying to forum threads similar to this.

If so, what field did you pursue and how was your experience?

I pursue artisan crafts and writing.

If not, why?

I don't really feel that college is a mandatory part of society. True, it's learning further, but my profession does not require a degree in anything. It might help, but I haven't chosen to pursue it. I've had one book published, and I'm working on three more. I'm working up a habit of diligence in my arts, which will supplement my income.

[quote]Have you ever had instances where you feel that other people seem to have a better grasp of certain social situations?"

I have a few social hangups, but I don't know that it's due to being homeschooled. I talk well enough with people 1-on-1, but party atmosphere annoys me. I don't initiate conversations well, unless there is a particular reason to. I don't know that I've ever thought someone has a "better grasp," necessarily, just that they're talking more. I am not known as a garrulous individual.

Were there periods of your life after your home-schooling that you found yourself in situations or circumstances that you weren't really able to effectively handle at first because you needed to develop skills that hadn't been developed socially/emotionally?

There was a brief but intense period of emotional development about a year ago, that can best be described as "drama." It forced me to decide various things that had been somewhat ambiguous before. It actually had much to do with homeschooling, in that a person was using my education choices, and other things, against me as an excuse not to listen to my thoughts. Since then I believe I've been able to handle things more effectively. But, as for prior to that, I think it was the same, but to a lesser extent. I've long been a fan of wordsmithing, but I only concentrated my efforts when I was being directly attacked.

Like I said before, I don't completely disagree. In my world sphere, the homeschoolers have been very well "socialized" and generally polite and respectful of others. As for me, I think it was because there was rarely a feeling of "you're too young to understand," and if I wanted to talk about something, or asked questions, my own parents tried to help me with it instead of squashing my face. I am a firm believer that, if a child has the capacity to ask the question, they have the capacity to have it explained to them.

Would you home-school your children?

I do not want to have children. There is the possibility of my having a niece or nephew in the future, and I hope his/her parents choose homeschooling. If not, I would volunteer to teach a class on what I know. If, by some sneeze of the cosmos, I end up with children, I would homeschool. Like anything else, it depends largely on the effort and intention of the parents.

Thank you for humoring me. quotes are done using the (open square bracket) QUOTE (close square bracket) and (open bracket) / QUOTE (close bracket) tags around the text you want to quote.

As someone who went through the public school system and then went to college, left for a year, came back and changed majors and then graduated, I can kind of agree that college is getting less mandatory because the market is so over-saturated with people holding BA's right now...it's hard to find a job that isn't in the service sector.

Which reminds me:
How do you exist financially? By this I mean, do you have a job that provides steady income? Are you still living with your parents? Do you actually publish enough material that you can survive on your art alone? How is it that the day-to-day financial needs of your life are met?

How do you exist financially? By this I mean, do you have a job that provides steady income? Are you still living with your parents? Do you actually publish enough material that you can survive on your art alone? How is it that the day-to-day financial needs of your life are met?

I still live with my parents, but I'm looking to change that in about a year or so, whether by finding a place to live in the same town, or heading further away to room with a friend. I do not have an income that can currently support my living somewhere else. I'm looking to work up a writerly reputation though self-marketing and putting out new material. Unless something terrible happens, I should have two new books this year. I've been studying a bit of public speaking and looking for smaller engagements to begin building references for the future.

I fully intend to live on writing and art. I'm not quite a materialist, though I enjoy nice things. I would be content with a place to live, food to eat, a bit of culture in my clothing, provided I was able to do what I truly love. I admire people who want to be nurses, jet builders, and accountants and possess the follow-through, but that's not really what I want as the general point to my life.

Originally Posted by rblackbird

I still live with my parents, but I'm looking to change that in about a year or so, whether by finding a place to live in the same town, or heading further away to room with a friend. I do not have an income that can currently support my living somewhere else. I'm looking to work up a writerly reputation though self-marketing and putting out new material. Unless something terrible happens, I should have two new books this year. I've been studying a bit of public speaking and looking for smaller engagements to begin building references for the future.

I fully intend to live on writing and art. I'm not quite a materialist, though I enjoy nice things. I would be content with a place to live, food to eat, a bit of culture in my clothing, provided I was able to do what I truly love. I admire people who want to be nurses, jet builders, and accountants and possess the follow-through, but that's not really what I want as the general point to my life.

I'm one of those people who has aspirations of being an author. There's a convention I go to locally every year that has a writer's workshop run by the coolest guy ever.

But some of the things that I've learned from listening to writers and editors and publishers...and these are just general statements, they're obviously not universal...don't self-publish. The literary community doesn't really respect self-publication, and has issues with people who do it. Second: writing doesn't pay consistently, and a lot of times you can go YEARS without seeing so much as a cent for your work. The only people who really make a living with writing are people who submit PROLIFICALLY to short-story markets (at .5 cent per word to 1 cent per word) or who write best-sellers with consistency. Most authors have to find alternate methods of bolstering their revenue, which is why many sell their works at conventions and hit up the convention circuit.

If you're serious about doing the self-publication thing until you can move on to larger publishing houses, sometimes it works out, I've met a couple of authors who started with self-publishing and moved to smaller houses then finally to larger ones...these are the exceptions, not the rules. Find local literary conventions (especially if you write speculative fiction[horror, sci-fi, fantasy]) or other conventions in your area and try to get on in a vending capacity or something...increase your network of people that you know, sometimes you can meet some really interesting people that can be surprisingly helpful in your endeavors.

I'm one of those people who wants to do...like fifteen or sixteen things that fall into the "entertainment industry" from scriptwriting to film direction to stand up to designing movie soundtracks, to fiction, to video game production.

I am all kinds of supportive of people who want to pursue artistic dreams, but I like for people to be adequately prepared for the kind of slow-going that this sort of process entails.

http://www.ralan.org
SFWA

These are two highly reputable sites, which contain massive listings of currently open literary markets, as well as writing contests for various things and the like.

I can see your points there. Self-publishing definitely has a bad reputation, but I think that's because so many self-publishing systems have a low standard because of the ease of execution. People skipping out on professional editors, not polishing the manuscript long enough, and other things like that.

But some of the things that I've learned from listening to writers and editors and publishers...and these are just general statements, they're obviously not universal...don't self-publish. The literary community doesn't really respect self-publication, and has issues with people who do it. Second: writing doesn't pay consistently, and a lot of times you can go YEARS without seeing so much as a cent for your work. The only people who really make a living with writing are people who submit PROLIFICALLY to short-story markets (at .5 cent per word to 1 cent per word) or who write best-sellers with consistency.

I would argue that a lot of the disrespect comes from the unconventionality, however. Self-publishing does, actually, have a more stable return, depending on the marketing methods. I also agree with expanding a network. Since I write mainly for teenagers, a large group of individuals I know have been spreading their interest in the first book. As for submitting prolifically, that comes into play with various press releases and other links.

Thanks for the input, though. It matters to me when people take me seriously.

well I kind of imagine that authors and publishers are like any other group of people: there's a certain degree of elitism that comes from being successful in a field, and people who attempt to do the same thing without going through the officially sanctioned channels tend to receive at least some degree of negative reaction.

Originally Posted by quasievilgenius

well I kind of imagine that authors and publishers are like any other group of people: there's a certain degree of elitism that comes from being successful in a field, and people who attempt to do the same thing without going through the officially sanctioned channels tend to receive at least some degree of negative reaction.

Precisely.
I'm not exactly conventional in the adjectives that might be combined to describe me, so I don't really worry about the elitists. It's actually a bit surprising to them when I don't cower to intimidation.

To be honest, I came in here expecting someone bashing homeschoolers.
But I was pleasantly surprised.

I think that children miss out a lot on socialisation and diversity when they are home schooled. A couple up the road from me are home-schooling all five of their kid which is quite unusual in the UK. They do it for religious reasons i.e they don't want their kids mingling with the likes of us heathens. Which is kinda of sad.

Originally Posted by una

I think that children miss out a lot on socialisation and diversity when they are home schooled. A couple up the road from me are home-schooling all five of their kid which is quite unusual in the UK. They do it for religious reasons i.e they don't want their kids mingling with the likes of us heathens. Which is kinda of sad.

Have they actually said that to you?

A lot of parents homeschool their kids because evolution is taught as fact, which they don't believe in. Many religious homeschoolers don't think of public schooled people as "those crazy heathens who are going to hell," they just choose different things.

I think that home schooling can be great if done correctly. I knew of several home schooled people, including myself. One has been home schooled until college. He really liked it but I know little about his experiences. I know one girl whom her and her sisters are in a band. Home schooling allowed them to travel and be on the road. Personally my experience was that I hated it. My mom made it just like school basically. My sister and I sat on the couch at tray tables in the living room and weren't allowed to speak to each other. We had little interaction with others simply (except for church) because we couldn't afford dance, karate, etc. It lasted one year and we transferred to private school.

See in some cases, like with child actors or the children of musicians, private tutoring is really the only feasible option, but that's not really what I'm trying to address in this particular instance, because then you're talking about a whole new kind of lifestyle overall. I'm not discrediting it as viable for discussion, but I will point out that predominantly I'm talking about the people who lead otherwise normal lives with the exception of the fact that they're home-schooled.

Personally, I have issues with people who aren't willing to believe in evolution, but I'm also an academic and I'm fairly familiar with things like the archaeological record. The chief example of evolution in action is every breed of dog ever. There weren't doberman pinschers and rottweilers and jack russell terriers during the time when Jesus was alive. There just weren't. These breeds exist because people have spent hundreds upon hundreds of years selecting traits that they want and breeding out traits they don't want. That's evolution. Another example is sickle-cell anemia. This is a genetic predisposition which ACTUALLY protects its carriers from malaria. People with sickle-cell are more likely to reach breeding age. This is all evolution is. The concept that beneficial traits are more likely to survive an environment and reproduce than those without those traits. The whole "man came from monkeys" thing was a postulation by Charles Darwin, not to be lumped in with the scientifically proven theory of natural selection. And if your response is "evolution is just a theory, it's a guess," then you're not adequately looking at what it means for something to be a scientific theory. A theory, in science, is defined as follows:

a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Something doesn't become a theory because someone guesses it. That's improper use of the word. THAT word is "hypothesis." In order for something to be considered a scientific theory, it has to be proven over and over again so that it is established it cannot be attributed to researcher fraud/miscalculation or a statistical outlier. It's not 'just a guess.' Again, that's a hypothesis.

But I am digressing from the point at hand.

I also believe that it does children a disservice to try to shelter them from a dissenting opinion simply because it's a dissenting opinion, as it leads to the perpetuation of ignorant misinformation, but it is the prerogative of a parent to decide the best manner in which to raise their children, and I respect that, to the boundaries of health and safety. But by the same token, I also agree with the UK's decision not to let a couple adopt a child because they refuse to be willing to address with equality the idea of homosexuality. As a parent, you don't get to control who your children are, but merely to mold them to be the best they can be. A parent's responsibility is love and care for the needs of their children, tantamount to any other agenda they might have.

The chief example of evolution in action is every breed of dog ever. There weren't doberman pinschers and rottweilers and jack russell terriers during the time when Jesus was alive.

Then again, humans breed dogs, calling intelligent design into the picture.

Something doesn't become a theory because someone guesses it.

To this I agree.

But by the same token, I also agree with the UK's decision not to let a couple adopt a child because they refuse to be willing to address with equality the idea of homosexuality.

Were they going to teach their child to hate homosexuals, or teach the child that homosexuality is incorrect? There's a difference. Personally, I have friends who are homosexual, but I don't hate them, though I still believe they are incorrect.

Originally Posted by rblackbird

Then again, humans breed dogs, calling intelligent design into the picture.




To this I agree.



Were they going to teach their child to hate homosexuals, or teach the child that homosexuality is incorrect? There's a difference. Personally, I have friends who are homosexual, but I don't hate them, though I still believe they are incorrect.

Basically, the magistrate or whatever public official is in charge asked them if they would love their child the same if that child grew up to be a homosexual, and they said no.

----------

Originally Posted by rblackbird

Then again, humans breed dogs, calling intelligent design into the picture.

At the risk of turning this into a debate about the validity of evolution...

That's a very valid counterpoint to that specific example, but you didn't address the issue of Sickle-Cell, which does not point to intelligent design. Darwin's key example was the various subspecies of finch that could be found in the archipelago known as the "Galapagos Islands." These are all finches, all of them...all come from the same species, and yet the birds on different islands developed different types of beaks to help them eat the various forms of seeds and nuts found throughout the islands. Some birds live on islands where they have hard-shelled nuts, so they've developed beaks which allow them to smash the shells. Others need longer, more tweezer-shaped beaks to allow them to crack seeds and get to the food inside. This is what "natural selection" is. The development of a trait across generations. Now, it's also fair to consider that mankind has effectively stopped the progress of natural selection, because we've started doing all the selecting ourselves. The reason I stress this is that a good majority of people disagree with evolution because they THINK the entire argument hinges on "man came from monkey" which even science disagrees with considering the fossil evidence. There are about four dozen species along the evolutionary chain spanning hundreds of millennia which separate us from whatever higher primate may have originally begun the chain.

That's where I'll end that. I'll allow for response, but any further discussion on evolution should probably have it's own thread. I'm not trying to silence dissent, but we're probably creeping very quickly towards being irrelevant to the point of this particular thread, which is home-schooling. I'll be perfectly content to discuss this issue, just not in here.

The thing about the UK court decision: It doesn't actually matter which their answer was. As a parent, you don't GET to decide your child's life past a certain point, and if you're going to treat your child differently because they're homosexual, then you can't actually logically think that you can be handed a child, who is not your blood, and be trusted by the agency involved to care for that child unconditionally, because you've already stated that your love is conditional on them turning out a certain way.

I've only read half the posts, but it's been enough to make me feel sick to my stomach. Being homeschooled though my elementary and middle school years I can tell you it's not what most people say. In fact, it was quite insulting when I would make the comment that I was home schooled and they ask 'Are you socially deprived?' and treat me like some strange new creature.

I'm gonna list some things I've found when researching homeschooling and conclusions found by studies on homeschooling.

Socialization:
I will state now I do not have a reference on this study because I was not able to find one on the internet, but I find the information interesting anyway. A double-blind study was done where traditionally schooled children and homeschooled children were placed on a playground, double blind meaning neither the scientists or the children knew who was who when it came to schooling. It was found that while traditionally schooled children tended to stick with others in their age range, race and gender homeschooled children would play more freely with any of the children on the playground despite age, gender or race.

Despite popular view on homeschooled children, most spend almost all their time with family or friends. In most cases either the mother or father are stay-at-home parents meaning children are almost never completely alone. There are co-ops and homeschoolers tend to get together with other homeschoolers allowing their children to be friends. When I was young, 90% of my best friends were homeschooled. Because of the flexibility of the homeschooling schedule, sleep overs and get togethers could happen any day of the week.

It's also worth noting that homeschooled children are more likely to have 1 or 2 siblings and that less than 10% of homeschooled children are without any siblings at all.

71% of homeschooled adults are active in their community as opposed to 37% of traditionally schooled adults and 88% were a part of some organization or group as opposed to 50% of traditionally schooled adults.

Education:

Growing up, work quality was always more important than grades. In fact, through elementary school and middle school grades meant very little to me. If I took a test and did not do well, my mom had me review the material and retry the test later until I could get an acceptable (A or B level) grade. Some may say it's unfair but in reality it's actually a much more efficient teaching method because almost no matter what I'm learning the material. Living in PA, I had to take PSSA's every few years and also other tests to make sure I was on target and on every test neither my sister or I ever scored below the 97 percentile.

74% of homeschooled students 18-24 take college level courses as opposed to the 49% of traditionally school students.


Only 4.2% of homeschooled adults find politics and government too complex to understand as opposed to 35% of traditionally schooled adults. 76% of homeschooled adults ages 18-24 voted as opposed to 29% of the same group in traditionally schooled adults. Homeschooled adults surveyed on their quality of life have been found to be overall more content.

When a child in school is doing badly, what are some of the things teachers suggest? Tutoring, parents help with homework, or child visits teacher for extra sessions. One-on-One attention and generally their grades improve. So what happens when you give a competent student one-on-one attention for the entire year? The result is the same amount of schoolwork done at a better quality in less time. Homeschoolers can achieve the same amount of schoolwork done in sometimes less than half the time. Some homeschoolers use this to an advantage, and do double the amount in 1 year, others simply only do about 2-4 hours of schoolwork a day and then have the rest of the day free. Homeschoolers are also found to be more well rounded because they've had the free time to develop their own skills and the like. I started programming before I was ten years old and for the past few years I've earned thousands of dollars in programming alone.

There is another skill that Homeschoolers tend to learn at a higher rate than traditionally schooled children and that's how to self teach. This skill has allowed me to excel both in and out of the classroom by gaining skills such as programming and also being able to sit down with a text book and read and retain the knowledge I gain almost instantly.

Originally Posted by A 1997 Study on The Academics in Homeschooling

The study demonstrated that homeschoolers, on the average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to 37 percentile points in all subjects.
A significant finding when analyzing the data for 8th graders was the evidence that homeschoolers who are homeschooled two or more years score substantially higher than students who have been homeschooled one year or less. The new homeschoolers were scoring on the average in the 59th percentile compared to students homeschooled the last two or more years who scored between 86th and 92nd percentile.

Across all grade levels, homeschooled students on average scored better than students in private schools. The average homeschooled student entering 9th grade scores better than the graduating 12th grade student at the national norm.


Other:

For more accurate statistics as to WHY homeschoolers homeschool, this is a good reference: PDF File that can be found here: Census Findings

95% of homeschooled adults are glad that they were homeschooled. It's also worth noting that out of every 100 homeschooled children, 37 have a father who has a Bachelor's degree, as opposed to 15.6 out of every 100 children in the nation. 19/100 children have a father who has their masters degree which is almost 4 times higher than the rest of the nation. On average, the parents of homeschooled children tend to have a higher education than those of the rest of the nation.

Only .1% of homeschooled children watch more than 6 hours of TV per day, as opposed to the 19% of children in the nation. 65% of homeschooled children watch less than an hour, versus the 25% of children in the nation in the same category.

It's also a trend that the longer a child has been homeschooled, the better their scores tend to be.

References:
Education Policy Analysis Archives <- most used reference.
HSLDA
One-On-One Instruction
Academic Statistics on Homeschooling


One final note on homeschooling, I was homeschooled through 8th grade, then in 10th grade at a public school scored a GPA of 4.05 and felt bored most of the year. I've been accepted into every college I applied to including MIT. I have always had friends that I saw more than once a week, and I have never been called or considered socially deprived by my own actions. Despite growing up in a Christian family with Christian values, I know more than most of my peers about Islam, Hinduism and other major religions and beliefs and I was always encouraged to make my own decisions and come to my own conclusions. I also plan to homeschool any children I have, and I personally suggest homeschooling to anyone, even if it's only for the elementary years.


As for the comments about Evolution I noticed earlier. Evolution is a THEORY just as much as Intelligent Design is a THEORY, yet one is taught as fact and the other is not taught at all. Both have at least some evidence based in scientific data but neither can be proved and one is not more relevant over the other. In fact, those who say believing in Evolution isn't faith are wrong because they're believing something that has yet to be PROVEN. This is a very big issue for many families who homeschool who prefer to not have THEORY taught as FACT. There is a big difference that the school system fails to identify.

Originally Posted by rblackbird

Have they actually said that to you?

A lot of parents homeschool their kids because evolution is taught as fact, which they don't believe in. Many religious homeschoolers don't think of public schooled people as "those crazy heathens who are going to hell," they just choose different things.

No, they are definitely crazies and not the type to hide their 'light under a bushel'. They are very vocal about their condemnation of modern society and lifestyles. Around Christmas I see the father in the city-centre yelling at Christmas shoppers for their wicked lifestyles and how they are all going to hell. Honestly I can't even begin to justify how odd they are. They like to stand outside one of the shops in town and claim that anyone who crosses the threshold will be tainted with blood of innocent babies that drips from the door frame- this is all because the shop sold items that their religious beliefs and ideas don't agree with. Their children are only allowed to socialize with other children of the same religion which the parents approve of. The whole thing is very limiting.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

I've only read half the posts, but it's been enough to make me feel sick to my stomach. Being homeschooled though my elementary and middle school years I can tell you it's not what most people say. In fact, it was quite insulting when I would make the comment that I was home schooled and they ask 'Are you socially deprived?' and treat me like some strange new creature.

I'm gonna list some things I've found when researching homeschooling and conclusions found by studies on homeschooling.

Socialization:
I will state now I do not have a reference on this study because I was not able to find one on the internet, but I find the information interesting anyway. A double-blind study was done where traditionally schooled children and homeschooled children were placed on a playground, double blind meaning neither the scientists or the children knew who was who when it came to schooling. It was found that while traditionally schooled children tended to stick with others in their age range, race and gender homeschooled children would play more freely with any of the children on the playground despite age, gender or race.

Despite popular view on homeschooled children, most spend almost all their time with family or friends. In most cases either the mother or father are stay-at-home parents meaning children are almost never completely alone. There are co-ops and homeschoolers tend to get together with other homeschoolers allowing their children to be friends. When I was young, 90% of my best friends were homeschooled. Because of the flexibility of the homeschooling schedule, sleep overs and get togethers could happen any day of the week.

It's also worth noting that homeschooled children are more likely to have 1 or 2 siblings and that less than 10% of homeschooled children are without any siblings at all.

71% of homeschooled adults are active in their community as opposed to 37% of traditionally schooled adults and 88% were a part of some organization or group as opposed to 50% of traditionally schooled adults.

Educations:

Growing up, work quality was always more important than grades. In fact, through elementary school and middle school grades meant very little to me. If I took a test and did not do well, my mom had me review the material and retry the test later until I could get an acceptable (A or B level) grade. Some may say it's unfair but in reality it's actually a much more efficient teaching method because almost no matter what I'm learning the material. Living in PA, I had to take PSSA's every few years and also other tests to make sure I was on target and on every test neither my sister or I ever scored below the 97 percentile.

74% of homeschooled students 18-24 take college level courses as opposed to the 49% of traditionally school students.


Only 4.2% of homeschooled adults find politics and government too complex to understand as opposed to 35% of traditionally schooled adults. 76% of homeschooled adults ages 18-24 voted as opposed to 29% of the same group in traditionally schooled adults. Homeschooled adults surveyed on their quality of life have been found to be overall more content.

When a child in school is doing badly, what are some of the things teachers suggest? Tutoring, parents help with homework, or child visits teacher for extra sessions. One-on-One attention and generally their grades improve. So what happens when you give a competent student one-on-one attention for the entire year? The result is the same amount of schoolwork done at a better quality in less time. Homeschoolers can achieve the same amount of schoolwork done in sometimes less than half the time. Some homeschoolers use this to an advantage, and do double the amount in 1 year, others simply only do about 2-4 hours of schoolwork a day and then have the rest of the day free. Homeschoolers are also found to be more well rounded because they've had the free time to develop their own skills and the like. I started programming before I was ten years old and for the past few years I've earned thousands of dollars in programming alone.

There is another skill that Homeschoolers tend to learn at a higher rate than traditionally schooled children and that's how to self teach. This skill has allowed me to excel both in and out of the classroom by gaining skills such as programming and also being able to sit down with a text book and read and retain the knowledge I gain almost instantly.



Across all grade levels, homeschooled students on average scored better than students in private schools. The average homeschooled student entering 9th grade scores better than the graduating 12th grade student at the national norm.


Other:

For more accurate statistics as to WHY homeschoolers homeschool, this is a good reference: PDF File that can be found here: Census Findings

95% of homeschooled adults are glad that they were homeschooled. It's also worth noting that out of every 100 homeschooled children, 37 have a father who has a Bachelor's degree, as opposed to 15.6 out of every 100 children in the nation. 19/100 children have a father who has their masters degree which is almost 4 times higher than the rest of the nation. On average, the parents of homeschooled children tend to have a higher education than those of the rest of the nation.

Only .1% of homeschooled children watch more than 6 hours of TV per day, as opposed to the 19% of children in the nation. 65% of homeschooled children watch less than an hour, versus the 25% of children in the nation in the same category.

It's also a trend that the longer a child has been homeschooled, the better their scores tend to be.

References:
Education Policy Analysis Archives <- most used reference.
HSLDA
One-On-One Instruction
Academic Statistics on Homeschooling


As for the comments about Evolution I noticed earlier. Evolution is a THEORY just as much as Intelligent Design is a THEORY, yet one is taught as fact and the other is not taught at all. Both have at least some evidence based in scientific data but neither can be proved and one is not more relevant over the other. In fact, those who say believing in Evolution isn't faith are wrong because they're believing something that has yet to be PROVEN. This is a very big issue for many families who homeschool who prefer to not have THEORY taught as FACT. There is a big difference that the school system fails to identify.

I apologize if you are insulted by the ignorance of people who've never been exposed to home-schooling, but the ONLY way to eliminate that ignorance is to seek answers, and there is no source so reliable as those who have experienced it. First-hand accounts are more reliable in a tangible aspect than statistical data, and it's the observation of social scientists searching for knowledge that leads to that statistical data in the first place. But if you're only going to read half the posts, then you're not really adequately giving US a chance to display our willingness to hear the truth. I have said multiple times that it is the parents' right to decide the best manner in which to raise and educate their children (to the limit of health of safety) and that I respect that right, whether or not I agree with their decisions. The person whose decision to home-school prompted me to start this thread is a dear friend of mine from back in high school (I graduated high school 10 years ago this year,) and because I know so little about the system, it concerned me, and to be honest this thread has given me a much better understanding of the hows and whys, which I couldn't have reached otherwise.

That's the point of this thread, to be honest: I wanted to get the experiences and views from the other side of the fence, which I can't get without asking people who WERE home schooled about their experience. Again, I feared that my observational experience with home schooled individuals represented a statistical minority, extreme cases wherein the system was not used in the way that it was intended.

You raise very strong points in defense of home-schooling, and I appreciate the statistical data and framing of your argument. The focus on one-on-one attention for the student is definitely a major selling-point, as the public school systems are grievously ill-equipped to provide that kind of attention to its students, something I can attest to first-hand.

And on the issue of evolution:

In your experience were both Intelligent Design AND evolution taught?

Were both covered equally from an objective standpoint?

I don't disagree that schools take a one-sided approach to this debate, and that it's an issue that should be addressed.

Hayzel can you please locate for me where you got

95% of homeschooled adults are glad that they were homeschooled.

I cannot find it in any of your sources.

I apologize if you are insulted by the ignorance of people who've never been exposed to home-schooling, but the ONLY way to eliminate that ignorance is to seek answers, and there is no source so reliable as those who have experienced it. First-hand accounts are more reliable in a tangible aspect than statistical data, and it's the observation of social scientists searching for knowledge that leads to that statistical data in the first place. But if you're only going to read half the posts, then you're not really adequately giving US a chance to display our willingness to hear the truth. I have said multiple times that it is the parents' right to decide the best manner in which to raise and educate their children (to the limit of health of safety) and that I respect that right, whether or not I agree with their decisions. The person whose decision to home-school prompted me to start this thread is a dear friend of mine from back in high school (I graduated high school 10 years ago this year,) and because I know so little about the system, it concerned me, and to be honest this thread has given me a much better understanding of the hows and whys, which I couldn't have reached otherwise.

That's the point of this thread, to be honest: I wanted to get the experiences and views from the other side of the fence, which I can't get without asking people who WERE home schooled about their experience. Again, I feared that my observational experience with home schooled individuals represented a statistical minority, extreme cases wherein the system was not used in the way that it was intended.

You raise very strong points in defense of home-schooling, and I appreciate the statistical data and framing of your argument. The focus on one-on-one attention for the student is definitely a major selling-point, as the public school systems are grievously ill-equipped to provide that kind of attention to its students, something I can attest to first-hand.

And on the issue of evolution:

In your experience were both Intelligent Design AND evolution taught?

Were both covered equally from an objective standpoint?

I don't disagree that schools take a one-sided approach to this debate, and that it's an issue that should be addressed.

I apologize, I sort of skimmed through some posts and quite frankly this topic hits home with me as while many people are referring to friends, I'm referring to myself. In almost all cases where there was a debate about homeschooling, homeschooling has been put down and attacked to no end. Many states have been trying for years to make homeschooling illegal because of the 1 or 2 cases that the parents abused their children when in reality it's not the case. Honestly, the comment about me feeling sick to my stomach was not a reaction to these posts, it was more of a worry because I've seen so many of these debates start linking to those 1 or 2 crazy cases where people are not willing to learn about something they know very little about.

I was taught what evolution was, the ideas behind it and also the fallacies of the argument. I was also taught Intelligent Design and the problems people have with that theory as well. It may not have been perfectly equal but I know and understand both theories quite adequately.

Hayzel can you please locate for me where you got

I cannot find it in any of your sources.

This page -> HSLDA | Homeschooling Grows Up: Enjoyment of life

The second reference I linked was a multipage reference really and I didn't link every page. If you hit 'next' a few times on that reference you'll find it. :)

To add to that, often kids who are expelled from a school try homeschooling, and it doesn't not work. To my experience and knowledge this is one situation where homeschooling fairly consistently does not work, but the problem is that a child expelled from a traditional school has authority problems as it is. Personally I feel these children should not be homeschooled, but should be placed in a very structured and strict school such as a military academy to help them work through their issues and relearn the ideas of respect and authority.

Another comment that I would like to add is not really related to homeschooling in general but something I was taught while I was homeschooled. My parents taught me to memorize at a very early age. At the age of four I could recite pages of poetry like the Walrus and the Carpenter. By six I was reciting pieces of literature and longer pieces like Paul Revere's Ride and also Bible verses and other various things. Memorization was a huge thing growing up, and it was a huge benefit as I got older. Even still I practice memorization by memorizing poetry I've never heard before and also trying to recite stuff I memorized a long time ago. As a result of being conditioned to memorize I retain information very well. I only need to hear a phone number once in conversation and days later I can repeat it. A good example would've been in 10th grade History midterm. We were told all of the questions on our midterm would come from the homework questions we had every night throughout the semester. I did my homework every night so I had all the materials I needed to study, but I decided to test myself. I didn't study at all except the 20 minutes it took to read over those questions. Just reading, that's it. I scored a 96% on the midterm, which was bumped up to a 99% because it was the best grade in the class. Now if I had really studied I could've probably done better but the point was I did well without much effort because I spent more effort on the skill of memorization than the material I needed to memorize. I think memorization like this should be an integral part of education but it really isn't. It's obvious to me that's it's incredibly beneficial and my sister is the same way. People say I'm smart and I say no, I'm lucky to have a mother who taught me to memorize everything. I didn't say all that to brag that I'm a brainiac, it was to point out that a simple skill can have amazing effects. XD I'm not egotistical or anything.

Well, this is interesting.

Starting off:

At the risk of turning this into a debate about the validity of evolution...

You seem like a respectful individual, judging by the way you've phrased your posts in here so far. I have some other replies that came to mind regarding evolution and religion, but I agree. It's not the point of this thread. If you're interested, I'd love to talk about it further through PMs. Though, I *am* curious as to why this English judge saw it necessary to ask that question. By the way you phrased it, it seems like bait, to me.

As for the rest, I'm not sure how to attach a user name to each quote, so I'll just say what's on my mind and, if it applies to what you posted, feel free to reply.

There is a difference between condemnation and hatred. People who disagree with homeschooling could be said to condemn it, from the definition of "disagreeing and not taking part, not referring it to others." Hatred is completely different, but they can go together. I could condemn the fact that a friend of mine is gay, but that won't stop me loaning them money if they need it, taking care of their cat, etc...

People get defensive when people disagree with them. True maturity lies in "ok, so you disagree. I don't, and I'm not going to let you affect me if I don't really want you to." It's a far cry from "You disagree? HOW COULD YOU HATE ME SO MUCH?!"

Originally Posted by rblackbird

Well, this is interesting.

Starting off:



You seem like a respectful individual, judging by the way you've phrased your posts in here so far. I have some other replies that came to mind regarding evolution and religion, but I agree. It's not the point of this thread. If you're interested, I'd love to talk about it further through PMs. Though, I *am* curious as to why this English judge saw it necessary to ask that question. By the way you phrased it, it seems like bait, to me.

As for the rest, I'm not sure how to attach a user name to each quote, so I'll just say what's on my mind and, if it applies to what you posted, feel free to reply.

There is a difference between condemnation and hatred. People who disagree with homeschooling could be said to condemn it, from the definition of "disagreeing and not taking part, not referring it to others." Hatred is completely different, but they can go together. I could condemn the fact that a friend of mine is gay, but that won't stop me loaning them money if they need it, taking care of their cat, etc...

People get defensive when people disagree with them. True maturity lies in "ok, so you disagree. I don't, and I'm not going to let you affect me if I don't really want you to." It's a far cry from "You disagree? HOW COULD YOU HATE ME SO MUCH?!"

I really couldn't tell you much more about the case in the UK. I've had to force myself to watch as little news or news-related things as possible, because I watch the news like people watch football...with lots of yelling and swearing at the screen and throwing things. All I remember is that a couple (they look to be in their 60s at the youngest) who wanted to adopt children were asked if they would treat the child the same, and they said no, so the court refused them. And I support the court's decision because the couple basically said with no apologies or qualifications that they would NOT love a homosexual child as much/the same as a heterosexual child, which brings into question their willingness to unconditionally love and care for a child.

That said, I hold a lot of unpopular or dissenting opinions about things, and a lot of my political views run on opposite sides of the fence from one another. I'm not interested in party politics, I'm interested in specific issues.

The thing is, you will learn more from a dissenting opinion, if you choose to listen. It's hard sometimes, and sometimes it's just going to be about something people aren't willing to listen to because they're not willing to budge on their stance. I'm just as guilty of this as anyone else, but I also tend to shy away from pointed political or religious discussion, because those are issues, especially when you get into specifics of this or that, where people are the most likely to get upset and then discussion becomes arguing (not to be confused with an argument, which is the practical manifestation of a logical statement. [if a is b, and b is c, then a is c is an argument in terms of logic] and that quickly degenerates into fighting...where the issue at hand is completely lost to personal attack and defense strategies, instead of people coming together to discuss their various views on things and defend their positions in hopes of at least fostering a sense of understanding in people who hold dissenting opinions. Again, I'm as guilty of it as anyone sometimes, we all lose sight of the point occasionally. But I try to address things as politely as I can, because my goal is to learn, not to hurt people's feelings.

But I try to address things as politely as I can, because my goal is to learn, not to hurt people's feelings.

I completely agree. I'm not really known to fight with people unless they make a point to anger me. Even then, flaming is pointless. Im more of the "present my reasoning, then fend off any hatred, because I've already stated my case." And I am often forced to use such an approach...

I completely agree. I'm not really known to fight with people unless they make a point to anger me. Even then, flaming is pointless. Im more of the "present my reasoning, then fend off any hatred, because I've already stated my case." And I am often forced to use such an approach...

It's nice to know there are people like this still... Even here on Mene, it's hard for me to participate in a debate without getting called various derogatory names due some of my viewpoints. It's interesting how I get called names like 'nazi' because apparently I'm the racist one... >.> Anyways I'm often left on the defensive too, and it's very common for people to twist my words into meanings that don't even make sense to make me look bad. For the most part, once a debate or discussion starts turning for the worse I have to step away from it and then I get called more names even though I'm doing the mature thing. XD

Back on subject though, not loving a child due to their choice of partner is not a commonly held idea even among Christians. In fact many people say 'oh my parents would disown me' without actually posing the question. The truth is most parents will almost always love their kids, no matter what they do or what they're like.