When we lived in Coatesville people came to our door all the fricken time... and honestly, the JW's were my favorite. They were always very polite and respectful, always had something interesting to read if I wanted (usually about chemicals or some other non-religious concern), were quick about it and left without being asked.
It was the Baptists and the kids selling magazines that managed to piss me off every time, with their "buy this/join us or you'll go to hell" message.

Unrelated: Good post Noodle.

Exactly, and sin is a religious concept, so the rules only apply to beleivers. It's against the rules for a non-Mason to wear a masonic ring, but if you're not a Mason it's OK - the rules don't apply to you.The idea of eating placenta oogies me out, but I don't ascribe any moral aspect to it. Outside of religion, is there any justification for assigning a moral value to the "I find it yucky"ness of homosexuality?

hahahahahahahah, I loved the phrase from somebody, saying to somebody else

"thank you for saving this thread"


lol

http://www.bergen-filmklubb.no/image...ngos_stort.jpg
You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me?

in reference to mrnoodle's post:

something may "feel unnatural" to someone, and not to someone else. who are we, as individulals, to decide what is ultimately an unnatural feeling?

and none of that really even matters. some kids have gay parents. fact of life. no need to bury our heads in the sand.

Gee...somebody sure has a awful lot of cognitive dissonance about the idea of armed women. The temptation to be overtly freudian about it is almost overwhelming.

Almost.

?

pistol envy?


a good thing that gal wasn't toting a shotgun, ... with them headlights, the stock and barrel would have been forced to aim at the moon.

in the words of austin powers:

that's not a woman. that's a MAN baby.

:)

Sexual attraction and arousal become complex things when you're talking about humans. We have feelings, emotions, and environmental factors that affect how we view sex. Not to mention, we're rare (if not unique) in the fact that we use sex in contexts other than reproduction. The "unnatural" feeling I'm referring to is the same one that a herd of elk might feel towards an albino elk. Kind of a "woah - this is something outside the ordinary". It doesn't lend itself to survival of the species, therefore our unconscious mind has an innate revulsion to it. We overcome that with logic and societal constructs that govern our treatment of each other, but the initial feeling is there nonetheless.

What a relief -- if we ever have a beer together, we're no longer automatically required to hit each other with the bottles :beer:

That is a great idea!

Unfortunatly, some teachers have their own selfish agendas to promote.

speak for yourself on that stuff noodle. you're no expert, and no one can say what someone else should feel.

about the 3Rs-- this was a reading class. they are reading a book.

I wish everyone would list where they live... I would understand some of these opinions a lot more then...

twentycentshift: are you a native texan ???

I really dont understand the objection to reading this book. I understand that some people just dont agree with homosexuality... but it kind of baffles me... I think its obsurd to not agree with the way people were born... It would be like being disgusted by a native american, or an asian, or an african american...which of course, some ignorant people are... maybe thats just what it boils down to...ignorance...

Ignorance explains the bigotry towards homosexuals more than towards particular races...because I can see how some people would be dumb enough to think that people actually choose to be gay.

Anyway... enough about the ignorant...because some of these christians arent ignorant, so lets address that. Why is being gay a sin, when we have zero control over our sexual orientation? I just dont understand that.

Why is it so wrong to have childrens books that shows diversity? This book does just that. It introduces children to same sex relationships...like there are books that introduce children to different races....and books that explain that "Everybody poops"... books that explain that there are different religions...

I really dont understand. I dont think one person has given a good argument as to why this book should not be allowed to be read. I understand that homosexuality is against some peoples religion... but hey...there are plenty of things in schools that are against peoples religions that their kids are explosed to every day.

Question...have you ever seen a hasidic or orthadox jew in a public school? No, neither have I. Why? Because they are so devout that they dont want their children to be exposed to things that are against their religion...so they dont send them to public school...

This also makes me think about pastafarianism and the flying spaghetti monster. If I was to create a religion, that though it was a sin to wear red shirts... should I be able to stop the school from reading any books where the people wore read shirts??

COME ON PEOPLE...

This book is teaching these kids that gay people exist...barely even teaching that!... if anything, it will make them ask their parents a question when they see two men or two women together...then you can tell them whatever you want...this book isnt corrupting them...

damn this is frustrating... Im horrible at writing these when I actually care about what Im saying...ugh

Well, according to Christianity, we have zero control over sin period, as we are born sinful. NOT sinning is what takes conscious thought -- sinning is the natural way. I'm not sure that sexual preference is coded at birth, though. Either way, if you want to know why homosexual behavior (not predilection) is a sin, you have to ask God. Christians believe the bible is the inspired word of God, and in the bible says homosexuality is a sin. There are separate arguments to be had over the existence of God, the divinity of the teachings in the bible, old testament vs new testament, etc. etc.

Oh, he tossed up some other images upthread that makes it clear how spectacularly twisted he is on the issue. "An armed woman must obviously really want to be a man.", etc.

Oleg Volk has lots of beautiful images of powerful armed women, but that runs contrary to his pathetic little thesis. Yeah...thesis...that's what I meant.

I notice he's been silent about my question on having kids and/or a partner...like they used to say about the Pope and birth control (Back when Il Papa was Italian): "You no playa da game, you no maka da rules."

Control issues make it so hard to have healthy relationships...and the evidence in hand makes it clear that we should be consulting jordon on what's "normal"...

We have control of other sins... we can control whether or not we dress appropriately (yes dressing like a ho is a "sin").. we have control whether or not we cheat on our spouse...we can control whether or not we say GODDAMNIT... but we cant control who we love...

shouldnt be getting into a religious debate... but I guess thats gonna happen in this context, because there is no non religious reason to object to t his.

It's really all semantics, but technically, it's not a sin to be gay. In other words, it's not a sin to be attracted to someone of the same sex. It is a sin to have "unpure thoughts" about someone of the same sex, or to actually have sex with someone of the same sex.

The Bible thinks it's sin to give in to temptation. The temptation part isn't the sin. The "giving in" part is.

You can love without putting your peener in the object of your affection. But let's move away from religion -- what if the school had a children's book that featured plural marriage, or a spousal relationship between an 18 year old girl and a 60 year old man? What about swingers? I can imagine people would be a little put off by that stuff, even if they weren't religiously devout. And who are we to say that a person can't love their 3 husbands or their 18-year-old wife? That's not the issue...the issue is, where do parents draw the line?

Don't both of those occur in the Bible?

yep. also, incest. But wouldn't there be a bit of a hue and cry anyway? And not just from zealots?

How did you make the jump from abomination to sin? Who decided this and on what authority?
Biblically it is not a sin, as I have stated previously it is an abomination and that is not a sin, not even close.
Nowhere in any bible
(The NIV does not count, it is a political pamphlet not a bible)
is the word homosexuality stated. Sodomy is not the same. Oral sex with your wife is biblical sodomy, so is prostitution, so is adultery, so is the pulling-out method even between married couples, it is not just gay sex.
It is mainly alluded to as a sexual religious rite in relation to idolatry.
Most gay couples probably don’t have a golden calf in their bedroom.
Even then it is NEVER called a sin.
Eating shellfish and hangin' out with your spouse during her "time-of-the-month" is also an abomination.
There are a loooooonnnnng list of abominations and they are equal in the eyes of the lord.
Fear the Kotex! Stay wayyyyyy back from Ms. Thomson when she is on the rag... ABOMINATION, I think it is something like 60' Lev 15:19-24
Have you ever touched a football? That is an equal abomination to having gay sex, that is right, the flesh of a pig Lev 11:6-8, or how about a shrimp cocktail mmmmmmm..... abomination too Lev 11:10, just like a blow-job with the school quarterback, there are no qualifications on which is a worse abomination.
That whole scene between Lot and the gang was about Levantine hospitality law, not a rape mob….
& the hits just keep on coming. Study with an open mind and spend time with a real bible scholar.
You can't pick and choose, either you live by Levantine law or you do not, period.
Levantine law is not sancrosect any longer, it does not work that way, Christ came to complete the law, remember?
Eat meat on Friday, you goin' to Hell sport, Levantine law... there are many.
Oh, and on the other hand there are fun things we can do, we can sell our daughters into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7, what would be a fair price is God's eyes do you think, hmmmm? As for the slaves I get to have, Lev. 25:44, I wonder if I have to let them sleep in the house?
Seen a neighbor working on Saturday (the real sabbath) Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death and it is your job to do it, better get to work sport.
Oh if you wear glasses you can't take communion because you can't approach the alter of god sinner, Lev 21:20.
If your neighbor wears a cotton polyester thread blend shirt, you know what you have to do? Stone them to death Lev 24:10-16, yup kill em for wearing a blended shirt or even trimming the hair over their temples, I hope you have not done this or I may have to find you Lev 19:27.
So if you have done any of these things or are against any of them, you have no room to point a finger.

Thank you, rkzenrage. I am not a christian, but my family is methodist, so I have read parts of the bibe. You are correct, eating shrimp or touching a football is no worse than being gay. Therefore, religion is, honestly, not a valid argument. Therefore it is insecurity about one's own sexuality that must cause homophobia and discrimination against queers, no?

noodle - because none of those examples involve nearly 10% of the population, pologamy is illegal most places and swinging is very much a sexual concept, homosexuality is not.

Interestingly enough, Andrew (our PP chapter's poster boy for defensive use of a handgun without actually firing it) tells a great story about the time JWs showed up on his doorstep and tried to give him a Bible. (He's rather conspicuously Jewish.)

As I recall, he would not accept the Bible as a gift, but offered to trade them a Quran for it. When they demurred, he pointed out that it was a rather nicely printed Quran, and of higher quality than their Bible.

Still no sale though...

For the protection of the ponies.

Or perhaps Ralph Lauren, I forget which.

Let's jump ahead a bit then, since the dead horse is now getting a bit ripe.

Little Johnny reaches the grade where it's time for sex ed classes.

Are you going to insist that he be taught gay sex in addition to normal biology? You do know what I mean by normal so don't be dense.

No, because sex ed is for biological purposes, and, well, gay sex is biologically useless. If he wants to know about gay sex, or any other sex besides plain old penis-in-vagina sex, that's his business. Stop being a prick, and a troll, and go away.

Actually, everything in sex-ed except for pregnancy is equally relevant to gays and straights. It's not like there's anything gays can do sexually that straights can't.

ok, ok maggie, it's not one I tend to use on a daily basis, part of the virtue of living on the civilised continent.

The horse isn't dead just because you didn't like the way the debate was going. And you've made it clear you wouldn't know "normal" if it bit you on the ass.

But last I saw, sex ed covered a lot of "what" and damned little "how". Reproductive biology needs to be taught, but when Clinton's Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders suggested teaching masturbation, she was forced to resign.

I'd just as soon the government not teach any "how" for sex; they'll just fuck it up anyway.

That's a pretty broad claim; I doubt you know all the "biological uses" of various kinds of behavior. Certainly a PhD Bio wouldn't make such an assertion.

How about "Gay sex doesn't result in pregnancy", I might buy that one.

LOL! You do know that sex ed doesn't actually teach you HOW to have sex, right? It simply describes the differences in the male and female body, the reproductive organs as well as ways to prevent pregnancy and STD's. This has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Stormie

I still don't think jordon has ever been a parent...he seems pretty clueless about it. He's certainly silent about it. I think the whole "parental rights" thing was just an excuse for some verbal queer bashing.

"You no playa da game, you no maka da rules."

Someone who fears and therefore cannot answer three simple 'softball' questions, would then actually know what is taught in sex education? A complete surprise would be if Jordon provided an intelligible answer.

If it will make you feel less abnormal, you may bite my ass. Be gentle.

I'm quite satisfied with the way the debate went. You all showed your true colors vibrantly. Most of your should have restraining orders keeping you a safe distance from schoolyards. Even being a Pagan, with a huge axe to grind against Christians, the level of your hatred toward them is pretty vile, and yet you all talk of love like you own the word. Hypocrites, all.

Oh, but I do make the rules. It's called voting; and there are millions of folks who vote just like I do, as we've recently seen.:D

Okay, you're right, I worded it bad, but I was on a hurry to get out the door on time. That is what I meant, yeah. Doesn't result in pregancy. And it is true, it isn't exactly a class on how to have sex, in a class on how sex works, biologically speaking.

Yeah, there's a lot of voters out there...so it's "we" who make the rules, not "I". One person doesn't make the rules, which is kind of the whole point.

You can claim to be pagan if you like...lots of people do: from wiccans to Nazi mystics and everything inbetween. You might want to think about both the Rede and the Threefold Law, and how they apply to your little adventure here.

Maybe you should. I'm not the one bent on peddling homosexuality to seven year olds.

I see all the bravos here are afraid to tackle the question of gay sex ed in school. I figured as much.:headshake

It's pointless to address the question since you desperately avoided the critical points in the previous question.

It's funny Jordon and Noodle.... school aside, for those of us who are not paranoid of cooties and have gay friends what do you think we tell our kids?
Or better yet, what do you think those of us who are/were teachers tell/told kids who just ask us about Jenny or John's same sex parents who drop him or her off at school or participate with activities?
This is just a way of telling the whole class the same thing... it ain't hard guys. This is life, you can't sterilize it or segregate your kids from it, they are just going to find out you have issues.

There's a difference between "peddling" and admitting that something exists. It's pointless to "peddle" homosexuality; people's orientation is what it is.

Several of us did. You ignored it, as apparently you do everything you can't deal with.

It's not a winning life strategy. As you should be discovering.

But maybe you're ignoring that too...

http://www.gapingvoid.com/zzzzzz7654298.jpg

I see. So the consensus is that Johnny should be learning fellatio and sodomy right along with normal sex in sex ed? Should little Sally be learning the ins and outs of choosing just the right strap-on? Frankly, and I tell you this all all confidence, I'm skeptical. Someone please tell me I'm wrong about this.

http://www.gapingvoid.com/zzzzzz7654298.jpg[/quote]

http://www.antiwarcommittee.org/imag...er/gaydino.gif

Oh fercryingoutloud :eyebrow:

ONCE again, sex ed in schools is not HOW to have sex, therefore "gay sex ed" is only something made up in Jordan's mind. Can you just see sex ed the way Jordan imagines it to be?

WARNING: THIS IS A PARODY (in case you actually don't have a clue)

If this was, in fact, what sex ed in schools was like, don't you think parents would have a hell of a lot more to worry about than "gay sex ed"?

Stormie

Sex Ed usually consists more of "DON'T HAVE SEX BECAUSE THESE ARE ALL THE DISEASES YOU CAN GET AND IF YOU HAVE SEX USE A CONDOM AND BE CAREFUL!!11!!one!!11!1!11!!eleven"

And...

You're going to start growing hair in certain places, breasts will develop and here are a few sample pads for when you start menstruating.

To give credit where credit is due, I really must say that this thread turned out to be far more entertaining than I had anticipated. I was so out of touch that I though it might just be a lot of "yeah, that?s pretty creepy," or "yeah, he has a right to be upset." That kind of "harrumph" response. But you have edumacated me.

First: You throw out every diversion, decoy and evasive action to avoid answering direct questions. Some of you actually know the latin terms for them. Then, and this is where it gets great, you have the nerve to accuse me of the exact same tricks. It's, prima facie, boolsheet.

And what really draws me in, in this sort of Hitchcockesque, vertiginous way, is the uncertainty whether it is self-aware, self-deprecating sarcastic humor, or genuine mental myopia.

Anyway, the whole Pink Pistols thing was so worth the price of admission. Truly a gem for my favs.


We now return you to the verbal moshpit, already in progress::brikwall: :3some: :noevil: :sheep: :borg: :flamer: :whip: :chill: :boxers: :sadsperm: :sadsperm: :sadsperm: :shocking: :drummer:

warning- jordon is a troll.

please ignore any and all of jordon's posts.

I take the Devil's Advocate on "trolls" - aren't they entertaining?

I mean, for those of us who post on message boards while bored at work, a conversation generated under false or contrived pretenses is just as stimulating as any other, and in reality, actually indistinguishable (to any meaningful degree, in this vague format). Didn't we explore the issue? Didn't we flex the muscles of our social conscience? What was bad about that? I don't understand ignoring anybody, unless they are flooding the board to a disruptive degree.

i can see that flint. the only thing that seems wrong about jordon's posts are the calls to violence against homosexuals. he has, in previous posts, said that murder is due to gay people. that's over the top to me. because of that, i think its only right to ignore the putz.

:)

Oh, I missed that part. 16 pages = I miss some stuff.

Physical violence is not cool or funny or acceptable.

That was the presumption I had when this started, but Jordon's refusal to answer any questions made it pretty one sided, and then when he said that gays would be tortured worse than Matthew Shepherd, and it would be their fault, conversation with him became worthless. I'm happy to debate the topic with people who can bring up legitimate points, but trolls are only entertaining to a point.

(edit)Yeah.

that's where i was heading, really.

nothing wrong with stating a point of view, no matter what it is, but it's just not right to call for someone's harm.

i plan on letting people here know this stuff, and to ignore jordon's posts. he doesn't deserve to be engaged in decent conversation.

Am I the only one who can see my posts?

No, why? Do you feel invisible?

No

Allow me to throw this into the mix. Our genetic splicing technology has advanced to the point where we could theoretically form a gentically unique fetus from two eggs or two sperm(I'm not quite sure about the specifics but I'll look it up). Do you think that two gays would be within their rights to have a child created from only their DNA as opposed to a donor so that they could have a kid that was 'theirs'?

Jordon doesn't answer questions, and I agree with you. :)

Ibram responded to you a couple pages back, though.

Shit, Flint. Where were you when I was having the "tying up your teacher is not a practical joke" argument with LJ?


(FYI This was long ago. The question is actually rhetorical. :) )

Well, you're quite welcome. You can always tell when someone's really had his paradigms adjusted.

Of course, some folks take better to it than others.

http://www.a-human-right.com/armed-dykes_.jpghttp://www.a-human-right.com/_pp-ar-glock.jpg

Oh...wait...you forgot your meteor...