Gay Book Flap Erupts Again At Lexington School
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/8846994/detail.html?taf=bos
There is more controversy at a Lexington elementary school, where once again a parent is upset about gay themes being inserted into the curriculum.
This time, the mother of a second-grader is upset that her son's teacher read the class a book highlighting two gay princes.
NewsCenter 5's Gail Huff reported that some parents of students at the Estabrook Elementary School are upset that the students were read a book called "King and King," the story of prince who is interested in the brother of the princess.
"My problem is that this issue of romantic attraction between two men is being presented to my 7-year-old as wonderful and good and the way things should be," parent Robin Wirthlin said. "We feel like 7 years old is not appropriate to introduce homosexual themes."
The Estabrook School is the same school that garnered attention last year after another father, David Parker, was arrested when he protested the school's decision to have his 5-year-old son's class read a book depicting gay families. Parker was arrested and banned from school property for refusing to leave without a promise from school officials that he would be notified in advance if similar material was going to be taught.
Although school officials said their goal in exposing the children to such topics was to be inclusive as possible, Parker's position was not tolerated.
"We want all of our families and all of the children to feel that they're welcome and included there, and one of the ways to do that is to show different kinds of families," school committee member Helen Cohen said.
The school superintendent, Paul Ash, issued a statement about the latest controversy saying, "The Lexington school system cherishes diversity ... we welcome children and families of all backgrounds, including families headed by same-sex parents."
Wirthlin said she and other parents should be notified in advance when such topics will be addressed so they can remove their children from the class.
:rant: Man, If I was a parent at that school they would have had to arrest me too. This is just plain sick. This crosses the line. I hope he sues and gets the "educators" responsible for this fired and kept away from children.
Do you think kids from gay families should be kept out of the school too? after all, they might talk about their parents. That would be tragic.
We feel like 7 years old is not appropriate to introduce homosexual themes.
Now here's someone whose skill with English clearly shows they should have heavy input into public education. :-)
I hate people.
ESPECIALLY bigoted, prejudicial, discriminatory, twisted people. Which someone would HAVE to be to discriminate like that against ANYONE for ANY reason, whether it be sexual orientation, race, creed, or anything else.
NewsCenter 5's Gail Huff reported that some parents of students at the Estabrook Elementary School are upset that the students were read a book called "King and King," the story of prince who is interested in the brother of the princess.
"My problem is that this issue of romantic attraction between two men is being presented to my 7-year-old as wonderful and good and the way things should be," parent Robin Wirthlin said. "We feel like 7 years old is not appropriate to introduce homosexual themes."
If there was no sex described in the book (and I think it's safe to assume there wasn't), then it is probably considerably less sexually disturbing than Snow White. Not that the kids are going to be looking at the sexual themes of either story.
"My problem is that this issue of romantic attraction between two men is being presented to my 7-year-old as wonderful and good and the way things should be," parent Robin Wirthlin said"
I agree completely.
Have you read the book Jordon?
I'd be interested to know if it really presented homosexuality as "the way things should be" or, more likely, "they way things sometimes are".
Children can adapt,.... if a hetro feeling little kid can make friends with another hetro feeling kid with gay/lesbian parents./// what the fuck.
Should a white kid not make friends, or happen across literature that talks about some mixed married kid having white superior parent fucking and being in love with a member of the lowsome minority race?
The fact is there are gay people and it is normal for them to be gay.
The fact is that those who think being gay is anti Christian do not understand their own religion (abomination is not sin and eating shrimp and wearing a polyester cotton blend shirt is as much an abomination as a gay relationship. Do you work on Saturday... that is a sin).
The fact is that recent studies show that homophobia is based in repressed homosexual tendencies.
Please don't infect kids with your sickness.
It didn't even take ten posts for someone to try to wrap this issue in the mantle of Civil rights. Pathetic.:violin:
and your point Jordan? ... civil rights, or just plain human endeavors?
Princes? Princess? Well, it is only a fairy tale. :eyebrow:
lol,
watch "Breakfast at Puto"
It didn't even take ten posts for someone to try to wrap this issue in the mantle of Civil rights.
Actually, it only took one. What's truly pathetic is you didn't even seem to notice.
Given what still happens self-righteously out in the open, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised what happens in a darkened street, or a deserted Wyoming field. No wonder we need the
Pink Pistols. We managed to get
some decent press the other day,though...
"My problem is that this issue of romantic attraction between two men is being presented to my 7-year-old as wonderful and good and the way things should be," parent Robin Wirthlin said"
The same was probaly said for interracial relationships in childrens' books. I wonder what the first example of that was?
Why is it everyone thinks children should be exposed to what they feel is acceptable and the parents have no say in the matter?
Bitch about parents not parenting, ignoring their kids, just using the school for a baby sitter, but when a parent gets involved he gets shouted down. :confused:
Why is it everyone thinks children should be exposed to what they feel is acceptable and the parents have no say in the matter?
Erm...I happen to *be* a parent.
If somebody thinks their kids shouldn't be exposed to the public, maybe they shouldn't be in a public school. There's plenty of "Christian" "academies" founded on creationism, homophobia and other equally wholesome precepts.
Just don't ask me to pay for it.
(For a minute there I thought a "gay book flap" was a new kind of centerfold... :-) )
I think the parents should get involved. The teachers should teach about the real world.
If the christian parent has a bias against islam let them talk about it
... will they?
Fuck no. The parent has an agenda... MY WAY or the HIWAY.
Education is to open your minds and if ya can't handle the future, or maybe the way things are in the 21st century...
the children might save the total shit that our previous/present governments have left your potential great great great grandchildren with...
(and, we're not even talking about ecosystems that big biznezz govtments exploit... this is just about two human beings within this topic that might find love and support with each other)
[HTML]Erm...I happen to *be* a parent. [/HTML] Yes, but not that kid's parent. Would you want your kid taught "creationism, homophobia and other equally wholesome precepts", ie, Kansas? And have to pay for it.
Why can't we stick to the 3-Rs and leave social graces to the parents, churches and the real world? :confused:
good point,....
the reason they would fire me in a heart beat, is that I would want YOU're kid to think...
AND then at the dinner table... he/she might bring up a question or discussion... (That is if you as a parent COULD even draw a response from them about what they learned at school)
BUT then again,,,, does anybody even sit at the dinner table and talk to each other?
And if happened, could you put on csny "teach your parents well" song, and listen to both?
NOPE> Parents are factory/assembled workers,
ie:"do what I say, don't break the rules, and don't think aloud about stuff I haven't in my mighty significant brought forth"
(fortunately most "parents" grow up when they get out of their Nazi stage, they become grandparents)
The fact is that recent studies show that homophobia is based in repressed homosexual tendencies.
Please don't infect kids with your sickness.
It reeks of self-loathing that the worst insult gays can hurl at their critics is to accuse them of being one of them.:biglaugha
The first resort of any criticism being to brand the person as a homophobe, although few straight people have anything resembling fear of them.
hahahahah, Objection your honor,
A "fact" does not preclude "self-loathing" or that it is even an "insult"
Facts is facts.
and no, you fuckface bigots, it doesn't mean Im gay.
I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body.
[HTML]Erm...I happen to *be* a parent. [/HTML] Yes, but not that kid's parent. Would you want your kid taught "creationism, homophobia and other equally wholesome precepts", ie, Kansas? And have to pay for it.
Why can't we stick to the 3-Rs and leave social graces to the parents, churches and the real world? :confused:
From where I sit, teaching creationism and homophobia (regardless of whether it's the Christian flavor or the Islamic brand) is teaching religion..fine in a private school, but no business of the government.
You can't teach reading (one of your R's) without books. I was taught to read from textbooks that had no black people in them...in the 1950's that was the norm. It did not serve me well in the "real world". (Actually I learned to read before I got to grade school, but that's another story)
It reeks of self-loathing that the worst insult gays can hurl at their critics is to accuse them of being one of them.
Uh...if I thought accusing you of being queer was an insult, I'd be a homophobe too. I just conclude that somone who wants to erase me (and then wants me to help pay the bill for it) is an enemy...I don't particularly give a crap what their orientation is; that's their problem.
It reeks of self-loathing that the worst insult gays can hurl at their critics is to accuse them of being one of them.
You think it's an insult?
Would you want your kid taught "creationism, homophobia and other equally wholesome precepts", ie, Kansas? And have to pay for it.
Why can't we stick to the 3-Rs and leave social graces to the parents, churches and the real world?
Teaching bias and other social graces is not the same as teaching OF creationism, homophobia, etc. We were taught Darwinism. We were also taught of other theories such as creationism and spontaneous reproduction. Schools must introduce the concepts - which is not same a teaching the agenda.
I am an anti-communist. Therefore I don't want my kid to be taught about the USSR? That is nonsense. But that failed logic can easily be promoted by not defining a difference. Responsible schools must teach of what exists. That does not mean schools need teach how to murder. Just that murder does exist and what it is. Today, some could hype that into schools teaching how to commit Columbine. Therefore kids should never be taught what murder is?
Its unacceptable for a parent to deny children knowledge of what does exist. Denying that knowledge so can even make society ripe for hate crimes. There is a major difference between teaching how to and teaching of basic society realities. Some so fear that knowledge as to not know the difference.
You can't teach reading (one of your R's) without books. I was taught to read from textbooks that had no black people in them...in the 1950's that was the norm. It did not serve me well in the "real world".
That depends of what they're teaching. There's no reason for Dick & Jane to be escorted by Jamal. History books are quite another matter, however. :cool:
There's no reason for Dick & Jane to be escorted by Jamal.
I disagree. I bet Jamal does too. Black people aren't just historical, I understand there actually are some still alive today.
I'd prefer black kids to not get a message that reading is only for white kids.
Do you have kids? There's no way you can educate them in literacy without exposing them to culture.
That depends of what they're teaching. There's no reason for Dick & Jane to be escorted by Jamal. History books are quite another matter, however. :cool:
There's no reason for Dick and Jane NOT to be escorted by Jamal, either. Jamal exists. Jamal Jr. may be sitting in that very classroom. Jamal is as human as everyone else.
So, I read Cinderella at age 7. I didn't run right out to find what she and Prince Charming did on their wedding night. And I might equally make the case that exposing children to the story of Cinderella encourages women to have an unhealthy dependency on men to come rescue them and for men to view themselves as rescuers.
If children are given a solid emotional and moral foundation at home, reading about Jamal or Cinderella or the two kings is not going to drive them into a life of depravity.
Seven year olds do not need to learn about homosexuals, and no one has the right to override the wishes of their parents, no matter how enlightened they fancy themselves. This is the kind of thing that only serves to create a backlash against gay rights. Believe it or not, it is possible to be opposed to this kind of thing, or gay marriage, and not be a homophobe or wish all gays herded into concentration camps and gassed. That kind of shrill, frantic, knee jerk reaction just sets back their cause even more and slams the door on any kind of sincere discussion.
Believe it or not, it is possible to be opposed to this kind of thing, or gay marriage, and not be a homophobe or wish all gays herded into concentration camps and gassed.
There is no non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage.
There is no non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage.
That's exactly the hysterical attitude I mean, heterophobe.
Gays should come up with their own sacrament appropriate to their unique situation and stop trying to mimic a heterosexual sacrament by simply replacing "husaband and wife" in the ritual with whatever.
However, Civil Unions should be available to anyone.
And IF civil unions and marriage were considered completely equal in every way by the law, that would be all fine and dandy. Not the [I]best[I] option, but better than nothing.
is it not better to teach children not to be prejudice against any one regardless of who they chose to take to bed. children are a lot smarter then most parent give them credit for, at the age of seven they probably know enough about how life works it would make you roll over and die.
Gays should come up with their own sacrament appropriate to their unique situation and stop trying to mimic a heterosexual sacrament by simply replacing "husaband and wife" in the ritual with whatever.
Wow, your State dispenses sacraments. [sarcasm] I can't imagine that becoming problematic.[/sarcasm]
I am actually no fan of public schools. My kids go to a Catholic school. There are far worse things going on in public schools than teaching tolerance, but if that's the thing that sets you off pull your children out.
That's exactly the hysterical attitude I mean, heterophobe.
I'm heterosexual myself. It's not hysterical, it's factual. But i'm happy to be proven wrong. Do you have any reasons other than "it's against my religion" or "it's yucky"?
Seven year olds do not need to learn about homosexuals, and no one has the right to override the wishes of their parents,
There are gay parents, too...their wishes count as well. If you want your kids to receive education that comports with your religious beliefs, that's fine: send them to a private school.
But this is a *public* school. Anybody can go; everybody pays. Your beliefs don't get any more weight than anybody else's. You're not entitled to turn the curriculum into a fantasy land where things that you don't like don't exist.
You're entitled to believe in anything from the Invisible Guy in the Sky to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and live accordingly. But don't erase me and people like me from the public school library and then expect us to pay part of the bill.
Oh, while we're burning books. let's take Robin Hood out of the library too...don't teach our kids that terrorism is "normal and desirable".
But don't erase me and people like me from the public school library and then expect us to pay part of the bill.
Then certainly we need to include felching and fisting for seven year olds as well. We don't want anyone to feel marginalized or that their sexual practices are anything except completely normal.:flipbird:
It's real hard to imagine this sort of emotional reaction not having a psychological basis of some sort, innit?
You can tell us Jordon... did you suck a dick? It's OK, we're friends here and won't judge you.
I've noticed that gay-bashers often seem to be obsessed with fetishism, and equate that to the defining characteristic of a person. Would it be "okay" though, if that person were heterosexual? "Hi, I'm Bill, I'm an executive at a reputable corporation, I have a nice home with an immaculate lawn, three lovely honor students, and I like to stick a red-hot poker up my wife's a-hole. Oh, and I hate gay people, because God hates gay people. Gay people are the devil. I'm not gay, by the way, if you were thinking that. I'm not."
Typical of you types to drag religion into the fray first thing while I have never even mentioned it.
Let's look at some of the new texts for this fall's second graders:
Daddy likes it up the ass
Pappa's Prolapsed Rectum
Daddy loved sucking dick more than he loved me; (that's why he's all crusted over with Kaposi's Sarcomas)
One Dick, Two Dick, Big Dick, You Dick
Dykes on Tikes
The Fag in the Bag who wants to Shag
My Secret Friend who Lurks in the Restroom
The Leering Queer who gave me Beer
If you meant me, or any other specific person, why say "you types"?
Then certainly we need to include felching and fisting for seven year olds as well. We don't want anyone to feel marginalized or that their sexual practices are anything except completely normal.
I must have missed the place where you were advocating teaching straight sexual practices to seven year olds. Or was that when the cops showed up?
Typical of you types to drag religion into the fray first thing while I have never even mentioned it.
Then perhaps you'd care to explain your opposition to homosexuality. It's either "it's against my religion" or "it's yucky".
Let's look at some of the new texts for this fall's second graders:
{idiocy}
<IDIOCY>
I'm sorry, does the two princes book include any sex? At all? If not, then it is exactly like any fairy tale that ends up "and they lived happily ever after. I mean, if you want to get into sexual isues of fairy tale characters, then Cinderella's Prince was a massive foot fetishist and Snow White's was a necrophiliac.
It's OK, we're friends here and won't judge you.
Speak for yourself; I've already judged him. :-)
However, Civil Unions should be available to anyone.
And have equal legal status to straight marriage? Cool...now let's figure out why The State should be involved in it at all.
I'm sorry, does the two princes book include any sex? At all?
If it does, I withdraw my objection to removing it from an elementary school curriculum...no matter who the Prince[s] is/are boffing.
Typical of you types to drag religion into the fray first thing while I have never even mentioned it.
Let's look at some of the new texts for this fall's second graders:
Daddy likes it up the ass
Pappa's Prolapsed Rectum
Daddy loved sucking dick more than he loved me; (that's why he's all crusted over with Kaposi's Sarcomas)
One Dick, Two Dick, Big Dick, You Dick
Dykes on Tikes
The Fag in the Bag who wants to Shag
My Secret Friend who Lurks in the Restroom
The Leering Queer who gave me Beer
Of course this is a sane and considered response. You hate queers. Why mince your words. You want us to agree with you that its ok to hate them. Sorry, no, I'm not going to agree. It looks most people here don't agree with your hatred, either.
Then perhaps you'd care to explain your opposition to homosexuality. It's either "it's against my religion" or "it's yucky".
Gosh, you seem to have that all sorted out. Does your whole life fall into two such easy categories?
Who said I was opposed to homosexuality? I disagree with it being pandered to seven year olds.
I don't hate queers either, but if you give me shit, prepare to get it shoved right back down your throat coated with Drano.
Yes, Civil Unions should have equal legal status to marriage. The govt should license Civil Unions to anyone, and let individual religions dispense marriage sacraments.
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. There is no hatred in that. The hatred is in the minds of you who are so eager to perceive it. But sadly, instead of any genuine debate, all you want to do is fling poo.
Gosh, you seem to have that all sorted out. Does your whole life fall into two such easy categories?
This does, unless you're willing to provide a counterexample.
Who said I was opposed to homosexuality? I disagree with it being pandered to seven year olds.
You did, with your "reading list" that implied that if kids are shown fairy tales about two princes in love, the next step is showing them hardcore gay sex. The same is obviously not true for Sleeping Beauty, so why would it be for the two princes?
Yes, Civil Unions should have equal legal status to marriage. The govt should license Civil Unions to anyone, and let individual religions dispense marriage sacraments.
I agree with this. Of course, everyone will still call it marriage, since the ones who think marriage must be religious in nature will have it done by their religion, and the ones who don't won't care what the religions think.
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.
Marriage ceremonies are based at least as much on culture as religion. In homogenous societies, where there's only one religion and only one culture, that may be hard to distinguish, but a Catholic marriage in Ireland will be considerably different than one in Ghana. "Gay" isn't a religion. If their church performs gay marriages, then their marriage will be whatever their church does. If they do it without a church, it will be whatever they want it to be, which will probably be informed by the culture they grew up in.
Who said I was opposed to homosexuality? I disagree with it being pandered to seven year olds.
I see. If we say a man loves a woman, that's romance. But if we say a man loves a man, that's "pandering". But you're not prejudiced against gay people, of course.
(By the way...you need to look up "pandering". Gramatically, if a child is "being pandered to", it's an appeal to his existing vices, not an attempt to seduce him into new ones.)
*snip*
If somebody thinks their kids shouldn't be exposed to the public, maybe they shouldn't be in a public school. There's plenty of "Christian" "academies" founded on creationism, homophobia and other equally wholesome precepts.
*snip*
Wooo I like you people already :) .. .. well put
Gosh, you seem to have that all sorted out. Does your whole life fall into two such easy categories?
.
Well, either your objection is based on religion or it isn't.. Let's start by answering that one.
I assume we'll now see some handwaving approxiately along the lines of why "Intelligent Design is different from Creationism": religious objections trying to sneak into government policy masquerading as something else.
Who said I was opposed to homosexuality? I disagree with it being pandered to seven year olds. ...
Yes, Civil Unions should have equal legal status to marriage. The govt should license Civil Unions to anyone, and let individual religions dispense marriage sacraments.
Confusion began when you did not distinguish between teachings of a lifestyle verses teaching how to live that lifestyle. Having not provided sufficient details - distinguishing between both concepts - your responses assumes you are so opposed to homosexuality as to even condemning teaching of its existence.
To better understand what was posted: first legal marriage requirements. I read you saying that laws should make no distinction between same sex and opposite sex marriages. Is that correct?
Second, religion. You stated that sacraments (I take that to mean Catholic Church) should be denied to same sex marriages. Is that correct?
Third, education. You insist that children should never even be told that homosexual couples exist? That existence of standard society features (lifestyles) should never be taught to kids? That some realities should never be taught to kids (answering this question in detailed terms of what exists and of how it exists)? Is that correct?
Of course this is a sane and considered response. You hate queers. Why mince your words. You want us to agree with you that its ok to hate them. Sorry, no, I'm not going to agree. It looks most people here don't agree with your hatred, either.
I do, I do, I hate queers. The bastards ruined the word gay. Gay was a great descriptive word. There isn't another word that can take it's place and be as effective. I'll always hold it against 'em. :mad:
Well, either your objection is based on religion or it isn't.. Let's start by answering that one.
I assume we'll now see some handwaving approxiately along the lines of why "Intelligent Design is different from Creationism": religious objections trying to sneak into government policy masquerading as something else.
You're so full of shit you're developing buck teeth. My objection to 7 year olds being exposed to homosexuality is based on simple human decency.
:dedhors2:
You stated that sacraments (I take that to mean Catholic Church) should be denied to same sex marriages. Is that correct?
Nope. Never said that. However your assumption is quite telling.:lol:
I do, I do, I hate queers. The bastards ruined the word gay. Gay was a great descriptive word. There isn't another word that can take it's place and be as effective. I'll always hold it against 'em. :mad:
Blythe
Bonnie
Jocund
Merry
Nope. Never said that. However your assumption is quite telling.
I made no assumptions and can perceive your posts in multiple interpretations. Three questions were asked. You posted by answering none. Is it your intent to be vague? Three questions. The only assuming was by you. If you don't want to answer three questions, then just say so.
Jordon, please explain to me one valid justification as to why you think seven-year-olds should not be exposed to the existance of homosexuality? I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm not confronting you, I am genuinely curious. Why do you think that?
You're so full of shit you're developing buck teeth. My objection to 7 year olds being exposed to homosexuality is based on simple human decency.
So your position is "based on decency" and therefor those who disagree must be espousing "indecency". Kinda lame, don'cha think?
Either admit it's religious, or offer support for the contrary view--a simple unsupported assertion isn't going to cut it. Your "simple human decency" looks awfully close to "intelligent design"; as in "what we call the religion when it's tactically inconveniant to call it religion".
You're equating "admiting that men can love men and women can love women" to "exposing children to homosexuality", as if we were building bleachers in somebody's bedroom for them to sit and watch.
There's a difference between admiting that *relationships*--same sex *or* hetero--exist and trotting out pornos--of either stripe-- for kids to watch. If you haven't the intellectual honesty to acknowlege that, if your entire argment hangs on conflating the two, then there's little point in debating with you, you'll just keep marching around in the same tight little circle.
Jordan is playing a little game with us, pretending to be open minded when he is anything but. Living in Boulder has given him a chance to pick up politically correct double speak, but he gives himself away with the following statement:
My objection to 7 year olds being exposed to homosexuality is based on simple human decency.
What is indecent about a person being attracted to members of the same sex? Why is it "decent" to be attracted to members of the
opposite sex? Why should a seven year old be concerned about being sexually attracted to ANYONE?
Please define "decency," Jordan.
Please define what it is to be moral.
Please define the difference between "agape" and "eros" and please explain the differences between the way gays experience these feelings versus the way straights do.
Please explain to us how your posts have shown evidence of "agape" on your part.
I'm sure you'll explain all these things any moment now. Any time... Yup, in just another minute, you'll enlighten us all. :eyebrow:
You stated that sacraments (I take that to mean Catholic Church) should be denied to same sex marriages. Is that correct?
For the second time, this is not true. Feel free to quote me to the contrary.
Jordon, please explain to me one valid justification as to why you think seven-year-olds should not be exposed to the existance of homosexuality? I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm not confronting you, I am genuinely curious. Why do you think that?
Simple. Human. Decency.
:dedhors2: :dedhors2: :dedhors2:
admit it's religious, or offer support for the contrary view--a simple unsupported assertion isn't going to cut it. Your "simple human decency" looks awfully close to "intelligent design"; as in "what we call the religion when it's tactically inconveniant to call it religion".
Are you waiting for me to reveal myself to be a Fundamentalist Christian? Ain't gonna happen, pal. I'm not a Christian. You certainly have a fetish for cubbyholing anyone who disagrees with you into convenient stereotypes. People can actually hold moral views that have nothing to do with religion. Seven year olds shouldn't be exposed to homosexual propaganda. It's really that simple.
Jordan is playing a little game with us, pretending to be open minded when he is anything but. Living in Boulder has given him a chance to pick up politically correct double speak, but he gives himself away with the following statement:
What is indecent about a person being attracted to members of the same sex? Why is it "decent" to be attracted to members of the opposite sex? Why should a seven year old be concerned about being sexually attracted to ANYONE?
Please define "decency," Jordan.
Please define what it is to be moral.
Please define the difference between "agape" and "eros" and please explain the differences between the way gays experience these feelings versus the way straights do.
Please explain to us how your posts have shown evidence of "agape" on your part.
I'm sure you'll explain all these things any moment now. Any time... Yup, in just another minute, you'll enlighten us all. :eyebrow:
It's "should
have been a cowgirl," genius. The only thing agape in your life is your cavernous anus, and the detritus is soiling your posts.
:donut: :turd: :turd: :turd:
What is considered decent or indecent is largely fashion. Early part of last century, "indecent" would include racial intermarriage, skirts above the knee, the word "swell", women in the workplace, etc.
A great deal has changed and much for the better. So as long as what is specifically considered "indecent" is not encoded into law, I'm in agreement here.
We shall not teach the children "indecent" things.
We shall decide on what is "indecent" by vote of representative school boards, elected in free and open elections.
I'm down with that. Done and done.
It's "should have been a cowgirl," genius. The only thing agape in your life is your cavernous anus, and the detritus is soiling your posts.
:donut: :turd: :turd: :turd:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I rest my case. You're not worth the time of day and you obviously don't listen to C/W. Everybody loves to correct me on that "of" and its already been discussed here at length on other threads.
You didn't answer a single one of my points because you CAN'T.
Should
of known what you're talking about. :rolleyes:
Simple. Human. Decency.
Sounds like "I think it's yucky" to me.
Please explain why the two princes are indecent, while Rapunzel isn't.
What is considered decent or indecent is largely fashion. Early part of last century, "indecent" would include racial intermarriage, skirts above the knee, the word "swell", women in the workplace, etc.
You want to teach seven year olds about "racial" marriage:p? Fine. Skirts above the knee? Swell. Women in the workplace? :shocking: Well, ok. Homosexuality? I don't think so. Again, it's interesting how you all think you know what's better for a child than their own parents.
What is c/w, cunt wailing? I'll pass.
I'm right because I say so and I use 4 letter words
Any time now. Any minute. Just you wait and see. Jordan will brilliantly explain what he's talking about. Any second... :right:
You still haven't responded to Happy Monkey's request to
explain why the two princes are indecent, while Rapunzel isn't.
I agree with Happy Monkey and Torrere, please explain how showing and telling about love between two men are indecent and despicable, but showing and telling about love between a man and a woman is fine and dandy.
For that matter, explain how showing love between two men is worse than showing hatred between anybody.
Are you waiting for me to reveal myself to be a Fundamentalist Christian? Ain't gonna happen, pal. I'm not a Christian. You certainly have a fetish for cubbyholing anyone who disagrees with you into convenient stereotypes. People can actually hold moral views that have nothing to do with religion.
OK, then it's not a religious belief, it just happens to be indistinguishable from what fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims believe.
It's your own personal, independantly-held secular belief--an opinion--which still gives it no standing that would support your use of the government to impose it on others.
Seven year olds shouldn't be exposed to homosexual propaganda. It's really that simple.
"Man can love men and women can love women" isn't propaganda, it's just fact--supportable by direct observation of the world and the people in it.
Your claim that it's "immoral" or "indecent" is still arbitrary and without support other than your own copious "it's that simple" and "everybody knows" handwaving about how obvious it is.
You're still talking in circles. You might benefit from a review of fallacies of argumentation that are common and obvious enough to have already been given names. Try
this one for example.
I declare that all mention of anything involving violence or malicious intent should be removed from all schools. I can't have my (potential) children exposed to the thought of someone wanting to hurt someone else! History may no longer make any mention of wars, assassinations, fights, or anything. It's just not decent for my child to know people kill other people! (/mockery)
For the second time, this is not true. Feel free to quote me to the contrary.
Simple human decency is when one answers questions in a discussion group. You did not even define "this". Which of so many possible "this" are you refering to?
Simple questions that an honest man has no problem answering because honest men understand simple human decency:
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.
Meanwhile, Denny Crane (William Shatner) and Alan Short (James Spader) in Boston legal demonstrate strong love between two men. You would call those characters indecent and despicable?
I agree with Happy Monkey and Torrere, please explain how showing and telling about love between two men are indecent and despicable, but showing and telling about love between a man and a woman is fine and dandy.
For that matter, explain how showing love between two men is worse than showing hatred between anybody.
Let's see. Love between a man and a woman is normal. Love between two men is...Abby something.:D
So are you prejudiced againt everything that isn't normal, or just certain things?
Obviously Jordon's learned his debating chops in other, easier fora where everyone agrees with him. :-)
Let's see. Love between a man and a woman is normal.
So what? The question was why is one less decent, not whether one is more common.
You might benefit from a review of fallacies of argumentation that are common and obvious enough to have already been given names. Try this one for example.
Just because you can use what you learned on the High School debate team to prove that your clit is a dick, doesn't make it true, even if it makes you smug in your delusion.
You stated that sacraments should be denied to same sex marriages. Is that correct (of course, reasons why are included)?
There's no point in even trying to debate when you openly lie. For the THIRD TIME, I never said that. Read the thread again.
You insist that children should never even be told that homosexual couples exist?
Again, I never said that. I said that seven year olds should not be exposed to it. You are so eager to portray yourself as a victim, you are fabricating imaginary arguments to fit your agenda.
Meanwhile, Denny Crane (William Shatner) and Alan Short (James Spader) in Boston legal demonstrate strong love between two men. You would call those characters indecent and despicable?
I haven't seen that show, but then we arent' talking about brotherly love, are we? We're talking about homosexuality.
You insist that children should never even be told that homosexual couples exist?
I never said that. I said that seven year olds should not be exposed to it.
?
Jordon, for the third (or is it fourth?) time, please answer me LOGICALLY and REASONABLY.
I agree with Happy Monkey and Torrere, please explain how showing and telling about love between two men are indecent and despicable, but showing and telling about love between a man and a woman is fine and dandy.
For that matter, explain how showing love between two men is worse than showing hatred between anybody.
Jordon, for the third (or is it fourth?) time, please answer me LOGICALLY and REASONABLY.
Seven. Year. Olds. Do. Not. Need. To. Know. About. Homosexuality.
"Despicable" is your word. I never said it.:right:
Extra. Periods. Don't. Substitute. For. A. Reason.
Seven year olds don't need to know about heterosexuality either, which is why nobody has sex in fairy tales. Why would two men not having sex be worse than a man and a woman not having sex?
Seven. Year. Olds. Do. Not. Need. To. Know. About. Homosexuality.
My 6 year old daughter has a classmate with a lesbian mother. The kids are in Brownies together and the mom is one of the leaders. The mom and her partner are both very nice and are great with kids. My daughter just thinks her friend has two moms. She seems to not even notice that their family is different from ours. She's not thinking "well, I know my Dad puts his penis inside my Mom, so what do these two moms do for fun?" She's just playing with her friend.
I would say that kids younger than 7 need to know about all the different types of families out there. Doesn't mean they have to learn all the sexual stuff. It's about love. Not sex.
Obsession on the sexual act is the fault of the obsessor.
Just because you can use what you learned on the High School debate team to prove that your clit is a dick, doesn't make it true, even if it makes you smug in your delusion.
"Ad hominem"....see fallacies page.
I see no point in trying to engage you in "debate" you any further, because you clearly have no intention of debating. That's probably a wise move on your part, since your debate isn't even up to high school quality.
As for "smug", that's a pretty comical accusation coming from you, given that your basic theory seems to be "I'm right, why can't you see that?"
Others beat me to it, but I'm going to say it anyway:
Seven. Year. Olds. Don't. Need. To. Know. About. Heterosexuals. Any. More. Than. They. Do. Homosexuals.
15-year-olds don't need to know that the volume of a right pyramid is 1/3Bh but they teach it anyway. Because it is good to know, because it is true, and because ignorance has killed more people than anything else. Okay, maybe not knowing how to find the volume of a pyramid won't kill you, but not being taught that homosexuals (or people of any other sexual orientation) are people too, that they are no different than anyone else in any other respect, that they are just as 'normal' as any other person on the planet CAN get someone killed.
Since this is my first post here, I'll probably be called a troll :rolleyes: . But I've been enjoying reading everything on this site and this topic is the first one that is compelling me to respond.
First, a little about me. I am a heterosexual and mother of three children. These children attend public schools. I attended private and public schools as a child. I despise bigotry, because it teaches intolerance and hatred. Anyone that is 'different' is ostracised and feared when bigotry is in play. Children need to be taught that different is not WRONG, its just different.
I agree with the Lexington School systems decision. Educating your children about the different kind of people, cultures, and religions in the world will not harm them or cause them to become 'gay'.
Did you know that it is estimated that five percent to nine percent of all children currently in school will grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual? There is also an increasing number of children of gay and lesbian parents in school. It is estimated that six percent to 11 percent of schoolchildren have a gay or lesbian parent or sibling.
Is age seven too young? Is any child too young to learn consideration and tolerance? It's certainly not too young for them to learn discrimination, prejudice and violence!! Very young children already have heard many things about gay men and lesbians. Negative name-calling begins as early as first grade, and even though these children may not yet understand what it means to be gay or lesbian, they know that using these words is a way to put someone down. Schools aren’t introducing these topics. Rather, they are addressing a topic young children are increasingly familiar with and creating a safe environment for children to ask questions, receive information and learn more about the different types of people that they will encounter throughout their lives.
Of COURSE it’s not appropriate for schools to teach young children about sex. But learning about gay men and lesbians isn’t the same thing as learning about gay sex. In school, children learn about mommies and daddies, families and marriage without talking about sex. In the same way, children can learn that there are gay and lesbian people, and can be taught about the literature they have written, the families they have formed, and the gay and lesbian civil rights issues that are part of the current political debate.
If your religion is against homosexuality, then teach them that at home and in church. Keep your religious beliefs out of the school system my taxes pay for. There is an excellent reason for the separation of church and state in the US. Not everyone agrees about homosexuality. But schools are obliged to create a safe environment and to show respect for all students, including students who are gay or lesbian and students who may have parents or siblings who are gay or lesbian.
Providing children with information and a forum for discussion doesn’t “make” anyone gay. If that were true, then most children who grow up with gay or lesbian parents would turn out to be gay, but they don’t. Most grow up to be heterosexual. According to studies by groups such as the Child Welfare League of America and the American Psychological Association, teaching children about gay issues won't “make” them gay, but it might make them less likely to insult someone they think is gay or to allow a friend to be ostracized for having a lesbian mom or a gay dad. And unless you are a prejudiced bigot and teaching your children to be bigots, you won't want them to learn to treat their fellow citizens with anything less than common courtesy and decency.
To prevent violence, it is critical that teachers and parents teach respect for all members of our communities. And that is impossible to do if we pretend an entire segment of the community doesn't exist.
My children know that there are 'families' of all kinds. Traditional, step-families, blended families, extended families, single parent families, adoptive families, foster families and OMG!! even some with same-sex parents.
And thats ok.
Stormie
And thats ok.
Stormie
And so are you.
Welcome to the Cellar.
The only thing agape in your life is your cavernous anus, and the detritus is soiling your posts.
That's some simple. human. decency. right there ain't it?
Where did sex come into it? Some men like men, most men like women, most women like men but some women like women, it is that scary?
What are you going to tell your kids if they see two men kissing in the street? Or are you going to go up and abuse them for defiling your children instead?
it looks like no one is promoting anything. its a book that simply describes something that exists.
why are so many people afraid of the truth? i say, if you don't want this book read to your child, or this concept known to your child, consider home-schooling, or educate your child in a private, christian school. that way they can be as closed off to the truth as you want them to be.
it exists, and ignoring it, or hating it won't make it go away. don't you want to be accepted and even loved? give that same to others. its what the bible tells you to do, and my guess is the people who are against this book being read, claim to be christians.
My daughter just thinks her friend has two moms.
Now who's telling fairy tales? The reality is that a child only has one mother and one father. Anything else is revisionist biology or a quaint lie.
it looks like no one is promoting anything. its a book that simply describes something that exists.
why are so many people afraid of the truth? i say, if you don't want this book read to your child, or this concept known to your child, consider home-schooling, or educate your child in a private, christian school. that way they can be as closed off to the truth as you want them to be.
it exists, and ignoring it, or hating it won't make it go away. don't you want to be accepted and even loved? give that same to others. its what the bible tells you to do, and my guess is the people who are against this book being read, claim to be christians.
For the record, I'm Pagan; but it's pretting damning that you immediately assume that I'm a Christian because it fits your prejudice. Who's the bigot now?:lol:
jordon, i was not refering to you at all. i was speaking about the parents at the school, sort of generalizing and getting "preachy" about those judgmental types, which may be a fault of mine. but i can't resist. they really ask for it, most of them.
you almost sound a little paranoid there jordon.
don't worry buddy. i wasn't attacking you. its all good.
Now who's telling fairy tales? The reality is that a child only has one mother and one father. Anything else is revisionist biology or a quaint lie.
Biology does not make a "parent" any more than donating sperm or an egg makes one part of a "family".
right on stormie.
i like the things you've been saying here.......
Now who's telling fairy tales? The reality is that a child only has one mother and one father. Anything else is revisionist biology or a quaint lie.
There are moms and dads, and there are biological parents. Biological parents are a male-female pair. For moms and dads, there could be two moms, a a mom and a dad, or two dads, and zero, one, or two of them could also be biological parents.
Mom and Dad being biological parents is the easiest and most common route, but it's not the only one.
Let's get back to the issue.
Several parents are upset because the school curriculum apparently includes books (plural, this isn't the first time this happened) regarding homosexuality. These books are written for an elementary school grade level.
These parents are upset, regardless of YOUR PERSONAL OPINION on the issue, because THEIR children were exposed to material that THEY AS PARENTS OF THEIR CHILDREN consider inappropriate.
The parents want to be informed when the teacher is going to read inappropriate (to them) material, so they can remove their child from class.
I don't feel that ANY sexuality needs to be taught in elementary school. I have not read the book, so I don't know what it says. But if my 9 year old came home and told me that they read a book about two daddies, or two mommies, I'd be justifiably concerned about the curriculum. I don't mind, as a parent, if a book like that is available in the library, and my child checks that book out on her own, but I DO have a problem with my child effectively being forced to listen to what I consider inappropriate material.
(rhetorical question)
Why is it ok to read a book about homosexuality to 7 year olds in school, but read a book to the same kids in the same school about Jesus and that's an OUTRAGE!!!
(/rhetorical question)
For those who say "If you don't like it, put your child into private school", have you looked at the prices of private school? The CHEAPEST private school here (which is founded from a local Christian Church) is $300 per month, YEAR ROUND. Now, not only do I have to pay that, but I STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL INSTRUCTION, because I don't have an option to not pay taxes.
So since I'm paying for it either way, my public schools should reflect the values of my community, which should be enforced by the elected Board of Education.
(By the way..there is a lawsuit against my local Board of Education pending, and if you think any of them are getting relected this year, think again, because the parents are PISSED.)
If Susie lives with two daddies and Todd lives with two mommies and Jamal lives with a traditional set of parents, that knowledge and discussion is perfectly acceptable at their ages, in the course of normal social interaction.
Homosexualiy DOES exist, it IS part of the world. But does NOT make that subject matter appropriate for a CAPTIVE audience of 7 year olds, any more than terrorist activities or discussion of the Holocaust is appropriate for that age group.
(BTW, It is Holocaust Remembrance Day today. Go hug a Jew.)
wow...... kinda wordy......
teach the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.
public schools cannot give preference to any religion. this is not a theocracy. don't like it. move to theocracy, like iraq, or afghanistan.
get over it, and just let people be themsleves. love them. god will do the judging, not us.
I don't feel that ANY sexuality needs to be taught in elementary school.
Right, and that's why the "Cinderella" story doesn't follow the newlyweds on their honemoon.
I have not read the book, so I don't know what it says.
Exactly. And if there is any sex in the book, then that's a problem. But since Jordon seems incapable, perhaps you can give an answer to this:
If there is precisely the same amount of romance (some), and precisely the same amount of sex (none) in the princes book and Cinderella, what makes the former indecent and not the latter?
This book isn't actually teaching sexuality though. It's a book about a prince that has to find a mate. That mate, in this book, ends up being another man...So yes, it introduces an alternative kind of family, but it doesn't really say... hey...these are two guys and theyre gonna go at it like your mommy and daddy do....
And in this particular school, there are kids with two mommies or two daddies.... especially in a diverse place like this do the children need to have those doors of communication opened early... My co - worker has two kids in a school where a lot of the kids have gay parents... his kids are 9 and 6... they understand what it is... there is nothing wrong with kids knowing that sometimes a man loves a man or a woman loves a woman. They don't need to know the sexy details yet...just like they dont need to know the sexy details of a hetero relationship.
Look how quickly the hatemongers race to spew their vitriol and profanity simply because I suggested that a father should have a say in what his child is taught in public school:
"I hate people.
ESPECIALLY bigoted, prejudicial, discriminatory, twisted people. Which someone would HAVE to be to discriminate like that against ANYONE for ANY reason, whether it be sexual orientation, race, creed, or anything else."
"Children can adapt,.... if a hetro feeling little kid can make friends with another hetro feeling kid with gay/lesbian parents./// what the fuck.
Should a white kid not make friends, or happen across literature that talks about some mixed married kid having white superior parent fucking and being in love with a member of the lowsome minority race?"
"The fact is that recent studies show that homophobia is based in repressed homosexual tendencies.
Please don't infect kids with your sickness."
"If somebody thinks their kids shouldn't be exposed to the public, maybe they shouldn't be in a public school. There's plenty of "Christian" "academies" founded on creationism, homophobia and other equally wholesome precepts.
Just don't ask me to pay for it."
"If the christian parent has a bias against islam let them talk about it
... will they?
Fuck no. The parent has an agenda... MY WAY or the HIWAY."
"and no, you fuckface bigots, it doesn't mean Im gay"
"There is no non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage."
All this on just the first three pages. Hypocrisy much?
huh?
your values preach hate, and I seem to hear "hatred" akin to the KKK
If a father wants to protest,.... cool, I think McCarthy did the same thing.
Fucking red herrings...
Hopefully some sane people might squash the biggoted "scapegoat" emotionalisms that have gone on far too long.
"There is no non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage."
All this on just the first three pages. Hypocrisy much?
A statement like that is easy to disprove with counterexample... hint hint.
Look how quickly the hatemongers race to spew their vitriol and profanity simply because I suggested that a father should have a say in what his child is taught in public school:
Another ad hominem, introduced as a red herring
The problem is that
you clearly want to control what
everybody is taught in public school. Once again, I suggest you place your kids in a private school that shares your views.
But do you actually
have any kids? Because your inability to distinguish between "a book about relationships" and "teaching children about physical intimacy" makes me wonder what life must be like for your partner...if you have one.
Anybody Interested in getting rid of the athiest evil anti-christ Republicans that blew up the Twin Towers, and missled the Pentagon section that was blown apart.... JUST so Americans could hate the Islams that the Anti-Christ USA Administration pitched us up against>
How about that Xtian Boy, Wake the fuck up... STOP being such a "TOOL"
I'm glad jordan always addresses the issues and debates rationally about the points raised instead of resorting the vitrol and profanity of an agape cavernous anus.
Jordon is one of those people who while holding a good mixed bag of the usual prejudices deep down, knows they're not acceptable and so attempts to wrap them up in various ways to make them less ugly, like putting a piece of dog shit in Christmas paper. This can be summed up in something like 'I'm all for gay marriage, just don't like the fucking fags near my kids' or 'it's simple human decency to not expose 7 year olds to love between people of the same gender'.
Also, I may be wrong on this but my understanding is it is now scientifically possible to take the DNA(or S, or C) from an egg, put it in a sperm and use it to impregnate an egg, meaning that one can in fact, have two mothers. Furthermore this I believe, I'll check later, is the 21st century, we've moved beyond defining gender roles by sexuality, catch up.
By the way, can you point me to the vitrol and profanity in "There is no non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage.", I keep looking but end up back an agape anus.
Also, I may be wrong on this but my understanding is it is now scientifically possible to take the DNS from an egg...
Hiya Jag. :-)
Cool...I didn't know you could take the DNS from an egg. I didn't even know they had IP addys.
Must be an IPV6 thing. :-)
*snip*
Cool...I didn't know you could take the DNS from an egg. I didn't even know they had IP addys.
Must be an IPV6 thing. :-)
LMFAO :lol:
hahahah, is that "back" or "black" angus apes
It's the DNS name you want, otherwise they have really bland personalities. It also helps finding them when it comes to implant time.
Damn, i just finished Brave New World, and John Savage only ends up hanging around.
Right, and that's why the "Cinderella" story doesn't follow the newlyweds on their honemoon.Exactly. And if there is any sex in the book, then that's a problem. But since Jordon seems incapable, perhaps you can give an answer to this:
If there is precisely the same amount of romance (some), and precisely the same amount of sex (none) in the princes book and Cinderella, what makes the former indecent and not the latter?
Is Cinderella actually read loud in schools?
And I never said the princes book was indecent, so I can't answer your question, HM. I haven't read it, so I don't know if it is or not.
My point remains that it is up to the majority of each individual community to decide what is best for that community's school curriculum. (curriculi?). And I don't think that my kids should have to be forced to listen to a book that I as the parent feel is inappropriate.
If this ends up a case of "majority rules", and the people of that community decide that the book is inappropriate, then I'm sure they'll be labelled as "bigots", "intolerant", "fundies", whatever by the people who disagree. But you know what they say, "If you don't like it, leave."
And again, Maggie, you keep touting "go to private school". Well, that's great, I'd love to, but then give me an option to stop paying the educational portion of my taxes. If my kids aren't in the public school system, why should I have to pay for it?
I'm glad jordan always addresses the issues and debates rationally about the points raised instead of resorting the vitrol and profanity of an agape cavernous anus...
By the way, can you point me to the vitrol and profanity in "There is no non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage.", I keep looking but end up back an agape anus.
Back on page one
Let's look at some of the new texts for this fall's second graders:
Daddy likes it up the ass
Pappa's Prolapsed Rectum
Daddy loved sucking dick more than he loved me; (that's why he's all crusted over with Kaposi's Sarcomas)
One Dick, Two Dick, Big Dick, You Dick
Dykes on Tikes
The Fag in the Bag who wants to Shag
My Secret Friend who Lurks in the Restroom
The Leering Queer who gave me Beer
The voice of calm, unbiased reason. :rolleyes:
Is Cinderella actually read loud in schools?
Probably, but irrelevant. I just picked it at random as an example of a classic story with what could be termed heterosexual romance.
And I never said the princes book was indecent, so I can't answer your question, HM. I haven't read it, so I don't know if it is or not.
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?
My point remains that it is up to the majority of each individual community to decide what is best for that community's school curriculum. (curriculi?). And I don't think that my kids should have to be forced to listen to a book that I as the parent feel is inappropriate.
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.
If my kids aren't in the public school system, why should I have to pay for it?
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.
is it just me?
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.
Probably, but irrelevant. I just picked it at random as an example of a classic story with what could be termed heterosexual romance.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Indoctrination of
what? The "doctrine" that Gay People
exist?
"I hate people.
ESPECIALLY bigoted, prejudicial, discriminatory, twisted people. Which someone would HAVE to be to discriminate like that against ANYONE for ANY reason, whether it be sexual orientation, race, creed, or anything else."
"Children can adapt,.... if a hetro feeling little kid can make friends with another hetro feeling kid with gay/lesbian parents./// what the fuck.
Should a white kid not make friends, or happen across literature that talks about some mixed married kid having white superior parent fucking and being in love with a member of the lowsome minority race?"
"The fact is that recent studies show that homophobia is based in repressed homosexual tendencies.
Please don't infect kids with your sickness."
"If somebody thinks their kids shouldn't be exposed to the public, maybe they shouldn't be in a public school. There's plenty of "Christian" "academies" founded on creationism, homophobia and other equally wholesome precepts.
Just don't ask me to pay for it."
"If the christian parent has a bias against islam let them talk about it
... will they?
Fuck no. The parent has an agenda... MY WAY or the HIWAY."
"and no, you fuckface bigots, it doesn't mean Im gay"
"There is no non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage."
All this on just the first three pages. Hypocrisy much?
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.
Actually, it is irrelevant[sic], since that is the story you're comparing it to. (I've also seen Snow White thrown around as an example.)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
by Jaguar
This can be summed up in something like 'I'm all for gay marriage, just don't like the fucking fags near my kids' or 'it's simple human decency to not expose 7 year olds to love between people of the same gender'.
By Jordan
Just keep your fag garbage away from children
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'.
Which is it? Freedom to love who you choose, or freedom to blow truckers in rest stops?
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.
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?
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.
I think there is a large group of people who don't "hate" gays but don't want to see homosexuality promoted to children.
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:
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.
Indoctrination of what? The "doctrine" that Gay People exist?
Semantics is everything when buzzwords like [I][B]"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 [COLOR="DarkRed"]the right to exist[/COLOR]?[/B][/I]
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.
for those who claim to be christians- its the golden rule.
[SIZE="4"]
slam-fucking-dunk[/SIZE]
And again, Maggie, you keep touting "go to private school". Well, that's great, I'd love to, but then give me an option to stop paying the educational portion of my taxes. If my kids aren't in the public school system, why should I have to pay for it?
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.
"call to violence"
: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.
...It may be time to think about redecorating your closets.
Already done mine. See?
http://www.pinkpistols.orgis 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.
...and by targeting seven year olds for indoctrination into the gay agenda...
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.
this has GOT to be a joke.
Don't kid yourself.
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.
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.
There's no point in even trying to debate when you openly lie. For the THIRD TIME, I never said that. Read the thread again.
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.
... but it's pretting damning that you immediately assume that I'm a Christian ...
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.
Jordon is one of those people who while holding a good mixed bag of the usual prejudices deep down, knows they're not acceptable and so attempts to wrap them up in various ways to make them less ugly
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.
is it just me, or is anyone else having a hard time following what jordon is saying?
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?
Already done mine. See?
http://www.pinkpistols.org
A perfect example of dykedom by virtue of the fact that no man would put his dick in that much fuglitude.:p
is this guy for real? someone tell me- he's faking this stuff, right?
Jordon is either trolling or profoundly stupid. Either way, not worth engaging after the Matthew Shepherd comment.
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?
I said that everyone should be able to have a Civil Union with the same legal rights.
Second, religion. You stated that sacraments should be denied to same sex marriages. Is that correct (of course, reasons why are included)?
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."
You insist that children should never even be told that homosexual couples exist?
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.
Already done mine. See?
http://www.pinkpistols.org
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.....
Jordon is either trolling or profoundly stupid. Either way, not worth engaging after the Matthew Shepherd comment.
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.
I said that everyone should be able to have a Civil Union with the same legal rights.
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?"
I NEVER SAID THAT. Parroting a lie over and over does not add credibility.
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?
Another lie.
A lie about what? How does one lie when it is only a question? A question asking only what you said?
I said, and say yet again, that seven year olds don't need to know about homosexuality.
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.
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.
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.
Blythe
Bonnie
Jocund
Merry
Nope, not even close. :headshake
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.
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 VolkYou 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
Aim for the testicles girls.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
with all the hatred in our world, love is always a good idea.
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.
I know this argument has probably been brought up...
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
:)
something may "feel unnatural" to someone, and not to someone else. who are we, as individulals, to decide what is ultimately an unnatural feeling?
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.
(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.
What a relief -- if we ever have a beer together, we're no longer automatically required to hit each other with the bottles :beer:
Why can't we stick to the 3-Rs and leave social graces to the parents, churches and the real world?
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
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.
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.
that's not a woman. that's a MAN baby.
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"...
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
When we lived in Coatesville people came to our door all the fricken time... and honestly, the JW's were my favorite.
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...
...pologamy is illegal most places...
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.
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.
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.
You do know what I mean by normal so don't be dense.
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.
...gay sex is biologically useless...
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.
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.
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
LOL! You do know that sex ed doesn't actually teach you HOW to have sex, right?
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."
LOL! You do know that sex ed doesn't actually teach you HOW to have sex, right?
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.
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.
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe you should. I'm not the one bent on peddling homosexuality to seven year olds.
There's a difference between "peddling" and admitting that something exists. It's pointless to "peddle" homosexuality; people's orientation is what it is.
I see all the bravos here are afraid to tackle the question of gay sex ed in school. I figured as much.:headshake
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...
Several of us did.
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.
[/QUOTE]
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)
Teacher:
"Welcome to sexual education Fourth-graders! Today we are learning about heretosexual relations. First little Suzie and Joey get naked. Then they kiss and touch each other. This is called foreplay. Finally, little Joey inserts his long, hard penis into Suzie's wet vagina. He slides in and out until an orgasm or two is achieved. An orgasm, boys and girls, is when Joey's penis spits out semen and Suzy's vagina clenches. This semen then swims to little Suzy's egg and joins with it. And this, children, is where babies come from.
Tomorrow, we will be learning about gay sex. This is where two little Johnny's or two little Marie's play with each other but they can't make babies like Joey and Suzie.
Thank you all for coming and don't forget your backpacks."
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.
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?
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)
Oh, I missed that part. 16 pages = I miss some stuff.
Physical violence is not cool or funny or acceptable.
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?
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'?
Am I the only one who can see my posts?
Jordon doesn't answer questions, and I agree with you. :)
Ibram responded to you a couple pages back, though.
Physical violence is not cool or funny or acceptable.
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. :) )
Anyway, the whole Pink Pistols thing was so worth the price of admission. Truly a gem for my favs.
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.
Oh...wait...you forgot your meteor...
No, why? Do you feel invisible?
Other than one response, yes.
Jordon doesn't answer questions, and I agree with you. :)
Ibram responded to you a couple pages back, though.
That is very kind of you, thanks... I feel much better.
yer on fire rk... it's good stuff... keep on posting and we'll keep reading
...i'm opening myself to all sorts of jokes here and i totally support the idea but it's there something a bit vaginal about the pink pistols logo?
yer on fire rk... it's good stuff... keep on posting and we'll keep reading
Thanks... guess my low-self-esteem peeked out it's ugly head a bit there.
Sure would like to get those who brought-up the whole "sin" thing to respond though.
I am truly curious as to how they made the jump from abomination.
We are so nuts about sex in the West.
I guess they just can't get over the fact that it is not that big of a deal, Biblically.
...i'm opening myself to all sorts of jokes here and i totally support the idea but it's there something a bit vaginal about the pink pistols logo?
Welllll... thanks to you it is to me
now.:redface:
...i'm opening myself to all sorts of jokes here and i totally support the idea but it's there something a bit vaginal about the pink pistols logo?
Straight guys always seem to have that reaction....go figure. :-)
In fact it's a shooter seen from above in an isosceles stance. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think there may be some figure/ground reversal in play there too...
@ maggiel- i love it!! the logo, the idea, and i cmpletely support your art and your POV.
very awesome stuff.
@ maggiel- i love it!! the logo, the idea, and i cmpletely support your art and your POV.
very awesome stuff.
Oh, geez, it's not *my* art. The really cool photos are done by
Oleg Volk The PP logo...cripes, I forget who did it. We're getting ready to fund a new run of t-shirts; they're pretty awesome.
I dunno exactly where you are in Texas, but there are Houston and "Central Texas" chapters, last I heard. You don't have to be gay to hang out with us, or go shooting with us.
far out. aprreciate the idea, and invitation. my wife and i are straight, but very gay freindly. she's from sydney, and that's the san francisco of aussie.
gracias.