Back on page one

The voice of calm, unbiased reason. :rolleyes:

Probably, but irrelevant. I just picked it at random as an example of a classic story with what could be termed heterosexual romance.Me either, which is why I phrased it as a hypothetical - assuming they are equal in romantic/sexual content except for the genders of the participants, what makes one worse?OK, so you won't say indecent, so let's use your word. What makes one inappropriate and the other fine?

Unfortunately, the parents arent usually the ones that have a say in the curriculum. It is the school board the state and the administration. Parents can get angry, and approach these people...but its not a majority rules situation. Of course the majority can vote out the currernt board members, but they cant do much about the administration... the state either, unless they vote out all of their reps. Its unfortunate, but in public schools, the curriculum is about what is best to teach these kids before we turn them loose on society, not about the preferences of the parent. That is why parents have the option to send their child to private school. I know it is costly, and it is not an option for many. But that is just the sad state of the world today. You can also home school your child.

Dunno...but when I needed to put Daughter #1 in a private school for a while to protect her from bullying, the tax people were very sticky about refunding any taxes because of it. If you want something different from government-issue education, it costs extra.

And somehow I don't think the Norristown Area district is going to let me stop paying once Daughter #2 graduates; based on the 10% increase in next year's preliminary budget they already have that money spent and then some.

If you want to go to an all-private education system, I certainly won't oppose it. But you'll have to explain it to the parents who beleve they have a right to have you pay for it.

OnyxCougar: I don't own a car, why should I pay for roads? I my house has never burnt down, who do I have to pay for those damn firefighters. Haven't needed surgery for a while either, damn surgeons on easy street with my tax dollars.

is it just me, or is anyone else having a hard time following what jordon is saying?

i'd like to discuss this issue with himher, but i can't figure out specifically what he/she's all about. no, i think i do know what he/she's all about, but i can't make any sense of what he/she's saying.

is it just me?

no, it's what happens when a bigot tries to appear reasonable.

No, it's not just you. Jordon hasn't said anything concrete yet, just a random talking point followed by picking apart the style rather than substance of responses and complaining about percieved hypocracy. Rinse, repeat.

He's answered direct questions only twice, both times to beg the question.

Actually, it is irrelevant, since that is the story you're comparing it to. (I've also seen Snow White thrown around as an example.)

I don't think I was ever read "Cinderella" or other fairy tales in a school setting. All that was courtesy Disney, not read to me in school.

And, without trying to derail... Disney and DVD's et al are being used by far too many parents as babysitters.

My point remains that I don't mind if the book is available in the library but I don't feel it should be read to a child that is forced to sit there and absorb it. This is indocrination defined.

My religious beliefs put me at odds with many things society (nowadays) accepts. Some of these are: homosexuality, abortion, and evolution. I don't believe it's right, I don't believe it should be force fed to my child, I don't care who pays for it.

If everyone is paying for it, then everyone should have a fair and equal say. If I don't want my child forced to listen to a book featuring homosexual behavior, then I will pull my child out of school that day.

Why is that so terrible?

I just don't understand what is wrong with teaching kids the truth... a truth most of them already know about and all of them will know very soon anyway?
It is just silly, isn't that what TEACHERS are supposed to do?
Send them to private school if you want to control what is taught.

Indoctrination of what? The "doctrine" that Gay People exist?

All of this was thrown at me before I typed a single hostile word to anyone. You toss that at me, you get it shoved right back down your throats.

It's so telling that morons here still think I'm Christian when I've stated twice that I'm not. Eveyone is so eager to lynch Christians, and then turn around and claim the moral high ground. Just keep your fag garbage away from children and we'll all be fine. Keep pushing it, and we'll have incidents that will make it look like Mathew Shepherd got off easy, and you'll have no one to blame but yourselves.

By me. I was purposely using a different story each time because the particular story wasn't relevant, just the fact that hearing that story "exposes" children to "heterosexuality" if you apply the same reasoning to it. I also used Rapunzel. I may have used Cinderella twice, though, since I didn't have a copy of Grimm's handy.

When children hear that Snow White and Prince Charming lived happily ever after, they don't think about sex. When Cinderella and Prince Charming live happily ever after, sex doesn't come up. But if it's two Prince Charmings, suddenly the kids are being exposed to something sexual?

The end. No longer a worthwhile conversation.

i agree with that monkey.....sounds to me more like a threat of violence than a worthwhile discussion. the word "fag" followed by a reference to the violent murder of a homosexual man sounds more like hate-mongering than any kind of reasonable argument.

does anyone here know if this jordon person is likely to be capable of violence? this sounds too close for comfort. if i were in any way in charge of monitoring this forum, i would be alerted to the "call to violence" that i read in jordon's post.

Per my earlier post, what does being Christian have to do with disliking homosexuality?
Biblically it is not a sin. Again, abomination is no worse than eating shrimp, planting mixed crops, wearing a polyester/cotton blend shirt or many other innocuous things we all do now... no different in any way.
So, please... tell me where Christianity comes into this argument?
It seems a bit deviant to worry about who someone is sleeping with to begin with.

Let me give this a shot...

I think there is a large group of people who don't "hate" gays but don't want to see homosexuality promoted to children. I don't know if it's just because of bad PR or what, but to many (otherwise bigotry-free) people, gayness is nothing more than a desire to perform unnatural sex acts in as disgusting a manner as possible. This opinion is reinforced when gay pride parades come to town -- what is it that they're proud of? Assless leather pants? Or just their ability to make breeders squirm by dry humping each other on Main Street?

If this isn't what being gay is all about, why is that all we see until a court case comes up? Suddenly, when confronted with a TV reporter, they ditch the leather pants in favor of suits and ties, and the issue becomes, "We just want to love who we choose. What's so wrong with that?"

Totally apart from issues of religion, public decency, marriage, etc. etc., there is a huge disconnect between the way gay people want to be defined and the way they allow their fringe element to define them. Which is it? Freedom to love who you choose, or freedom to blow truckers in rest stops?

I'm the motherfucking prophet, bitches.

Classy threat of violence in there too. Nothing says I'm open and tollerant than threatening to make tieing a guy to a fence and beating him to death 'look easy'.

Why can't it be both? :D



(so sorry. couldn't help myself. Carry on.)

It's the freedom to do both noodle, just the same way hetro couples can get married and have kids in the burbs or blow truckers in stops, no more, no less.

wow...interesting post, mr. noodle.....

i don't think it's right to put all homosexuals in the catagory of "rest stop trucker blowers", just like its not right to put all heterosexuals in the catagory of prostitues and johns. there will always be strange, odd and even "unnatural" behavior (if you choose to define it as that) in any group. but like any prejudice, it is wrong to judge an entire group by the worst or strangest of the group.

for example- not all white people are rednecks, and i don't want to be judged as a redneck, just because i'm white.

Jordon, I wasn't throwing that at you, I was just getting it out there because nothing makes me more angry than inequality or discrimination. If that statement applies to anyone it is only because that person is a bigot or discriminatory. It wasn't directed at anyone until YOU started spouting anti-gay rhetoric (yes, I qualify what you said as anti-gay rhetoric), because things were civil then. And, Jordon, you have yet to explain any reasonable, non-personal reason why there is a problem with this.

Unnatural is not exactly an accurate descriptor... it is completely natural, common to many species across the board, not just mammals.
Promote, is not an accurate description of what is happening either. Education of something that is a fact of life, is.
Will someone please answer my question... I have been studying Christianity for over twenty years and was in Seminary prep for a year in college and have yet to get an answer that is logical... other than a Bishop who said "it is not a sin and it makes not sense to me... in the Middle ages we used to perform same sex marriages. A little known fact." He was a hip dude.

Semantics is very important here. When you refer to promotion you need to specify exactly what is being "promoted" - you cannot claim to promote the fact that Gay People exist, because this is an irrefutable fact. This is a matter of accepting reality.

Same situation here:




Semantics is everything when buzzwords like "indoctrination" and "promotion" are being smeared all over the popular media outlets. Are we, as rational people, going to actually debate whether certain people have the right to exist?

agreed.

and it's not a matter of "tolerance." who wants to be tolerated? we all want to be accepted, and heaven forbid, appreciated.

so- homosexual couples exist, and must be accepted, hopefully even appreciated. it's what any person would want.

for those who claim to be christians- its the golden rule.

You pay school taxes because you own a home, not because you have kids in public school.
If you choose to put your kids in public school, you pretty much have to accept that they are a captive audience to the curriculum. How could teachers possibly be expected to seek approval, from each child's parents, for each day's lessons? It would take hours to make those phone calls, every day, on the off chance that someone might object to something at some point and want to pull their kid out for the day.

If you want more control of your child's education there are other options for you, like public cyber charter schools. They are free, they usually supply the computer, and you can shop around for the curriculum you like best.

:rolleyes:

Don't get your petticoats in a bunch, sister. That's no more a "call to violence" than predicting that Iran is about to have their asses handed to them. There is a vast differance between tolerance and endorsement, and by targeting seven year olds for indoctrination into the gay agenda, gays are setting back their cause by light years. Gay marriage was shot down in state after state in the last election. The pendulum is swinging back in the other direction now, and the results will be seen across the nation, not just Wyoming. It may be time to think about redecorating your closets.

Already done mine. See?

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_bashthis.jpg

http://www.pinkpistols.org

is this guy for real? someone tell me- he's faking this stuff, right?

(the "indoctrination" thing has already been properly addressed here, as has "endorsement" and "tolerance")

no really, this is a prank right? are we being punk'd?

Jordon... once again, you have ignored everything that speaks against what you are saying.

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean? Gay people are a new underground cult or something now, trying to subvert the nation's youth? The only "agenda" gay people have as a whole is to not be discriminated against, which is only set back by people like you.

Who's to say the person who put that book into the school's curriculum was even gay? You dont have to be gay to not be prejudiced and discriminatory against gay people, or to try to prevent people from being such.

And, for reasons ALREADY ESTABLISHED, there IS no 'indoctrination'. Telling people that there is a such thing as gay people is not 'indoctrination', it is a statement of FACT. We all know how great you are about responding to other people's posts, but IF you have any logical justification for your bigotry, please do explain.

no really, i think we're being punk'd. i mean, how could anyone really mean the things this jordy person is saying?

this has GOT to be a joke.

Don't kid yourself.

I grew-up and now, again, live in Central FL... you would not believe what many still accept as fact , both true fact and moral fact, in bumpkin-land.

You may be surprised to learn that I am the only poster here who might support your position. I have not debated nor challenged anything in your posts. There was no assumption; just questions perfectly worded so that you can better clarify your previous posts. Clarification by breaking down questions into three simple categories. But again, you will not answer those questions with some assumption they are to attack you.

I posted questions - specifically - so that you could clarify your position. But instead you take offense to it? Do you fear to answer those questions or do you not want to answer them? Those questions asked because I haven't a clue (due to insufficient detail and supporting jusitifications) what you are trying to say.

I read every word you posted - at least three times. Those three questions would be exactly what you want to answer. Those questions take no position other than to offer oppurtunity to clarify what you have stated - to specifically define where those questions are wrong - and why.

Originally, I thought those questions could be your perfect oppurtunity to demonstrate to others that you said completely different from what they read. But a paranoia is implied in your replies. Why do you fear to correct what was asked?

You said, for example, that seven year olds should not be exposed "to it". What specifically is "it"? How to perform homosexuality or just that people of same sex love one another and live together? We are talking about brotherly love when we talk of dear friends, homosexual relationships, or marriage. They are all different examples of brotherly love. But you tell me. What, in detail, are you saying? Do you now oppose many versions of brotherly love - or maybe you don't? From what was posted - intentionally vague - I don't know which type of love you fear.

Why not answer the questions honestly and not assume those questions are to attack? Questions attack no one. Questions make no assumptions. They simply beg you to clarify your response. I have no idea what you mean by brotherly love because every post is vague, too short, and defensive.

You did not answer three questions - and worse - don't justify why. Without 'why' only encourages others to attack you.

There is nothing difficult in answering questions you still do not answer - and apparently fear to answer:
First legal marriage requirements. Are you saying that laws should make no distinction between same sex and opposite sex marriages? And obviously why or why not?

Second, religion. You stated that sacraments should be denied to same sex marriages. Is that correct (of course, reasons why are included)?

Third, education. You insist that children should never even be told that homosexual couples exist? It is simple human decency to not lie. Therefore will can defined simple human decency quantitatively with numbers or examples.

Stormieweather answers questions in her very first post. She wants to be understood. So she defined fundamental differences between 'knowledge of' verses 'knowledge of how to'. Three questions provided you oppurtunity to clarify - to make you position clear - thereby defuse criticism. Maybe you don't want me to support your position? Maybe you are trolling for attacks? That would explain why you don't answer simple questions.

which they must do when you don't even answer 'set up to be friendly to you' questions; and don't provide supporting justifications. Your response are too typical of what Christian extremists do - which is why others could only make assumptions. which is what anyone would assume if you cannot even answer three simple questions. They are simplified questions without any assumptions - worded to clarify your position. Jaguar would have no choice but make his assumption because you do not answer even my so simple three questions - that make not one assumption and might be posted by one who supports your opinion. which is why I asked three simple questions so that jordon could defuse his critics. If you need to assume anything, jordon, understand my very specific and now clearest stated objective. Instead, do you see enemies everywhere? I asked a perfect softball question so that you could clarify your position in three parts. Instead even I am the enemy?

A perfect example of dykedom by virtue of the fact that no man would put his dick in that much fuglitude.:p

Jordon is either trolling or profoundly stupid. Either way, not worth engaging after the Matthew Shepherd comment.

I said that everyone should be able to have a Civil Union with the same legal rights.

I NEVER SAID THAT. Parroting a lie over and over does not add credibility. Nevertheless, I will quote myself as an answer:
" Among Pagans there are Covens composed entirely of Lesbians and others of Gay men. While some rituals are common to us all, they also have rituals specific to their sexual inclination. No gay man would insist on being allowed to participate in a Moon Lodge ritual for Lesbians. No Lesbian would insist on being included in a Gay coming of age ritual. Homosexuals should write their own rituals and sacraments, rather than simply imitating the heterosexual marriage rite."

Another lie. I said, and say yet again, that seven year olds don't need to know about homosexuality. I think that at least waiting for the onset of puberty, if not further, would be sufficient; and informing children of their existance is not advocating it as a normal or acceptable practice, as the book in question seems to be doing.

Oh, and someone please call the Office of Homleand Security. We seem to have a call to violence here. I just about died laughing just now.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

if only he would have........

jk jordon. you're fun to have around. no really.....

on monkey's note, i stand to engage in decent conversation with others, others who make better sense.

very good point monkey.

oh and i hear ya maggie and rkzen. i'm in texas right now, and you should hear some of the crap that flies around this state.

Fine - everyone read that previously - which is why these simple questions exist. Are you saying that laws should make no distinction between same sex and opposite sex marriages? What you said and what the question asks are similar but different conditions. You still did not answer the question, so as Ted Koppel said, I will ask it again. Your answer only reiterated what you said previously AND does not answer the question. The question exists because your post does not answer the question. Are you "saying that laws should make no distinction between same sex and opposite sex marriages?" Questions don't make accusations nor do they lie. Questions ask - and the questions are so softball that you should be welcoming them. You were asked to clarify a simple statement; that sacraments should be denied to same sex marriages. You were asked if that were your opinion. My god. Even a simple yes or no answer would at least attempted to answer the question. The question was asked because - obviously and again - your 'quote' does not answer that question.

Clearly no lesbian or gay would eat because only hetrosexuals eat. Your example is just as irrelevant - does not answer the question. Two out of two questions still not answered - complete with attack accusations of statement never made. So much fear. Do you just not want to answer the questions? Why quote what is not understood? If your quotes were understood, then questions would not be asked. Why requote the same incomprehensible replies? Why not just answer simple questions? A lie about what? How does one lie when it is only a question? A question asking only what you said? Does not need know about sex acts in homosexuality, OR not even know that same sex couples living together exist? But then, only asking the same question again. Same question that you reply to and never answer. Well at least this is a start. Asking the same questions four times and finally getting part of one answer. Continue. Homosexuality is so rare and unacceptable that not even 1% of Americans would practice it? And what should these kids be told? That homosexuals live together or that homosexuals have sex? Simply and again asking same unanswered questions.

Nope, not even close. :headshake

You just keep on laughing, Scooter; that intended-to-initimidate "get beck in the closet" line was a real hoot.

Actually, it's a call to self-defense. DHS already knows all about me, since I'm licenced for concealed carry in 29 states. Apparently they don't have a problem.

Our chapter meets once a month for lunch and then adjourns to the range for practice. There's something in excess of 35 local chapters nationwide.

It's just not as safe as it used to be to pull a Matthew Shepard; bashers had best choose their victims very carefully--as my partner said during some local media coverage a few years ago "some of the sheep have teeth now".

So next time you think the "pendulum has swung", just remeber there's more than one pendulum in motion.

Oh, by the way...image credit for that last post: Oleg Volk

http://media.mnginteractive.com/medi...health.jpg.jpg
Aim for the testicles girls.

http://www.peteykins.com/Sept05/images/VampireSheep.jpg
The sheep have teeth. AND THEY VANT TO SUCK YOUR BLOOD! BLEH!

...Okay, you know what? I'm giving up on Jordon. All my faith in humanity is shattered. Either he's a sick, sick joke, or a sick, sick, stupid person.

So, I read through all the posts (except tw's last one). That last post by Jordan just proves it: troll/flamebait. Don't feed the trolls please people, they bite and come back for more. In classic troll fashion, he posted pictures to poke fun at someone.

Hence me giving up on him.

Does anyone BESIDES Jordan want to try explaining the answers to the questions I asked that Jordan never actually answered?

Same here, though I have been asking them for years... gave-up on a reasonable answer long ago.
Homosexuals are people, some are Christian people who want to be married in the church and should be and no one has ever told me why that should not be in logical, Biblical, or any other terms that make any kind of sense.
Kids are dealing with same sex couples, so teaching that it exists is redundant, but it shows that their experience is communal, so they get to share it in a neutral environment, a good thing. Parents should be teaching them morals (unfortunately, sometimes, their morals) and that is how it should be. If they rely on the schools to do that for them, then that is their problem and they have no room to complain, and shame on them as well.
My .02.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Churches are (or should be) private institutions, and therefore can deny anyone from using their services. Marriage/civil unions shouldn't be regulated at all.

I kind of agree but not really.....Just as there are churches that refuse to accept gays (wrongly in my opinion but I hate the religiocrats and they can go fuck themselves and stick to their own) they should not be forced to marry them....HOWEVER There are churches that are happy to accept gay members, and they should not be forced not to marry them.

two people who love each other are being looked down on? how friggin ridiculous.

i can see it now- they get to the pearly gates, and god says "sorry. you loved another human being. you're going to hell." makes no sense.

with all the hatred in our world, love is always a good idea.

Wasn't apostle Paul a gay guy? yeah, I think there's evidence that he was...

but, I'm no fan of apostle Paul. Anyway, lots of people are gay. Who cares?

I just finished writing a song along those very lines, using almost exactly the same words. Peace and love are still a good idea, even if being a 'hippy' or a 'treehugger' or whatever is not 'cool'.

I know this argument has probably been brought up, but, like many white suburban kids raised in the late 60's/70's I was never exposed to other races or cultures. Black people did not feature in any of the books we read, they didn't go to our school and I never interacted with black people until I was in my 20's! Imagine my shock when I found out that they were a lot like myself! (and, I was shocked)--anyway, not mentioning black people in school didn't negate their existance in the world and I would have been much better off if I had known more about the whole thing.

Yeppers...long about here . I followed a bit further downthread with some Ginn Basic Readers covers that illustrated the point.

I do have to thank jordon for providing an opportunity to promote the Pink Pistols, and we'll be using his postings as a illustration to the hoplophobe liberals who pontificate that there's no need for the queer community to be concerned with self-defence because the world is so enlightened these days.

I skipped a bunch of the middle bits, sorry if this has been addressed.
re: semantics.

I'll speak from a Christian perspective (and anyone here can tell you I don't hate anyone, and I don't care which consenting adult you rub your genitals on). Bear with me, I have to do a little proselytizing as background info, but the point is coming up.

To us, homosexuality is a sin. It's no worse and no better than any other sin, but in my religion, it indicates separation from God's will. The difference between me (and those who believe as I do) and Phelps' hate brigade is that I think the bible says that everyone is a sinner. In fact, I'm sure it does. It also says that no one is righteous except Christ.

Kind of lumps us all in the same group, in my book. What makes believers and nonbelievers different isn't the frequency or severity of our sins. It's whether or not we think that Jesus was God's son, and whether or not his death paid the penalty that we would otherwise have to pay ourselves.

So. To me, there's is no disconnect between recognizing homosexuality as sin and being loving and kind to every person, regardless of their personal situation with God, which is really none of my business. However, for many of us, Christian or not, gayness seems wrong biologically and morally. Therefore, someone who tells our kids "it's not wrong, it's great. I don't care what your fairy tale book or grandma told you!" is not just sharing the fact of the existence of homosexuality. They are promoting a moral standpoint that also "feels" unnatural on a very deep level. The place for this is not in schools, as many of you have rightly pointed out. By the same token, no school should allow any kind of bigotry.

Where does an book about 2 gay princes fall into this? I'm torn. Children's books normally illustrate archetypes and big-picture kinds of concepts: princess gets saved from the dragon, Bobby learns to share, counting is fun, etc. etc. This one seems like its purpose is to make political hay.

I've been wrong before.

/experimented in college
//i was stoned
///this isn't fark, why am i using slashes?

Perhaps gay folk are being integrated into the archetype?

I know from fairy tales. Nasty, brutish and short. Ask me, baby, ask me. There is more homosexuality in traditional fairy tales than you (or the Great Sky God) will ever acknowledge.

PS also experimented as a 20 year-old. I like dudes. So what?

*actually, said with a sort-of pride--fairy tales are my specialty*

ON Jordans behalf, .... if he feels like an illicit lawful suite should be held by a tax paying citizen against the education system... Well he got a point.

Thank God, we paid our dues so this vile act could happen.



Of course this is hours later since my last post;
and I might have been dogged unmercifully henceforth; and not know what caddish restitution's might have befell me... (am too lazy to go past last two or three posts)

But
Like I tell the Jehovah Witnesses, when they saunter up to my front deck with my Beer and Bar B Que smoke-pit:
"Yeah, God is Good, God is Great,
... Now Get a Life and Integrate"

They never seem to share a beer with me, but they like my latest "the Inspirational Study Bible" (hardback) to ramble/argue about with,...

Almost as the Church of Christ do when I play Handles "Zadok the Priest' ... and ask for the great Church of Christ trombone or Organ composer that made the music they can't perform...

Mostly I love playing the Koran (and with each version followed by the English translation talking of gods love)

Funny, I haven't heard back from the Witnesses from 2005.


(sorry.... long tangent,... but it seems the most people with "Issues" are the ones who use "Profits of love" as their puppet masters
... Unfortunately,
it's not the Profits, but the Idiots with agendas, who are weak and need to suck profits under the guise of Ministers, Priests, and Laymen of having no real job in life, but to inflame.)

Kinda like politicians.


"7 years old"
almost too old to know that people can love people... Unless the big fucking deal is the teacher was reading a pornographic sexual description between two human beings...

Jesus loves the little children, all the children in the world, red and yellow black and white, they are precious in his site, jesus loves the little children of the world.

(the "world")

(I'm having a chat with noodle & MaggieL, this is a bizarro world indeed)

Thanks noodle for saving this thread from being a complete train wreck. I'm not sure whether the book is about making political hay or simply a sign of the times, it's pretty hard to tell to say the least. My guess is like many things the truth is somewhere in the middle.