NationStates Jolt Archive


Christians crying foul over "fairy" tale

Pages : [1] 2
Sumamba Buwhan
28-04-2006, 00:39
Well the USian thing was getting to be too much so heres a new old argument to get condescending to each other over:

Parents are suing a school for reading a gay-themed fairy tale called King and King to students.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060427/us_nm/rights_gays_massachusetts_dc

...The complaint said the school had "begun a process of intentionally indoctrinating very young children to affirm the notion that homosexuality is right and normal in direct denigration of the plaintiffs' deeply held faith."

It also charges that Lexington broke a 1996 Massachusetts law requiring that parents be notified of sex-education lessons. It names Lexington Superintendent of Schools Paul Ash and several other school and town officials.

Ash said the school was under no legal obligation to inform parents the book would be read. "This school district is committed to a welcoming environment for all kids. We embrace the diverse nature of the community," he told Reuters.

"King & King" tells the story of a crown prince who rejects a bevy of beautiful princesses, rebuffing each suitor until falling in love with a prince. The two marry, sealing the union with a kiss, and live happily ever after.

Ash has said reading the book was not intended as sex education but as a way to educate children about the world in which they live, especially in Massachusetts, the only U.S. state where gays and lesbians can legally wed.
...


So trying to indoctrinate kids into showing tolerance is wring? They also call two guys kissing in a fairy-tale sex education but when a prince kisses a princess in a fairy-tale they say nothing?

What say you?
Letila
28-04-2006, 00:42
I object to this filth. How dare they indoctrinate our children this way? I don't want my children to be exposed to such ideas....

...It's time to root out the monarchist bias in the school system!
Sdaeriji
28-04-2006, 00:43
Won't this just motivate their opponents to push to have the infinitely more numerous Christian-themed fairy tales banned as well? Sometimes I don't think these people really think out what they're doing. The term "reactionary" fits very well.
Quaon
28-04-2006, 00:43
Wow, they only comment when it's about gay people...they don't care when the mention good wizards, dragons, etc? What hyprocrites.
Nadkor
28-04-2006, 00:45
How ironic that one of the great iconic Christian hero Kings, Richard Lionheart, enjoyed his fair share of sodomy.
Ladamesansmerci
28-04-2006, 00:46
Wow, they only comment when it's about gay people...they don't care when the mention good wizards, dragons, etc? What hyprocrites.

Well, they're trying to get Harry Potter banned, right? Idiots. :rolleyes:
Dinaverg
28-04-2006, 00:47
Wow, they only comment when it's about gay people...they don't care when the mention good wizards, dragons, etc? What hyprocrites.

Actually, I think they do...hence that whole 'Ban Harry Potter' thing.
Quaon
28-04-2006, 00:47
How ironic that one of the great iconic Christian hero Kings, Richard Lionheart, enjoyed his fair share of sodomy.
To be fair, there is no absolute proof that Richard was bi-sexual.
Dinaverg
28-04-2006, 00:47
Well, they're trying to get Harry Potter banned, right? Idiots. :rolleyes:

Agh..Beaten to it. >_>
Native Quiggles II
28-04-2006, 00:48
I find these plaintiffs objectionable; let us ban them! :upyours:
Sumamba Buwhan
28-04-2006, 00:48
They say they don't want this PUBLIC school to teach things contrary to their personal religious beliefs... why dont they send them to a Christian school then?
Dobbsworld
28-04-2006, 00:50
*sighs*

When will people give up their obsessions over which type of genitalia other people prefer?
Quaon
28-04-2006, 00:51
They say they don't want this PUBLIC school to teach things contrary to their personal religious beliefs... why dont they send them to a Christian school then?
Exactly. They think one size fits all. And, just so you know, the link in your post just redirects you to the "post a new thread" page.
Ladamesansmerci
28-04-2006, 00:51
*sighs*

When will people give up their obsessions over which type of genitalia other people prefer?

Maybe it's because they're obsessed with the type they prefer...which happens to be the "wrong" type.
Xenophobialand
28-04-2006, 00:55
Well the USian thing was getting to be too much so heres a new old argument to get condescending to each other over:

Parents are suing a school for reading a gay-themed fairy tale called King and King to students.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=1227




So trying to indoctrinate kids into showing tolerance is wring? They also call two guys kissing in a fairy-tale sex education but when a prince kisses a princess in a fairy-tale they say nothing?

What say you?

I would simply say that they seem to have fallen for the typical American view that if children are exposed to something, then they will instantly start practicing it. They had better not see or hear about two men kissing, or they'll become two men kissing. They'd better not see or hear about drugs, because then they'll take drugs. They'd better not see Canadians, otherwise they might become Canadians. That sort of thing. It's an obviously foolhardy proposition--most of what my parents tried hardest to indoctrinate me in I now wholeheartedly reject, but what can you do?
Sumamba Buwhan
28-04-2006, 00:55
Exactly. They think one size fits all. And, just so you know, the link in your post just redirects you to the "post a new thread" page.


oh crikey!
*fixes it*
thanks!
Radical Centrists
28-04-2006, 00:56
Can anyone here tell me why the hell Christians place so much emphasis on homosexuality? Why the interest in something so inconsequential today and insignificant in the Bible?

Anyone? :confused:
Nadkor
28-04-2006, 00:57
To be fair, there is no absolute proof that Richard was bi-sexual.
Meh, he did penance for sodomy.
Dobbsworld
28-04-2006, 00:58
I would simply say that they seem to have fallen for the typical American view that if children are exposed to something, then they will instantly start practicing it. They had better not see or hear about two men kissing, or they'll become two men kissing. They'd better not see or hear about drugs, because then they'll take drugs. They'd better not see Canadians, otherwise they might become Canadians. That sort of thing. It's an obviously foolhardy proposition--most of what my parents tried hardest to indoctrinate me in I now wholeheartedly reject, but what can you do?
I'd much prefer to see boys kissing than beating the crap out of each other.

I wouldn't do jack shit.
Quaon
28-04-2006, 00:59
Meh, he did penance for sodomy.
Opps...
Sumamba Buwhan
28-04-2006, 01:00
I would simply say that they seem to have fallen for the typical American view that if children are exposed to something, then they will instantly start practicing it. They had better not see or hear about two men kissing, or they'll become two men kissing. They'd better not see or hear about drugs, because then they'll take drugs. They'd better not see Canadians, otherwise they might become Canadians. That sort of thing. It's an obviously foolhardy proposition--most of what my parents tried hardest to indoctrinate me in I now wholeheartedly reject, but what can you do?


Too true and great point.

It doesnt say much for their ability to parent if they are worried about their kids takign someone elses teachings over theirs. Just like the gangster rap debate - if your kid is goign to go do drugs, rape, rob, and kill because of something they heard on a rap album then I'm sorry but you suck as a parent.. it's not the rappers fault that you weren't able to instill good values in yrou child.
Kyronea
28-04-2006, 01:08
Wow, they only comment when it's about gay people...they don't care when the mention good wizards, dragons, etc? What hyprocrites.
Actually, some do. Of course, you'll get people who protest just about anything. Fact is, they're fucking dumb and a perfect example of why religion is a bad thing. THERE IS NO GOD. >_O
Rhursbourg
28-04-2006, 01:24
at least the other king that he choose wasnt french
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 02:07
Won't this just motivate their opponents to push to have the infinitely more numerous Christian-themed fairy tales banned as well? Sometimes I don't think these people really think out what they're doing. The term "reactionary" fits very well.If there were a chance in hell that we could get Christian-themed fairy tales out of the schools, I'd be all over it, but they know that will never happen. This is the kind of story that makes me want to mount a projector to the top of my car and drive around town showing gay porn on the sides of churches, commando style.
Turquoise Days
28-04-2006, 02:14
Well the USian thing was getting to be too much so heres a new old argument to get condescending to each other over:

Parents are suing a school for reading a gay-themed fairy tale called King and King to students.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060427/us_nm/rights_gays_massachusetts_dc




So trying to indoctrinate kids into showing tolerance is wring? They also call two guys kissing in a fairy-tale sex education but when a prince kisses a princess in a fairy-tale they say nothing?

What say you?
You'd think they'd be more concerned about Princesses kissing frogs, but since when has logic been factor?
The Atlantian islands
28-04-2006, 02:15
If there were a chance in hell that we could get Christian-themed fairy tales out of the schools, I'd be all over it, but they know that will never happen. This is the kind of story that makes me want to mount a projector to the top of my car and drive around town showing gay porn on the sides of churches, commando style.


Are there any types of porn that dont go commando style?
Nadkor
28-04-2006, 02:17
You'd think they'd be more concerned about Princesses kissing frogs, but since when has logic been factor?
As long as the Princess is kissing frogs and not Princesses it's probably fine.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 02:19
Are there any types of porn that dont go commando style?
I was picturing more of a hit-and run type of thing--five minutes at the Baptist church, five at the Catholic church, ten at the Pentecostals, etc. I'd be out to desecrate as many places as I could in as short a period as possible.
Turquoise Days
28-04-2006, 02:20
As long as the Princess is kissing frogs and not Princesses it's probably fine.
Yay! Church sanctioned amphibian pr0n!
The Atlantian islands
28-04-2006, 02:20
I was picturing more of a hit-and run type of thing--five minutes at the Baptist church, five at the Catholic church, ten at the Pentecostals, etc. I'd be out to desecrate as many places as I could in as short a period as possible.

Are you that fast?

I mean, where is the fun in that? :p
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 02:21
Are you that fast?

I mean, where is the fun in that? :p
Got to stay ahead of the coppers, man. BSO don't fuck around.
The Atlantian islands
28-04-2006, 02:27
Got to stay ahead of the coppers, man. BSO don't fuck around.

Benevolent Sodomites Orginization?
Dancing Bananland
28-04-2006, 02:40
Hahahahaha....thats funny. Man, organized religiion has done nothing but harm, spiritualities fine and dandy, but jeez.

Really though I just don't get the whole anti-Gay thing. I mean, Homophobia I understand (its just personally uncomfortable for straight guys) but hating Gays is just stupid. I mean, so what? Who cares? Really, don't take a projector man, get some big-ass posters, or some paint. Add some permanency to it man.
Anti-Social Darwinism
28-04-2006, 02:45
To be fair, while I am anti-censorship, parents do have the right and the obligation to monitor what their minor children read and hear. They should have been informed in advance so they could have made the decision to keep their children out of class for that activity if it bothered them. They do have the right to object to the fact that they weren't informed. The story could still have been read to the children of the more open-minded parents. It's not worth a lawsuit, though.
Dancing Bananland
28-04-2006, 02:46
To be fair, while I am anti-censorship, parents do have the right and the obligation to monitor what their minor children read and hear. They should have been informed in advance so they could have made the decision to keep their children out of class for that activity if it bothered them. They do have the right to object to the fact that they weren't informed. The story could still have been read to the children of the more open-minded parents. It's not worth a lawsuit, though.

Its a difficult issue, parents do have certain rights, but at they same time should we let them breed hate and discrimination. I mean, I think we can all be sure Gay-hating is a bad thing.
Anti-Social Darwinism
28-04-2006, 02:50
Its a difficult issue, parents do have certain rights, but at they same time should we let them breed hate and discrimination. I mean, I think we can all be sure Gay-hating is a bad thing.

Unfortunately, until we achieve a perfect world, hate and discrimination will always be part of it. And in a purportedly free society (political correctness notwithstanding) we have the right to teach our children our biases (whether they accept them is another thing.)
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 03:06
Benevolent Sodomites Orginization?
Broward Sheriff's Office---there's nothing benevolent about those fuckers, let me tell you.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 03:08
Its a difficult issue, parents do have certain rights, but at they same time should we let them breed hate and discrimination. I mean, I think we can all be sure Gay-hating is a bad thing.
You'd think we could be sure of that, but unfortunately, there's still a lot of "gay people ought to burn in hell and we ought to get them there quicker" folks running around.
The Atlantian islands
28-04-2006, 03:10
Broward Sheriff's Office---there's nothing benevolent about those fuckers, let me tell you.

You live in Broward County?

No way.

Thats where I live.

Those guys are pricks, man.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 03:13
You live in Broward County?

No way.

Thats where I live.

Those guys are pricks, man.
My girlfriend once said of them "they can kill a buzz the way a cat kills a lizard--mean and slow."
The Atlantian islands
28-04-2006, 03:18
My girlfriend once said of them "they can kill a buzz the way a cat kills a lizard--mean and slow."

Haha...thats soOoOo true.

Hey man, what city do you live in?

I've never seen anyone else on here that lives (sorta, Browards pretty big)near where I do.
Free Mercantile States
28-04-2006, 03:31
Unfortunately, until we achieve a perfect world, hate and discrimination will always be part of it. And in a purportedly free society (political correctness notwithstanding) we have the right to teach our children our biases (whether they accept them is another thing.)

But children don't have the right to grow up without sociopolitical indoctrination, or learn unbiased information and come to their own conclusions? Parents have a right to their child's mind, but a child has no right to the integrity of his or her own? [sigh] The natural rightless-youth assumption is really bothering me today.
Anti-Social Darwinism
28-04-2006, 04:23
But children don't have the right to grow up without sociopolitical indoctrination, or learn unbiased information and come to their own conclusions? Parents have a right to their child's mind, but a child has no right to the integrity of his or her own? [sigh] The natural rightless-youth assumption is really bothering me today.

There is no place on Earth that is free of sociopolitical bias. There is no source of information that is unbiased. If the parents don't teach the children, who would you have do it? The government? A church or religious group? A passing stranger on the street? Television programs? You're always going to run into someone's bias. This is not a about children having rights or not having rights - it's about doing the best with what's available.
Sumamba Buwhan
28-04-2006, 04:27
To be fair, while I am anti-censorship, parents do have the right and the obligation to monitor what their minor children read and hear. They should have been informed in advance so they could have made the decision to keep their children out of class for that activity if it bothered them. They do have the right to object to the fact that they weren't informed. The story could still have been read to the children of the more open-minded parents. It's not worth a lawsuit, though.


yes, but tell the parents the entire days cirriculum everyday to decide if they even want to let their kids go that day? doesn't seem practical. if the parents want more control over their kids education they shoudl either home shool or send them to a private school.
Texoma Land
28-04-2006, 05:11
How ironic that one of the great iconic Christian hero Kings, Richard Lionheart, enjoyed his fair share of sodomy.

As did King James I, the man responsible for The King James Bible.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/history/king_james_gay.html
Qwystyria
28-04-2006, 05:23
Personally, I don't approve of "fairy tales" like the one mentioned in the first post. Then again, I don't really go in for most other "fairy tales" either. IMO there shouldn't BE kissing in these stupid plays. Fact is, I'll never make my kids participate in them, and if they want to, we'll have to talk about it depending on what is the content of it. Furthermore, I like Harry Potter, Gandalf, and the like. It's the over-sexualization of children at absurdly early ages I object to... no matter what type of sexualization it is.
DubyaGoat
28-04-2006, 05:52
yes, but tell the parents the entire days cirriculum everyday to decide if they even want to let their kids go that day? doesn't seem practical. if the parents want more control over their kids education they shoudl either home shool or send them to a private school.

Why is that the sort of argument made by the same party that on a different day says school vouchers should be illegal?
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 06:00
Why is that the sort of argument made by the same party that on a different day says school vouchers should be illegal?
There's no conflict. The argument over vouchers is over whether or not public money should subsidize parochial or for-profit schools, and the short answer to that is no.
Myotisinia
28-04-2006, 06:03
Well the USian thing was getting to be too much so heres a new old argument to get condescending to each other over:

Parents are suing a school for reading a gay-themed fairy tale called King and King to students.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060427/us_nm/rights_gays_massachusetts_dc




So trying to indoctrinate kids into showing tolerance is wring? They also call two guys kissing in a fairy-tale sex education but when a prince kisses a princess in a fairy-tale they say nothing?

What say you?

It is inappropriate material to be exposed to younger children. That is a topic that should be dealt with in the home. Any issue involving morality shoud be the exclusive province for each parent to decide when and where and how it should be given.

I'm still trying to figure out when it was that the public school system began teaching our children what to think instead of how to learn.
Zilam
28-04-2006, 06:05
Not even reading the OP...or anything else..but i think christians are just cry babies. The seriously whine about everything..
DubyaGoat
28-04-2006, 06:07
There's no conflict. The argument over vouchers is over whether or not public money should subsidize parochial or for-profit schools, and the short answer to that is no.

Then, in that case, the people, ALL of the people, have the right to take it on themselves to have a lasting impact on what is acceptable curriculum of the school they send their children and taxes to. Thus, the parents suing the school have done nothing wrong, they are simply exercising their right to determine what their tax money is spent on and what type of indoctrination their children go through.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 06:34
Then, in that case, the people, ALL of the people, have the right to take it on themselves to have a lasting impact on what is acceptable curriculum of the school they send their children and taxes to. Thus, the parents suing the school have done nothing wrong, they are simply exercising their right to determine what their tax money is spent on and what type of indoctrination their children go through.
Sure--they have the right to sue. Sometimes I think we take that right more seriously than we do the right to free speech, but that's another story. But just as they have the right to sue and bitch and complain, I have the same right to complain back, and considering that the school is teaching something essential to good citizenship--acceptance of your fellow citizens--I'd say the school is doing the right thing.
Lacadaemon
28-04-2006, 06:36
Well the USian thing was getting to be too much so heres a new old argument to get condescending to each other over:


It's United Statesman.

That's the correct terminology now.
DubyaGoat
28-04-2006, 06:40
Sure--they have the right to sue. Sometimes I think we take that right more seriously than we do the right to free speech, but that's another story. But just as they have the right to sue and bitch and complain, I have the same right to complain back, and considering that the school is teaching something essential to good citizenship--acceptance of your fellow citizens--I'd say the school is doing the right thing.

It's interesting that what you find 'acceptable' is equally used to define what freedoms we are allowed. For example: I could equally take your argument for 'why' vouchers are not acceptable, There's no conflict. The argument over vouchers is over whether or not public money should subsidize parochial or for-profit schools, and the short answer to that is no. could be turned and applied to WIC (Women Infants and Children) and Food stamp programs. They should not be allowed to spend tax payer money to subsidize the privately owned and for profit grocery store industry. In which case, poor people would only be able to eat 'government created and supplied food products." Which would be utterly ridiculous, then why do you apply it to education and not everything else? Because one is acceptable to your political motivations and the other is not.
Harlesburg
28-04-2006, 06:43
Well the USian thing was getting to be too much so heres a new old argument to get condescending to each other over:

Parents are suing a school for reading a gay-themed fairy tale called King and King to students.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060427/us_nm/rights_gays_massachusetts_dc




So trying to indoctrinate kids into showing tolerance is wring? They also call two guys kissing in a fairy-tale sex education but when a prince kisses a princess in a fairy-tale they say nothing?

What say you?
Tis a bloody outrage i tells ya!
My Grandpappy told me about eating Englishmen but these clowns are taking a whole new spin on it!
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 06:46
It's interesting that what you find 'acceptable' is equally used to define what freedoms we are allowed. For example: I could equally take your argument for 'why' vouchers are not acceptable, There's no conflict. The argument over vouchers is over whether or not public money should subsidize parochial or for-profit schools, and the short answer to that is no. could be turned and applied to WIC (Women Infants and Children) and Food stamp programs. They should not be allowed to spend tax payer money to subsidize the privately owned and for profit grocery store industry. In which case, poor people would only be able to eat 'government created and supplied food products." Which would be utterly ridiculous, then why do you apply it to education and not everything else? Because one is acceptable to your political motivations and the other is not.I will admit that my bias against vouchers is based more on the parochial schools than the for-profit ones--government money should never go to religious schools, in my opinion, because I think that's a First amendment violation. If the case were made that the only schools that would receive vouchers were secular schools, then I'd probably revisit the topic, but that's never going to happen.

And that's why your WIC example is a false one. It's not linked to a Constitutional issue like the separation of church and state.
Dempublicents1
28-04-2006, 06:47
yes, but tell the parents the entire days cirriculum everyday to decide if they even want to let their kids go that day? doesn't seem practical. if the parents want more control over their kids education they shoudl either home shool or send them to a private school.

Exactly.

We can't possibly send every single item that will be used in every single class home for parent approval. And doing so would be a huge disruption to the education of students, as kids would get pulled out of all sorts of classes.

Why is that the sort of argument made by the same party that on a different day says school vouchers should be illegal?

School vouchers are fine, as long as they aren't violating the 1st Amendment by going to support particular religions...


It is inappropriate material to be exposed to younger children. That is a topic that should be dealt with in the home.

This only makes sense if you are going to ban *every* book that involves a love story from children this young.

Any issue involving morality shoud be the exclusive province for each parent to decide when and where and how it should be given.

The issue isn't morality. It is teaching the children about the world around them. Some men fall in love with men. This is known. The school isn't saying, "Look kids! Look at how moral this prince was!" Nope. They're just saying, "Look kids, sometimes there are men who end up with men. This is a part of life, just like men who end up with women, and women who end up with women."

It's interesting that what you find 'acceptable' is equally defined by what freedoms we are allowed. For example: I could equally take your argument for 'why' vouchers are not acceptable, There's no conflict. The argument over vouchers is over whether or not public money should subsidize parochial or for-profit schools, and the short answer to that is no. could be turned and applied to WIC (Women Infants and Children) and Food stamp programs. They should not be allowed to spend tax payer money to subsidize the privately owned and for private grocery store industry. In which case, poor people would only be able to eat 'government created and supplied food products." Which would be utterly ridiculous, then why do you apply it to education and not everything else? Because one is acceptable to your political motivations and the other is not.

There's this thing called the 1st Amendment.......

The reason that money cannot go to parochial schools is the same reason that government money cannot go to build and maintain churches - the government cannot endorse any particular religion, as such an action would be establishing it as a religion supported by the state.
Mercury God
28-04-2006, 06:48
I believe that America is ruled by the majority (sorry all you gay folks). American Educators should teach what the majority wants. (more to come later on this issue)
DubyaGoat
28-04-2006, 06:51
I will admit that my bias against vouchers is based more on the parochial schools than the for-profit ones--government money should never go to religious schools, in my opinion, because I think that's a First amendment violation. If the case were made that the only schools that would receive vouchers were secular schools, then I'd probably revisit the topic, but that's never going to happen.

And that's why your WIC example is a false one. It's not linked to a Constitutional issue like the separation of church and state.

And thus, you restrict via financial reins, the people's right to freedom of religion. A kosher grocery is not restricted.
Dempublicents1
28-04-2006, 07:00
I believe that America is ruled by the majority (sorry all you gay folks).

Good thing we have this thing called the Constitution, which actually rules the US. The majority only has as much power as the Constitution gives it...


And thus, you restrict via financial reins, the people's right to freedom of religion. A kosher grocery is not restricted.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. A kosher grocery would not be able to receive public funds, because this would amount to government establishment of a religion (in this case, Judaism or Islam). That doesn't mean that a kosher government cannot be run.
DubyaGoat
28-04-2006, 07:02
..
Not sure what you're trying to say here. A kosher grocery would not be able to receive public funds, because this would amount to government establishment of a religion (in this case, Judaism or Islam). That doesn't mean that a kosher government cannot be run.

What are you saying? You think a kosher grocery cannot accept WIC and food stamps because the government won't trade them for tax payer money because they are a kosher grocery store?
Dempublicents1
28-04-2006, 07:08
What are you saying? You think a kosher grocery cannot accept WIC and food stamps because the government won't trade them for tax payer money because they are a kosher grocery store?

No, I was stating that a kosher grocery cannot directly receive government funds. You'll have to forgive me tonite, I'm about to fall asleep.

There is, of course, a major difference between a kosher grocery and a parochial school. The funds that go into a kosher grocery do not go towards teaching religion. They go towards the grocery, which happens to cater to a certain crowd.

If government money went to parochial schools, on the other hand, government money would be going *directly* into the teaching of a religion. It would be the equivalent of the government giving money to a church or mosque.

Now, if a given parochial school can demonstrate that it makes no effort to indoctrinate its students into a given religion, then, much like religiously affiliated charites, it could possibly receive government funds. This would mean, for instance, that students could not be chosen on the basis of their religion, could not be required to attend any church services, could not be required to take religion classes, etc..
Republicans Armed
28-04-2006, 07:13
Hmmm... I wonder if this is why the percentage of parents who homeschool their children increase each year? I know some of you won't be able to understand this, but to most of America - reading fairy tales to children with gay themes is a bit extreme.

It's unbelievable how to the vast majority who post here can believe those who think homosexuality is wrong are intolerant, yet those who believe Christianity is wrong are the most tolerant. I believe you have to have some convictions on the matter to begin with in order to express true tolerance.

I have nothing against homosexuals or Harry Potter for that matter. I just believe homosexuality is wrong and so is indoctrinating children with this kind of stuff.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 07:14
And thus, you restrict via financial reins, the people's right to freedom of religion. A kosher grocery is not restricted.Nobody's restricting those parents from teaching their kids what they want to teach them at home. Public schools sure in hell didn't stop my parents from teaching me that evolution was a lie, that homosexuality was unnatural, and that Satan controlled the world. It took me until my mid-20s to get past that, they did such
a good job. So any parents who want to fuck their kids up by teaching them that kind of crap at home can do it and get past the schools quite nicely. You teach religion in a school that's getting public money, and you're showing favoritism to that religion, and that's not allowed thanks to the Constitution. You want to call that restrictive? That's your choice--you can call it a tuna fish sandwich for all I care. You'll still be wrong.
DubyaGoat
28-04-2006, 07:16
No, I was stating that a kosher grocery cannot directly receive government funds. You'll have to forgive me tonite, I'm about to fall asleep.

There is, of course, a major difference between a kosher grocery and a parochial school. The funds that go into a kosher grocery do not go towards teaching religion. They go towards the grocery, which happens to cater to a certain crowd.

If government money went to parochial schools, on the other hand, government money would be going *directly* into the teaching of a religion. It would be the equivalent of the government giving money to a church or mosque.

Now, if a given parochial school can demonstrate that it makes no effort to indoctrinate its students into a given religion, then, much like religiously affiliated charites, it could possibly receive government funds. This would mean, for instance, that students could not be chosen on the basis of their religion, could not be required to attend any church services, could not be required to take religion classes, etc..


What makes you think that a Mosque or Synagogue cannot own and operate a grocery store, and if they do, why shouldn't they be allowed to accept WIC and Food Stamps from their patrons?

For our children, Food and Education, are both 'basic' requirements. But you restrict, via withholding of financial benefits, the ability of the parent to feed and educate their child according to their own beliefs and faith by what you think is right.

Why would you do that? Simply because you do not share their particular beliefs? Perhaps even, because their particular beliefs are directly opposed to your particular beliefs, so you invent 'separation of church and state' standards that are only discriminately enforced and mandated as you see fit (e.g., education but not food). Interesting
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 07:23
What makes you think that a Mosque or Synagogue cannot own and operate a grocery store, and if they do, why shouldn't they be allowed to accept WIC and Food Stamps from their patrons?

For our children, Food and Education, are both 'basic' requirements. But you restrict, via withholding of financial benefits, the ability of the parent to feed and educate their child according to their own beliefs and faith by what you think is right.

Why would you do that? Simply because you do not share their particular beliefs? Perhaps even, because their particular beliefs are directly opposed to your particular beliefs, so you invent 'separation of church and state' standards that are only discriminately enforced and mandated as you see fit (e.g., education but not food). InterestingA kosher grocery store can accept WIC because there's no proselytizing going on--it's a purely economic transaction. You're trying to compare two completely different things.
The Lone Alliance
28-04-2006, 07:36
I think it's kind of weird to show such a story, but I see nothing that they can do about it.

It isn't a fairy tale if it was made recently though in my opinion.
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 07:46
Children shouldn't be told this shit. You wanna mind fuck them?
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 07:51
Children shouldn't be told this shit. You wanna mind fuck them?
Explaining the normal way the world works is a mind fuck? There are gay people out there living everyday lives--get over it. Kids are going to see it, whether you like it or not, so you might as well let them know about it sooner rather than later.
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:01
Explaining the normal way the world works is a mind fuck? There are gay people out there living everyday lives--get over it. Kids are going to see it, whether you like it or not, so you might as well let them know about it sooner rather than later.

Why do we have to bring this PC shit into children's fairytales? What the hell was wrong with the prince and the princess? But it was turned into a gay love story, while homosexuals make up 1% of US pop.
Russo-Soviets
28-04-2006, 08:01
I hate these kinds of things, Children are never as innocent as they appear! The moment they have access to the internet they can look up porn, same with the TV. So unless your going to throw away every electronic appliance in your house, STFU.
Fass
28-04-2006, 08:01
Children shouldn't be told this shit. You wanna mind fuck them?

They're told about princes and princesses. Why not about princes and princes, and princesses and princesses?

Oh, yeah, you're a bigot. Never mind.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 08:04
Why do we have to bring this PC shit into children's fairytales? What the hell was wrong with the prince and the princess? But it was turned into a gay love story, while homosexuals make up 1% of US pop.
You haven't answered the question I posed--why shouldn't we tell them? After all, as same-sex couples get more and more open, and their kids (and yes, they do have kids) go to school and other kids ask about their parents, the question is going to get out there anyway. Or are you going to suggest that the kids of same-sex couples be segregated into gay-parent-only schools? What kind of sick person are you?
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:04
Oh, yeah, you're a bigot. Never mind.

Well, let's see...

Percentage of children born from a mother and a father: 100%

Percentage of children born to a homosexual couple: 0%

You have no say in the topic.
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:05
You haven't answered the question I posed--why shouldn't we tell them? After all, as same-sex couples get more and more open, and their kids (and yes, they do have kids) go to school and other kids ask about their parents, the question is going to get out there anyway. Or are you going to suggest that the kids of same-sex couples be segregated into gay-parent-only schools? What kind of sick person are you?

Why should a minority force their biology onto the majority?

You can be gay all you want, but you don't have to shove it in our faces.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 08:06
Well, let's see...

Percentage of children born from a mother and a father: 100%

Percentage of children born to a homosexual couple: 0%

You have no say in the topic.Hey--my daughter was born to a lesbian mother. We were married at the time, and since then, my daughter has split time between me and my girlfriend and her mom and her girlfriend. Ready to shut the hell up about this yet? Or are you going to continue to regale us with your asininity?
Turquoise Days
28-04-2006, 08:06
Well, let's see...

Percentage of children born from a mother and a father: 100%

Percentage of children born to a homosexual couple: 0%

You have no say in the topic.
Ever heard of adoption? Artificial insemnation for female couples?
Fass
28-04-2006, 08:07
Well, let's see...

Percentage of children born from a mother and a father: 100%

Percentage of children born to a homosexual couple: 0%

Oh, look, someone who was never told about the birds and the bees. I guess it's just fitting you are a victim of the very ignorance you push. The irony is exquisite. I must savour it for a moment.

*savours*

There. That felt good.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 08:07
Why should a minority force their biology onto the majority?

You can be gay all you want, but you don't have to shove it in our faces.So people should live secret lives because people like you have a problem? Screw that. Heterosexual couples flaunt their sexuality every hour of every day. Why shouldn't gay couples do the same? Or are they somehow less than human to you?
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:08
Hey--my daughter was born to a lesbian mother. We were married at the time, and since then, my daughter has split time between me and my girlfriend and her mom and her girlfriend. Ready to shut the hell up about this yet? Or are you going to continue to regale us with your asininity?

Wow, so your daughter is biological made up of 46 chromosomes, all from female? Why are you just posting here with that sort of biological breakthrough? Go! Go! For the good of science!
Mercury God
28-04-2006, 08:09
I think a persons sexuality should be kept out of schools altogether. But then again, Tom Sawyer had a Girlfriend, Becky, so umm, yeah.
Laerod
28-04-2006, 08:09
Why should a minority force their biology onto the majority?Exactly. We need to make sure just how bad and wicked people with Asperger's syndrome are.
Fass
28-04-2006, 08:09
Why should a minority force their biology onto the majority?

You can be gay all you want, but you don't have to shove it in our faces.

No, I think I'll shove whatever I want in your face.
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:09
So people should live secret lives because people like you have a problem? Screw that. Heterosexual couples flaunt their sexuality every hour of every day. Why shouldn't gay couples do the same? Or are they somehow less than human to you?

Because we're the majority. And as the majority, we say "Fuck you."
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:11
Exactly. We need to make sure just how bad and wicked people with Asperger's syndrome are.

Fuck yes. I had a whole Holocaust-esque plan for Aspergians and Autistics, but I don't think it'd be received very well.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 08:11
Wow, so your daughter is biological made up of 46 chromosomes, all from female? Why are you just posting here with that sort of biological breakthrough? Go! Go! For the good of science!No, I'm pointing out that when my daughter lives with her mother, she has, to everyone from the outside, two mothers, and that situation is becoming more and more common, so you might as well get used to it.
Fass
28-04-2006, 08:11
Because we're the majority. And as the majority, we say "Fuck you."

And as the minority, we won't say "fuck you," we will fuck you.
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:12
Fine, I lose again. Yay for gay, let's teach our kids ALL the minority views. I'm gonna have a gay, black nationalist, Nazi, Greenpeace facist commie hippie for a son.
Fass
28-04-2006, 08:13
Fine, I lose again.

Yes, you do, as always.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 08:13
Because we're the majority. And as the majority, we say "Fuck you."
Actually, you aren't. The majority of people in the US support gay rights in general, and the younger the group surveyed, the more accepting they are for formerly taboo issues like same sex marriage. You're in the minority--accept it and leaern to live with it. Bigotry is being shoved in the closet where it belongs.
Turquoise Days
28-04-2006, 08:13
And as the minority, we won't say "fuck you," we will fuck you.
:D You win!
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:14
Yes, you do, as always.

Why do you feel the need to enforce your views on everybody in the world? You're a fascist.
Laerod
28-04-2006, 08:15
Fuck yes. I had a whole Holocaust-esque plan for Aspergians and Autistics, but I don't think it'd be received very well.And then it needs to be applied to left-handed people. Then we can finally stem the flow of left-handed scissors and whatnot. :rolleyes:
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:15
And then it needs to be applied to left-handed people. Then we can finally stem the flow of left-handed scissors and whatnot. :rolleyes:

I'll kill whatever I have to to fix the world. So I'll end it.
Mercury God
28-04-2006, 08:16
I kind of thought homosexuals would go extinct by now as they are not able to reproduce - guess I was wrong!
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:16
Actually, you aren't. The majority of people in the US support gay rights in general, and the younger the group surveyed, the more accepting they are for formerly taboo issues like same sex marriage. You're in the minority--accept it and leaern to live with it. Bigotry is being shoved in the closet where it belongs.

So let's teach our kids black nationalism. Got a problem with that, bigot?
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 08:17
Why do you feel the need to enforce your views on everybody in the world? You're a fascist.
And you're a fucking hypocrite. You're ready to enforce your view of gay people on the whole world. So jam it.
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:18
And you're a fucking hypocrite. You're ready to enforce your view of gay people on the whole world. So jam it.

I'm not enforcing anything. But you're all for just shoving gay people in kids faces.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 08:19
So let's teach our kids black nationalism. Got a problem with that, bigot?
Sure--let's teach them about the concept in history class, right alongside civil rights and the struggle for equality. Why not?
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:20
Sure--let's teach them about the concept in history class, right alongside civil rights and the struggle for equality. Why not?

No. They must understand that blacks are being oppressed by the man. They need to learn to fight the white military-industrial complex.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 08:21
I'm not enforcing anything. But you're all for just shoving gay people in kids faces.
I'm going to explain this using small words, so maybe you'll get it. (Actually, I don't imagine you will, but I'll try anyway.)

Gay. people. are. human. They are part of society. They will be in people's faces regardless of what you want. That includes kids. Get the fuck over it.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 08:22
No. They must understand that blacks are being oppressed by the man. They need to learn to fight the white military-industrial complex.
They are. So are poor white people. Let's teach them all.

By the way, your comment proves you know the square root of jack fuckall about black nationalism.
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:22
I'm going to explain this using small words, so maybe you'll get it. (Actually, I don't imagine you will, but I'll try anyway.)

Gay. people. are. human. They are part of society. They will be in people's faces regardless of what you want. That includes kids. Get the fuck over it.

So black people aren't human? Their plight must be taught to children in school.
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:23
They are. So are poor white people. Let's teach them all.

By the way, your comment proves you know the square root of jack fuckall about black nationalism.

Fuck poor white people. They're just part of the man's war machine.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 08:24
So black people aren't human? Their plight must be taught to children in school.
How do you manage to breathe without someone reminding you?
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:27
How do you manage to breathe without someone reminding you?

See. You are bigoted against blacks.
Mercury God
28-04-2006, 08:28
Actually, you aren't. The majority of people in the US support gay rights in general, and the younger the group surveyed, the more accepting they are for formerly taboo issues like same sex marriage. You're in the minority--accept it and leaern to live with it. Bigotry is being shoved in the closet where it belongs.

Do you have some Stats to back that up, or will I continue with my plans to bail out of the country to Saudi Arabia?
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 08:29
See. You are bigoted against blacks.
:rolleyes:
If you're trying to tempt me into flaming you, it's not going to work. I've been tempted by better than you.
Malletopia
28-04-2006, 08:30
I love how quickly some of these threads fall into one-sentence crap-slinging competitions before there's much of a chance for actual conversation.
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:32
:rolleyes:
If you're trying to tempt me into flaming you, it's not going to work. I've been tempted by better than you.

No, you just can't come up with an argument why black power shouldn't be taught in schools.
Malletopia
28-04-2006, 08:33
No, you've just can't come up with an argument why black power shouldn't be taught in schools.

And you've just can'ts use proper grammar, it seems.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 08:34
Do you have some Stats to back that up, or will I continue with my plans to bail out of the country to Saudi Arabia?
Here's one (http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm) off the top of my head. There are better, more extensive polls out there.
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 8-12, 2006. Adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.


.

"As I list some programs and proposals that are being discussed in this country today, please tell me whether you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose each. . . ."

Favor Strongly Favor Oppose Oppose Strongly Unsure

"Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military" N=695, MoE ± 4 (Form 2)
3/8-12/06
20 40 19 13 8

"Allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children" N=1,405, MoE ± 3
3/8-12/06
14 32 22 26 6

"Allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally" N=710, MoE ± 4 (Form 1)
3/8-12/06
10 29 23 28 10
Laerod
28-04-2006, 08:34
No, you've just can't come up with an argument why black power shouldn't be taught in schools.And you keep asking other people to gather basic information and chew it through before passing it on to you. Do your own homework.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 08:35
No, you just can't come up with an argument why black power shouldn't be taught in schools.
Dude--can you read? I said it should be taught in the schools, right alongside the civil rights struggle.
Fass
28-04-2006, 08:35
Why do you feel the need to enforce your views on everybody in the world? You're a fascist.

You really are autistic, aren't you?
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:37
Here's one (http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm) off the top of my head. There are better, more extensive polls out there.

Assuming I've done my maths properly:

In favour of openly serving in military: 60-32

Against adoption: 48-46

Against marriage: 51-39
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:38
Dude--can you read? I said it should be taught in the schools, right alongside the civil rights struggle.

No. It must be mainstream. Not just history.
Malletopia
28-04-2006, 08:38
Bad layout of those numbers to be simply quoting like that, by the way.

The thing I don't get about this is how these parents believe they have a legal leg to stand on. It's not at all about sex-ed, since the book doesn't at all go into anything about sex. As far as the "our morality is threatened" point, didn't people try the same sort of legal argument with biology classes and evolution? And hasn't that failed horribly?
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:39
You really are autistic, aren't you?

Well duh.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 08:40
Assuming I've done my maths properly:

In favour of openly serving in military: 60-32

Against adoption: 48-46

Against marriage: 51-39And while the demographic breakdowns are not included with this poll, previous polls taken have shown that the younger the age group, the more support for gay rights, to the point where people younger than 25 support same sex marriage by about 65-35. Do the goddamn research yourself.
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:40
And while the demographic breakdowns are not included with this poll, previous polls taken have shown that the younger the age group, the more support for gay rights, to the point where people younger than 25 support same sex marriage by about 65-35. Do the goddamn research yourself.

The burden of proof is on you.
Fass
28-04-2006, 08:44
Well duh.

I thought you were using it as an excuse for being stupid. Which you are, but you are also autistic for real, it would seem.
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:45
I thought you were using it as an excuse for being stupid. Which you are, but you are also autistic for real, it would seem.

Aspergiastic. Different illness.
Fass
28-04-2006, 08:45
The burden of proof is on you.

You were the one who claimed to be part of a majority. You claimed, the burden of proof is on you. Really, the autism makes you this oblivious? How do you function in other parts of your life?
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:46
You were the one who claimed to be part of a majority. You claimed, the burden of proof is on you. Really, the autism makes you this oblivious? How do you function in other parts of your life?

No. He claimed that most people support gay rights. The burden is his.
Fass
28-04-2006, 08:48
Aspergiastic. Different illness.

Asperger's is an autistic spectrum disorder.
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:48
Asperger's is an autistic spectrum disorder.

It's considered different.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 08:50
The burden of proof is on you.
Chew on this for a bit (http://www.collegenews.org/x5186.xml). It's 4 in the morning here. I'm going to bed.
Fass
28-04-2006, 08:51
No. He claimed that most people support gay rights. The burden is his.

No, you claimed most people agreed with you. He contradicted you, and actually backed himself up, even though you were the initial claimer. You failed to back your claims up.

Seriously, your communication problems here seem quite severe, with an inability to understand what it is you are doing wrong yourself, whereupon you assume everyone else is at fault, despite the obviousness of your own shortcoming. Are they like is in other interactions you have with people?
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:51
Chew on this for a bit (http://www.collegenews.org/x5186.xml). It's 4 in the morning here. I'm going to bed.

American high school students? Right...
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:52
Seriously, you communication problems here seem quite severe, with an inability to understand what it is you are doing wrong yourself, whereupon you assume everyone else is at fault, despite the obviousness of your own shortcoming. Are they like is in other interactions you have with people?

If you're going to take jabs at my illness, I'm not going to talk to you.
Fass
28-04-2006, 08:54
It's considered different.

It is a form of autism, with the basic difference that sets it apart being that people with Asperger's have a better verbal ability, but they still have quite severe communication problems.
Malletopia
28-04-2006, 08:56
If you're going to take jabs at my illness, I'm not going to talk to you.


It's not a simple jab. You are coming across as severely bitchy, whether you notice it or not.
Mercury God
28-04-2006, 08:57
Just when I was getting my hopes up about this years Senior class I read stats like

-Three-quarters of this year's high school seniors favor legal recognition of same-sex relationships, either as marriage or civil union.
-Three in four seniors oppose a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
-63 percent support adoption by gay couples.
Fass
28-04-2006, 08:57
If you're going to take jabs at my illness, I'm not going to talk to you.

Your illness seems to be what is precluding you from actually communicating. No point in talking to you if you are this severely Aspergetic, as you won't actually be able to communicate in any manner worth while here.
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 08:59
Your illness seems to be what is precluding you from actually communicating. No point in talking to you if you are this severely Aspergetic, as you won't actually be able to communicate in any manner worth while here.

Fine, don't talk to me.
Klystah
28-04-2006, 09:23
I thought god was the judge eh? Why not let people do what they want and when they die they will be judged? It's f***ed how they have to try and push their moral crap on people. If god is real, let it/him/her decide whether someone is morally corrupt when they die. In the meantime, let others get on with thier lives without all the guilt ridden crap.

Thats my 2 cent worth.
Fass
28-04-2006, 09:25
Fine, don't talk to me.

That's just the thing. There is no talking to or with you. There just seems to be talking at you.
Knights Kyre Elaine
28-04-2006, 10:05
Chew on this for a bit (http://www.collegenews.org/x5186.xml). It's 4 in the morning here. I'm going to bed.

OK, the census tells us most Americans are Baby Boomers heading into retirement.

A vocal minority in the West support tolerance across the board and the rest of the world just doesn't have that kind of cultural tolerance to draw on.

If most parents approve this kind of thing fine but for teacher to do it while on salary to do a job and claim free speech is a joke.

Teachers can't read anything without it being from an approved curriculum. This teacher didn't bypass this process because she thought everyone was o.k. with it. She did it because she was well aware that she'd either get away with it or get a slew of attention for it.

Teachers trying to have more influence over children than their parents is an endangerment of the welfare of those children. They are paid to educate, not indoctrinate. That is what makes this so wrong, as wrong as if she was handing Black Panther, Hells Angels, Mormon, Jewish, Atheist or Al Queda materials out to children whose parents hadn't approved.
Ariddia
28-04-2006, 10:07
Aspergiastic. Different illness.

Not a valid excuse. I've got a friend who's Aspergiastic, and, while it does limit his ability and willingness to engage in conversation, he's one of the most polite, friendly people I know. If he can be excessively polite, there's no justification for your knee-jerk reactions.

And no, I'm not blaming your for your inability to expand your views and consider other viewpoints. I am criticising you for being belligerent about it.
Ariddia
28-04-2006, 10:09
They are paid to educate, not indoctrinate.

I'd be very curious to know how on earth you can view this as indoctrination.
Kievan-Prussia
28-04-2006, 10:21
Teachers trying to have more influence over children than their parents is an endangerment of the welfare of those children. They are paid to educate, not indoctrinate. That is what makes this so wrong, as wrong as if she was handing Black Panther, Hells Angels, Mormon, Jewish, Atheist or Al Queda materials out to children whose parents hadn't approved.

What he said.
Ariddia
28-04-2006, 11:13
What he said.

Then I'll ask you the same thing I've asked him:


I'd be very curious to know how on earth you can view this as indoctrination.
Bottle
28-04-2006, 13:26
Well the USian thing was getting to be too much so heres a new old argument to get condescending to each other over:

Parents are suing a school for reading a gay-themed fairy tale called King and King to students.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060427/us_nm/rights_gays_massachusetts_dc

So trying to indoctrinate kids into showing tolerance is wring? They also call two guys kissing in a fairy-tale sex education but when a prince kisses a princess in a fairy-tale they say nothing?

What say you?

Welcome to America: where any failure to impose Christian doctrine on the public constitutes an oppression of Christians.

It's not enough for them to control all three branches of government, most major corporations, every branch of the media, and 75% of the population. No, they're still being oppressed, because not enough people are being forced to hate in the name of Jeebus. Cry for the poor Christians, won't you?
Teh_pantless_hero
28-04-2006, 13:51
I know this is way off-topic now but meh.

What fucking fairy tale is this? I've never heard of it.
Not to say that they arn't bigots, but I'd have to partially agree with them on a tangent point that the book was made to indoctrinate, or counter-indoctrinate perhaps, children in some manner about pro-homosexuality.
Though with these people, counter-indoctrination might as well start now before they get screwed over.
Drake and Dragon Keeps
28-04-2006, 14:01
Theres only one problem I have with this, it is not a fairy tail. Everyone in a fairy tail is suppose to live happily ever after except the evil bad guy/witch.

From what you posted this isn't true as a bevy of princesses were rejected and so are not living happily ever after. ;)

But i have always wondered why the fairy tails are not told along their original story lines. The originals from Germany were much more sinister until the likes of Disney came along.
Kazus
28-04-2006, 15:44
Well next time I complain about prayer in schools or a teacher trying to teach christian things, they better not fucking complain about being persecuted or some bullshit "war on christians."

They refuse to sell birth control, they refuse to give antibiotics to a woman who received an abortion, they kick gays out of their schools, fuckfaces like Ruth Malhotra are trying to sue their school so they could spread hate speech, they try and dictate what consenting adults should and shouldnt do with their bodies, and now this? then they try and say THEY are being persecuted?

a word of advice: do unto others...
Malletopia
28-04-2006, 15:51
Teachers trying to have more influence over children than their parents is an endangerment of the welfare of those children. They are paid to educate, not indoctrinate. That is what makes this so wrong, as wrong as if she was handing Black Panther, Hells Angels, Mormon, Jewish, Atheist or Al Queda materials out to children whose parents hadn't approved.

Hyperbole, much? It's really more like any given day of lesson that might be given in a black history month. Educating of the fact of existance of people different than you is not at all indoctrination. If the teacher were handing out Lamda materials from a local college and starting a GLBT movement in the classroom, then that would be indoctrination. A story simply pointing out that people like that exist, though, is not sex ed, nor is it an encroachment of morals.

Then again, like I said... there's no point arguing with these sorts of parents because they'd prefer that basic biology not be taught the same either, and be making the same argument of a violation of moral rights.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 17:25
Just when I was getting my hopes up about this years Senior class I read stats like

-Three-quarters of this year's high school seniors favor legal recognition of same-sex relationships, either as marriage or civil union.
-Three in four seniors oppose a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
-63 percent support adoption by gay couples.
Guess you better keep those plans to emigrate to Saudi Arabia then. :rolleyes:
Republicans Armed
28-04-2006, 17:34
I thought god was the judge eh? Why not let people do what they want and when they die they will be judged? It's f***ed how they have to try and push their moral crap on people. If god is real, let it/him/her decide whether someone is morally corrupt when they die. In the meantime, let others get on with thier lives without all the guilt ridden crap.

Thats my 2 cent worth.

That's cool. Just don't expect Christians to have to pay local taxes for schools who decide to home school or put their children in a private school so they don't have to have "moral crap" forced on them as well. The root issue is evidently a difference on whose morals are imposed on whom.
Republicans Armed
28-04-2006, 17:37
Welcome to America: where any failure to impose Christian doctrine on the public constitutes an oppression of Christians.

It's not enough for them to control all three branches of government, most major corporations, every branch of the media, and 75% of the population. No, they're still being oppressed, because not enough people are being forced to hate in the name of Jeebus. Cry for the poor Christians, won't you?

lol! Some people's views on Christianity here are... interesting. And it's pretty interesting that a thread about people reading fairy tales in government schools laden with homosexual themes has been twisted around to Christians imposing doctrine on the public. I fail to see that is the case.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 17:39
That's cool. Just don't expect Christians to have to pay local taxes for schools who decide to home school or put their children in a private school so they don't have to have "moral crap" forced on them as well. The root issue is evidently a difference on whose morals are imposed on whom.
Sorry--your religion doesn't get you out of your civic duty. Jesus said as much--"Render unto Caesar" and all that. You can pull your kids out of school if you want, but your dut as a citizen requires you to pay those taxes even if you never use the service. It's just as if you go your whole life and never use the fire department--it's there for the common good, so you pay for it along with everyone else.
Dempublicents1
28-04-2006, 17:39
What makes you think that a Mosque or Synagogue cannot own and operate a grocery store, and if they do, why shouldn't they be allowed to accept WIC and Food Stamps from their patrons?

They can, so long as the money from the grocery store does not go into proselytizing.

For our children, Food and Education, are both 'basic' requirements. But you restrict, via withholding of financial benefits, the ability of the parent to feed and educate their child according to their own beliefs and faith by what you think is right.

Wrong. We restrict the ability of the parent to receive public funds in order to indoctrinate children into a religion. We do not restrict the ability of the parent to feed and educate their child - they have every opportunity to do that, and then some. We simply will not see public funds used to establish religion.


A kosher grocery store can accept WIC because there's no proselytizing going on--it's a purely economic transaction. You're trying to compare two completely different things.

Exactly. Apparently, he missed the "no proselytizing" thing.
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 17:40
Exactly. Apparently, he missed the "no proselytizing" thing.
He missed a lot--the entire logic boat it seems.
Dempublicents1
28-04-2006, 17:40
I have nothing against homosexuals or Harry Potter for that matter. I just believe homosexuality is wrong and so is indoctrinating children with this kind of stuff.

What indoctrination? When we teach children that there exist ants in this world and read them stories about ants, are we "indoctrinating" children into liking ants?
Republicans Armed
28-04-2006, 17:42
Actually, you aren't. The majority of people in the US support gay rights in general, and the younger the group surveyed, the more accepting they are for formerly taboo issues like same sex marriage. You're in the minority--accept it and leaern to live with it. Bigotry is being shoved in the closet where it belongs.

A majority of people in the U.S., including Christians, do not see favoritism to homosexuals above others as the desired goal, but equal rights for everyone. I don't know anyone who believes that homosexuals should not have "rights" any other American has.
Republicans Armed
28-04-2006, 17:44
Sorry--your religion doesn't get you out of your civic duty. Jesus said as much--"Render unto Caesar" and all that. You can pull your kids out of school if you want, but your dut as a citizen requires you to pay those taxes even if you never use the service. It's just as if you go your whole life and never use the fire department--it's there for the common good, so you pay for it along with everyone else.

lol! Then either: 1) Don't complain with vouchers when they come up, or 2) Don't complain when people who have values that are different from yours stand up against those being taught to their children.
Dempublicents1
28-04-2006, 17:50
I think a persons sexuality should be kept out of schools altogether. But then again, Tom Sawyer had a Girlfriend, Becky, so umm, yeah.

Well, if we are going to read children stories with any type of adult couple, they need to understand that there are various types of adult couples.

I have to wonder how many people would be up in arms if the story were about a white prince who rejected a bunch of white princesses, and then married a black one. Would it be wrong to teach our children that interracial couples exist?
Kazus
28-04-2006, 17:53
lol! Then either: 1) Don't complain with vouchers when they come up, or 2) Don't complain when people who have values that are different from yours stand up against those being taught to their children.

Yeah but, continuing with the fire department example, dont expect them to put out your fire when you disagree with the way they put it out.
Xenophobialand
28-04-2006, 18:03
OK, the census tells us most Americans are Baby Boomers heading into retirement.

A vocal minority in the West support tolerance across the board and the rest of the world just doesn't have that kind of cultural tolerance to draw on.

If most parents approve this kind of thing fine but for teacher to do it while on salary to do a job and claim free speech is a joke.

Teachers can't read anything without it being from an approved curriculum. This teacher didn't bypass this process because she thought everyone was o.k. with it. She did it because she was well aware that she'd either get away with it or get a slew of attention for it.

Teachers trying to have more influence over children than their parents is an endangerment of the welfare of those children. They are paid to educate, not indoctrinate. That is what makes this so wrong, as wrong as if she was handing Black Panther, Hells Angels, Mormon, Jewish, Atheist or Al Queda materials out to children whose parents hadn't approved.

How exactly do you seperate the two? Any time you educate about, say, the Holocaust, you are also almost de facto indoctrinating them in anti-Nazism. Any time you teach about the American Revolution, you are almost by definition indoctrinating students in anti-monarchism. Simply put, any time you educate people, particularly in history or literature, you are almost unquestioningly going to be writing in certain biases into your account of history.

That being said, I would also say that the issue really isn't about bigotry; it's about academic freedom. The point of education ultimately isn't to provide a set amount of rote facts about the world; any idiot with a set of Encylopedia Brittanicas can do that. Instead, our goal in education is to teach people how to think, and to teach them how to properly arrive at conclusions to open-ended questions. To do that, you need to present them with material that challenges their and their parent's sensibilities. By forcing people to look at the unconventional world view, it forces people to justify their beliefs beyond "It's always been like this" or "I've always learned it this way". To do that, teachers need to be able to present this material without being punished for it. In a word, if you want Platos and Aristotles in the world, then you need for there to be Socrates' to "corrupt" them in their youth.

Now, if that woman doesn't like what her teachers have been corrupting her children's minds with, then she has the option of home-schooling them or moving to a different school. That being said, at the school she's at now, the teachers have decided to make that part of the curriculum. If she doesn't want to remove her children, then she has to put up with the good and the bad.
Dempublicents1
28-04-2006, 18:05
Teachers can't read anything without it being from an approved curriculum. This teacher didn't bypass this process because she thought everyone was o.k. with it. She did it because she was well aware that she'd either get away with it or get a slew of attention for it.

You're kidding, right? You think every fairy tale a teacher ever reads to young children is actually printed in a curriculum?

Teachers trying to have more influence over children than their parents is an endangerment of the welfare of those children. They are paid to educate, not indoctrinate. That is what makes this so wrong, as wrong as if she was handing Black Panther, Hells Angels, Mormon, Jewish, Atheist or Al Queda materials out to children whose parents hadn't approved.

How exactly is a story that basically says, "Sometimes men fall in love with men," anything at all like those things?

That's cool. Just don't expect Christians to have to pay local taxes for schools who decide to home school or put their children in a private school so they don't have to have "moral crap" forced on them as well. The root issue is evidently a difference on whose morals are imposed on whom.

Nobody can "not pay taxes", although they can try and vote in people who will cut funding to the schools, if they really want to.

I still am confused as to what morals are being imposed here, though. How does pointing out that men sometimes fall in love with men make a moral statement? The children can believe (as I'm sure their parents are telling them) that both princes are evil, evil sinners, but at least they will be aware that such couples exist and won't be as confused when little Billy, who has two daddies, talks about his family.


lol! Some people's views on Christianity here are... interesting. And it's pretty interesting that a thread about people reading fairy tales in government schools laden with homosexual themes has been twisted around to Christians imposing doctrine on the public. I fail to see that is the case.

Not all Christians are anti-homosexual, but those who are apparently fear even the chance that their children might learn that homosexuals exist!


A majority of people in the U.S., including Christians, do not see favoritism to homosexuals above others as the desired goal, but equal rights for everyone. I don't know anyone who believes that homosexuals should not have "rights" any other American has.

Are you in favor of allowing same-sex marriage? Of allowing homosexuals to adopt?'

If you are not, you are clearly stating that homosexuals should not be treated the same way under the law as heterosexuals.


lol! Then either: 1) Don't complain with vouchers when they come up, or 2) Don't complain when people who have values that are different from yours stand up against those being taught to their children.

What values are being taught? Where in the story does it say, "GAYS ROCK!!! ROCK ON!!! LOVE THE GAYS, BECAUSE THEY ARE SO COOL!"

Suppose I told you a story:

"Bob was a young boy who was confused because none of the girls were attracted to him. But he was attracted to John. Eventually, he and John went out on a date."

Does anything about that story tell you that what Bob and John are doing is morally correct (or incorrect)?
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 18:09
lol! Then either: 1) Don't complain with vouchers when they come up, or 2) Don't complain when people who have values that are different from yours stand up against those being taught to their children.You obviously haven't read the earlier parts of this thread. If you could guarantee that the voucher system would be used for non-sectarian schools only, so there were no religious schools involved whatsoever, then I'd consider the voucher program again. But that's not going to happen.

As to the people who are "standing up," as you put it, I not only support it, I applaud it. Getting involved is the first and most important job of a citizen. But I'm still going to slap them down when they try to put their religious views--and make no mistake about it, homophobia is a religious view--in the public schools.
Dempublicents1
28-04-2006, 18:16
You obviously haven't read the earlier parts of this thread. If you could guarantee that the voucher system would be used for non-sectarian schools only, so there were no religious schools involved whatsoever, then I'd consider the voucher program again. But that's not going to happen.

I would say "as long as the money doesn't go for indoctrination." In other words, the school cannot indoctrinate its students, but if it is associated with a religion, there is no problem. There are many "parochial" schools out there that don't really have anything to do with religion. It would be kind of like giving government funds to religiously-affiliated charities - as long as the charities don't proselytize, they can receive funds.
Irnland
28-04-2006, 18:18
This thread makes me think of that clip from rainbow that's so full of innuendo it's ridiculous.

http://rainbow.arch.scriptmania.com/rainbow_tv_episode.html

(Zippy peeling a banana)

Zippy: "One skin, two skin, three skin, four.... "

George: "Zippy, where is Bungle?"

Absolute class
The Nazz
28-04-2006, 18:22
I would say "as long as the money doesn't go for indoctrination." In other words, the school cannot indoctrinate its students, but if it is associated with a religion, there is no problem. There are many "parochial" schools out there that don't really have anything to do with religion. It would be kind of like giving government funds to religiously-affiliated charities - as long as the charities don't proselytize, they can receive funds.
When it comes to this kind of garbage, I'm all for looking at prior bad acts--there are too many religious schools that supposedly have walls built between the school and the church but which sneak religion into the curriculum. Better to make the break as wide open as possible.
Szanth
28-04-2006, 18:29
I dislike christians.
Irnland
28-04-2006, 18:37
I dislike christians.

I dislike hyper reactive parents and religious intolerance, but about 90% of christians i've met i've liked.
Caribel IV
28-04-2006, 18:44
I dislike hyper reactive parents and religious intolerance, but about 90% of christians i've met i've liked.

Than you haven't been hanging around with christians.

All christains want to do is to get you in their church and give them money. If i had time to waste, I would go out and burn a few of them.
Randomlittleisland
28-04-2006, 18:46
Than you haven't been hanging around with christians.

All christains want to do is to get you in their church and give them money. If i had time to waste, I would go out and burn a few of them.

This is a joke, right? :p
Caribel IV
28-04-2006, 18:47
This is a joke, right? :p

Actually, I am serious. I would love to get my hands on a few godfolk.
Szanth
28-04-2006, 18:49
I dislike hyper reactive parents and religious intolerance, but about 90% of christians i've met i've liked.

99% of the christians I've met haven't been christians.
Ratod
28-04-2006, 18:52
Them there christians never complain about 'Jesus getting laid in the tomb';)
Caribel IV
28-04-2006, 18:53
Them there christians never complain about 'Jesus getting laid in the tomb';)

I'd like to lay some christains (and americans, for good measure) in a tomb, hehehehehe.
Schwarzchild
28-04-2006, 18:57
Why should a minority force their biology onto the majority?

You can be gay all you want, but you don't have to shove it in our faces.

<sigh>

At least you admit it's biology.

Look, the point is quite simple. We (homosexuals) did not come looking for this fight. All we (homosexuals) want is fair and EQUAL treatment by the government. When George W. Bush became President, he took the reactionist view that gays and lesbians inherently were second class citizens that had no rights whatsoever. In point of fact he could politically encourage discrimination against homosexuals by blaming them for the ills of a sick and morally decaying society. I am not going to debate just how much of a minority we (homosexuals) are. But when I am presented with the blame for "moral decay" and the "destruction of traditional marriage," which anyone with a modicum of brains knows is a big pile of stinking bullcrap, by God I want to be able to take full credit.

Heterosexual marriage started falling apart all on it's own without my help, thank you very much. Am I as a gay man responsible for your marriage falling apart and ending in divorce? Not bloody likely. 57% of so-called "traditional" marriages end in divorce and usually for three core reasons.

1. Money
2. Infidelity
3. Immaturity

I find odd that the one state in the USA that legalized gay marriage has one of the LOWEST divorce rates in the country, and the states who speak out the loudest against gay marriage have double and in some cases TRIPLE Massachusetts' divorce rate.

I did not want to shove anything in your face kiddo. I just wanted to live in peace and pursue my dreams. But then politicians started winning elections by demonizing homosexuals and that felt like a declaration of war against me. So like any cornered beast, I fight back.

Kids should never be taught institutional prejudice, yet we allow that in the form of inferior history and civics education. We allow ineffective sex-education programs to be taught in our public schools, we allow our politicians to encourage the teaching of "abstinence-only" programs which do not counter either the hormones of our kids or the deluge of sexually charged adverts, programming and messages we are bombarded by daily. Finally, we allow those bastions of morality the Christian and Catholic charges to send out, in the form of pastoral messages and other such communiques, a message of undisguised hate about homosexuals. Ironic we listen to these cretinous old men, who have been responsible for MORE DEATHS in the name of God and Jesus Christ than any other cause. Sounds pretty darn immoral to me.

Do I think the school was at fault for allowing this fairy tale to be read? No. Because the ultimate responsibility for their children's moral and ethical education rests with the parents. Parents on a daily basis take less and less responsibility for their kids. They want the government to raise their kids and the television to babysit them, so this is what we get. Parents suing a school system over something so miniscule and picayune that it is insignificant.

It is very clear that most kids gain their ethics and moral lessons from the people they spend the most time with (the parents, hopefully). One little book read to a child once will not permanently ingrain sinful messages or acceptance of their fellow human beings. Such a message has to be repeated over and over again until it is second nature to the child.

You have no basis of understanding the type of hateful nonsense I have endured over the years. Now to be blamed (within the group) for the ills of a society that got where it is with very little help from myself or my peers is infuriating.

To those parents: Shut up and take responsibility for your kids properly. Spend time with them and teach them the values you wish them to be taught. They will learn it as kids and those lessons will carry over into adulthood. Parenting, like a marriage, is hard work.

Oh, and to you guys out there who say I have no say in this matter because I do not procreate. You are full of crap. I DID procreate, I have a son, who is heterosexual incidentally, and is fully grown and in the Air Force. I had no say in his sexuality, that was determined by his biology. The only place where my son is different, is he does not hate. He accepts gay folks for who they are, not WHAT they are. Perhaps that might be a valuable lesson for us crotchety old adults who are inflexible and stubborn, hmmm?
Turquoise Days
28-04-2006, 19:01
<snip>*applauds*
Good post.
Sumamba Buwhan
28-04-2006, 19:19
*applauds*
Good post.

agreed!

*standing ovation*
Bottle
28-04-2006, 19:37
I think it's funny how the 'phobes talk about "indoctrinating" children into the "homosexual agenda."

Since when is teaching kids the golden rule exclusive to the "homosexual agenda?" Are the 'phobes really just flat out saying that only faggots teach kids to respect other human beings? I mean, it's nice of them to admit it, but I'm kind of surprised they would be willing to admit that homosexuals are morally superior. :)
Phantomphart
28-04-2006, 19:47
It shouldn't be in the schools. Plain and simple.
Don't like my opinion? Too damn bad. :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:
Bottle
28-04-2006, 19:49
It shouldn't be in the schools. Plain and simple.
Don't like my opinion? Too damn bad. :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:
I don't know about the rest of you, but he's convinced me.
Dempublicents1
28-04-2006, 19:51
It shouldn't be in the schools.

What shouldn't? The book? Homosexuals? Discussion of homosexuals? Discussion of the world around us?
Sumamba Buwhan
28-04-2006, 19:51
What a compelling argument! I've seen the error of my thought process and now understand why Christians should decide public school cirriculum for everybody regardless of their beliefs.
Phantomphart
28-04-2006, 19:53
What a compelling argument! I've seen the error of my thought process and now understand why Christians should decide public school cirriculum for everybody regardless of their beliefs.
How about we vote on it then? Hmmm Wonder who would win? :sniper:

I don't mean a board vote either :p
Turquoise Days
28-04-2006, 19:55
My word, there seem to be a lot of n00bs around this evening.
El Caudillo
28-04-2006, 19:57
This is simply appalling. I consider myself a devout Christian, but I see nothing- nothing- wrong with homosexuals. They are no different than other people, except usually nicer. As to people who say it's "sinful," wake up, idiots. We're ALL sinners. Why judge others when we should be judging ourselves!?
Sumamba Buwhan
28-04-2006, 19:57
How about we vote on it then? Hmmm Wonder who would win? :sniper:

I don't mean a board vote either :p


In Massachusettes? I'm all for that vote! Who do YOU think would win in the only state that allows gay marriages?
Phantomphart
28-04-2006, 20:00
In Massachusettes? I'm all for that vote! Who do YOU think would win in the only state that allows gay marriages?
Is that where you guys all moved? No wonder the sports teams have gone downhill.

I guess i'll get banned now huh? :upyours:
Bottle
28-04-2006, 20:01
In Massachusettes? I'm all for that vote! Who do YOU think would win in the only state that allows gay marriages?
It's funny that the 'phobes in MASSACHUSETTS would be bitching about kids learning this stuff. I mean, gay marriage is a reality in that state. It exists. gay people get married there. What will be accomplished by teaching kids that gay people don't exist, when they are going to see them all the damn time? What's the point in pretending that there is no gay marriage, when the kids are going to see it and hear about it?

They are GOING TO KNOW ABOUT GAY PEOPLE, so do you want them to learn about homosexuality from their teachers or from MTV?

Seriously, these people really seem to think their own kids are morons. They seem to think that if you keep teachers from telling kids about sex, then the kids just will never notice that sex exists.
Sumamba Buwhan
28-04-2006, 20:02
Is that where you guys all moved? No wonder the sports teams have gone downhill.


awwww you miss us! how sweet!!! cum 'ere you :fluffle:
Phantomphart
28-04-2006, 20:04
awwww you miss us! how sweet!!! cum 'ere you :fluffle:
Funny.

I meant Massachusettes sports teams suck now. :p
Sumamba Buwhan
28-04-2006, 20:04
It's funny that the 'phobes in MASSACHUSETTS would be bitching about kids learning this stuff. I mean, gay marriage is a reality in that state. It exists. gay people get married there. What will be accomplished by teaching kids that gay people don't exist, when they are going to see them all the damn time? What's the point in pretending that there is no gay marriage, when the kids are going to see it and hear about it?

They are GOING TO KNOW ABOUT GAY PEOPLE, so do you want them to learn about homosexuality from their teachers or from MTV?

Seriously, these people really seem to think their own kids are morons. They seem to think that if you keep teachers from telling kids about sex, then the kids just will never notice that sex exists.

Exactly!!!!!
I never understood why people wanted to shelter their kids from the realities of the world :confused: It seems it only sets them up for a rude awakening later in life that they will just not be prepared for.
Bottle
28-04-2006, 20:04
Is that where you guys all moved? No wonder the sports teams have gone downhill.

Gay marriage in Massachusetts: legal as of 2004.
First Red Sox win at the World Series in like a gazillion years: 2004.

I think this conclusively proves that being gay will make you better at baseball.
Bottle
28-04-2006, 20:06
Exactly!!!!!
I never understood why people wanted to shelter their kids from the realities of the world :confused: It seems it only sets them up for a rude awakening later in life that they will just not be prepared for.
In fact, if you don't ever tell them what it is, you're going to find two little boys having sex, and they won't be embarrassed. They'll call you over, "We invented a new game! It's called Buttball!"
Sumamba Buwhan
28-04-2006, 20:06
Funny.

I meant Massachusettes sports teams suck now. :p


I'm sure they do, in the locker rooms. Oh man this is a hot conversation we're having.
Sumamba Buwhan
28-04-2006, 20:07
Gay marriage in Massachusetts: legal as of 2004.
First Red Sox win at the World Series in like a gazillion years: 2004.

I think this conclusively proves that being gay will make you better at baseball.

Brilliant conclusion!
Kazus
28-04-2006, 20:09
It shouldn't be in the schools. Plain and simple.
Don't like my opinion? Too damn bad. :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

Dont like it in schools? too damn bad.
Phantomphart
28-04-2006, 20:12
Dont like it in schools? too damn bad.
Finally a response i like!
Desperate Measures
28-04-2006, 20:13
I can't believe we're teaching our children about Monarchy.
Bottle
28-04-2006, 20:18
I can't believe we're teaching our children about Monarchy.
I can't believe we are teaching our kids about the multiplication tables! If we teach kids that 3x4=12, they're all going to turn into equations! Just like how when I was in third grade the entire class turned into cursive writing and long division!

Seriously, since when is it bad to teach kids about the existence of things that exist?
Desperate Measures
28-04-2006, 20:19
I can't believe we are teaching our kids about the multiplication tables! If we teach kids that 3x4=12, they're all going to turn into equations! Just like how when I was in third grade the entire class turned into cursive writing and long division!

Seriously, since when is it bad to teach kids about the existence of things that exist?
Homosexuality doesn't exist. It was an invention by Al Gore.
Sumamba Buwhan
28-04-2006, 20:21
Homosexuality doesn't exist. It was an invention by Al Gore.


And thats why he invented the internet, to spread homosexuality to all people so that when they find out about it they will immediately turn gay.
Desperate Measures
28-04-2006, 20:23
And thats why he invented the internet, to spread homosexuality to all people so that when they find out about it they will immediately turn gay.
How often through the day does someone turn to me and ask, "Want to get gay on the internet?"
Phantomphart
28-04-2006, 20:27
How often through the day does someone turn to me and ask, "Want to get gay on the internet?"
You're asking us?

Well you may as well try to answer this while you're at it:

If you drove a bus leaving Waterloo with 40 passengers and dropped off 7 and picked up 2 at the Aldwich, stopped at Holborn and picked up 10, went on to St Pauls and dropped 8 and picked up 5 there and arrived at Liverpool Street six minutes later, what would the drivers name be?
Desperate Measures
28-04-2006, 20:29
You're asking us?

Well you may as well try to answer this while you're at it:

If you drove a bus leaving Waterloo with 40 passengers and dropped off 7 and picked up 2 at the Aldwich, stopped at Holborn and picked up 10, went on to St Pauls and dropped 8 and picked up 5 there and arrived at Liverpool Street six minutes later, what would the drivers name be?
Gay Twinkle McGay.
Kazus
28-04-2006, 20:29
How often through the day does someone turn to me and ask, "Want to get gay on the internet?"

I don't know, but wanna get gay on the internet?
Desperate Measures
28-04-2006, 20:30
I don't know, but wanna get gay on the internet?
#19.
Irnland
28-04-2006, 20:31
You're asking us?

Well you may as well try to answer this while you're at it:

If you drove a bus leaving Waterloo with 40 passengers and dropped off 7 and picked up 2 at the Aldwich, stopped at Holborn and picked up 10, went on to St Pauls and dropped 8 and picked up 5 there and arrived at Liverpool Street six minutes later, what would the drivers name be?

Well, as I'm the driver, that would make it James
Bottle
28-04-2006, 20:32
Well, as I'm the driver, that would make it James
*hands Irnland a cookie*
Phantomphart
28-04-2006, 20:33
Gay Twinkle McGay.

Wrong. Nice try though.

His name is Robert Katchum Killum.
Desperate Measures
28-04-2006, 20:34
Wrong. Nice try though.

His name is Robert Katchum Killum.
I swore it was me who was driving the bus. Oh well...
Irnland
28-04-2006, 20:41
*hands Irnland a cookie*

Yaay, cookie!
Sel Appa
28-04-2006, 21:41
Tolerance of something that should not be? I agree with the parents and hope the book is banned. What a sick perversion of fairy tales. Same-sex relationships are not correct.
Desperate Measures
28-04-2006, 21:59
Tolerance of something that should not be? I agree with the parents and hope the book is banned. What a sick perversion of fairy tales. Same-sex relationships are not correct.
Intolerance is the American Way!
Quaon
28-04-2006, 22:00
Tolerance of something that should not be? I agree with the parents and hope the book is banned. What a sick perversion of fairy tales. Same-sex relationships are not correct.
Who gave you absolute moral authority?
Dempublicents1
28-04-2006, 22:03
Tolerance of something that should not be?

"Should not be"? According to whom?

I agree with the parents and hope the book is banned. What a sick perversion of fairy tales. Same-sex relationships are not correct.

"Correct" or not, they do exist, and children need to know that eventually.
Sumamba Buwhan
28-04-2006, 22:29
Tolerance of something that should not be? I agree with the parents and hope the book is banned. What a sick perversion of fairy tales. Same-sex relationships are not correct.

No, tolerance of people who choose follow their hearts and be with someone of the same sex because they are not attracted to the opposite sex.
The Parkus Empire
28-04-2006, 22:40
Nothing agaist gays, let 'em do whatever they wan't it's their right...BUT if they try to force us to accept that gay love "is a force of nature" I WILL NOT TOLLERATE IT!!!!!!!!!! It's not "right" or "natural." Don't try to force me to think it is. They may do what they want, but LAY OFF!:mad: If people get anymore liberal i'm gonna scream. BAN THE STUPID BOOK!!! Or...someone...will...probibly...get...shot...
Mirchaz
28-04-2006, 22:45
Meh, he did penance for sodomy.
sodomy isn't just male on male.
Yootopia
28-04-2006, 22:46
Nothing agaist gays, let 'em do whatever they wan't it's their right...BUT if they try to force us to accept that gay love "is a force of nature" I WILL NOT TOLLERATE IT!!!!!!!!!! It's not "right" or "natural." Don't try to force me to think it is. They may do what they want, but LAY OFF!:mad: If people get anymore liberal i'm gonna scream. BAN THE STUPID BOOK!!! Or...someone...will...probibly...get...shot...

Why not tolerate it.

Homosexuality is just as right in the eyes of homosexuals as heterosexuality is in heterosexual eyes.

And it's not like they're telling children to be gay, all they're saying is that some people are gay and people need to accept that.

Tolerance is a good thing, especially when it comes to things like this.
Desperate Measures
28-04-2006, 22:48
Nothing agaist gays, let 'em do whatever they wan't it's their right...BUT if they try to force us to accept that gay love "is a force of nature" I WILL NOT TOLLERATE IT!!!!!!!!!! It's not "right" or "natural." Don't try to force me to think it is. They may do what they want, but LAY OFF!:mad: If people get anymore liberal i'm gonna scream. BAN THE STUPID BOOK!!! Or...someone...will...probibly...get...shot...
I can't believe you took the time to edit this and it still came out like so.
Mirchaz
28-04-2006, 22:58
animals in the wild have been seen to have male/male or female/female relationships...

in fact, a while ago, there were two male peguins who made the news who ppl were trying to get an egg for them.
Schwarzchild
28-04-2006, 23:26
Tolerance of something that should not be? I agree with the parents and hope the book is banned. What a sick perversion of fairy tales. Same-sex relationships are not correct.

Message brought to you by the self-appointed conduit to the thoughts and words of God and Jesus Christ himself. Your opinion Sel Appa, is much like mine. Opinions are like assholes, we all have them and they all stink.

You don't have to like, associate, tolerate or even appreciate gays and lesbians. It makes you a mean and small minded person, but that's your choice.

I don't mean to burst your little bubble with my fairy dust, but the odds that you know, like and associate with a gay person unknowingly are pretty high. He or she could be near you right now, planning to shag you blind. No, not really. You see I have a small, but fairly important pair of rules:

1. If you are straight, there is no reason on Earth that I would want to view you as a potential sex partner. In point of fact, the rumour that gay men and women "recruit" is for the most part, utter balderdash.

2. I find bigoted, prejudiced people unattractive (yes, that means gay men who are prejudiced against "breeders" are out of my dating pool and circle of friends).

In the end you have to look at yourself in the mirror in the morning and deal with just what sort of asshole you really are. Enjoy the view.
Fass
28-04-2006, 23:39
Nothing agaist gays, let 'em do whatever they wan't it's their right...BUT if they try to force us to accept that gay love "is a force of nature" I WILL NOT TOLLERATE IT!!!!!!!!!! It's not "right" or "natural." Don't try to force me to think it is. They may do what they want, but LAY OFF!:mad: If people get anymore liberal i'm gonna scream. BAN THE STUPID BOOK!!! Or...someone...will...probibly...get...shot...

"Nothing against gays" and then you threaten to shoot one. God, you're such an idiot. You really, really are.
Randomlittleisland
28-04-2006, 23:54
Tolerance of something that should not be? I agree with the parents and hope the book is banned. What a sick perversion of fairy tales. Same-sex relationships are not correct.

I agree entirely, how will our children grow up if they're exposed to these revolting values?

We need our fairy tales to teach children good, moral behaviour such as pushing old ladies into ovens, cheating on bets, conjuring up spirits and stealing roses; not revolting stories about platonic love and emotional fulfillment. Those are the values that made Britain great!
Schwarzchild
29-04-2006, 00:04
I agree entirely, how will our children grow up if they're exposed to these revolting values?

We need our fairy tales to teach children good, moral behaviour such as pushing old ladies into ovens, cheating on bets, conjuring up spirits and stealing roses; not revolting stories about platonic love and emotional fulfillment. Those are the values that made Britain great!

God Save Her Majesty, The Queen!

Oh...wait a minute...I'm a Yank. Never mind.

;)
Sumamba Buwhan
29-04-2006, 01:10
Nothing agaist gays, let 'em do whatever they wan't it's their right...BUT if they try to force us to accept that gay love "is a force of nature" I WILL NOT TOLLERATE IT!!!!!!!!!! It's not "right" or "natural." Don't try to force me to think it is. They may do what they want, but LAY OFF!:mad: If people get anymore liberal i'm gonna scream. BAN THE STUPID BOOK!!! Or...someone...will...probibly...get...shot...


*trys to force you to think it is right and natural by showing you proof*

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

Choke on it! :p

So you would shoot someone for teaching acceptance of all people? really? If so, why? Well if you do I hope you don't enjoy your stay in prison as you get reminded of your hatred for homosexual behavior everyday.
Dempublicents1
29-04-2006, 02:14
Nothing agaist gays, let 'em do whatever they wan't it's their right...BUT if they try to force us to accept that gay love "is a force of nature" I WILL NOT TOLLERATE IT!!!!!!!!!! It's not "right" or "natural."

It is logically impossible for it to not be natural. It occurs in nature, therefore it is natural.

As for "right", if you mean "morally right", you have to make your own decision on that.
DubyaGoat
29-04-2006, 05:08
It is logically impossible for it to not be natural. It occurs in nature, therefore it is natural.

As for "right", if you mean "morally right", you have to make your own decision on that.

Then, equally, it's logically impossible for infanticide to be unnatural. It occurs in nature, therefore, it is natural.

As for "right" (of infanticide and inter-species murder and consumption of our own young etc.,), if you mean "morally right", you have to make your own decision on that.


See, that's not much of an argument is it, perhaps we should find a better one?
Dempublicents1
29-04-2006, 05:22
Then, equally, it's logically impossible for infanticide to be unnatural. It occurs in nature, therefore, it is natural.

This is true. It is logically impossible for infanticide to be unnatural.

What is your point?

As for "right" (of infanticide and inter-species murder and consumption of our own young etc.,), if you mean "morally right", you have to make your own decision on that.

We can pretty demonstrably show that infanticide and murder, etc. harms people and harms society. That doesn't necessarily make it objectively morally wrong, but it makes it as close as we can get.

Care to objectively show that homosexuality hurts someone?

See, that's not much of an argument is it, perhaps we should find a better one?

Actually, it is a perfectly good argument, in context. Nothing that occurs in nature can be logically said to be unnatural. Suggesting that homosexuality is unnatural is like suggesting that defecating is unnatural - it simply doesn't makes sense.

On a moral level, the closest we can come to objectivity is to determine whether or not an action harms someone. Murder does. Infanticide does. Homosexuality does not. Homsexual relationships do not. Thus, much like any other action that does not harm someone but some people have moral hang-ups with, it is a subjective matter left up to the person making the moral judgement.
Klystah
29-04-2006, 05:57
This is simply appalling. I consider myself a devout Christian, but I see nothing- nothing- wrong with homosexuals. They are no different than other people, except usually nicer. As to people who say it's "sinful," wake up, idiots. We're ALL sinners. Why judge others when we should be judging ourselves!?

Umm, should we be the judge? I have the understanding that only "god" will be the judge.
Seems to me, a lot of religious people take it upon themselves to do the judging.
We should take responsibility for our own actions, and if we have erred in life, and "if" there is a god, then we will be judged.
All the people wishing to make us "heathens" bow down to their archaic and out of touch moral agendas, should take a good long hard look at the persecution that has been handed out liberally for the last 2000 years in the name of god.
The catholic church is a prime example of this.
So are the crusades.
So is any behaviour the church uses to twist gullible peoples minds and make them see normal people as some kind of monster.
I mean, its okay for the catholic church to bellittle the effects of pedophile priests and such, even though it is their greedy, narrow minded practises which promote this behavior in the first place.
What I'm trying to say, is that people with half a brain can tell what is actually wrong and what is not.
Use your brains, not some old chinese whisper crap based on obvious common sense and unfortunately a whole lot of ambiguous bullshit.
Oriadeth
29-04-2006, 06:29
Not even reading the OP...or anything else..but i think christians are just cry babies. The seriously whine about everything..
Humans whine, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, whatever. Stop bashing a single religion for what everyone does.

These parents would have done the same thing, regardless of their religion. There wouldn't have been a difference.
DubyaGoat
29-04-2006, 06:44
We can pretty demonstrably show that infanticide and murder, etc. harms people and harms society. That doesn't necessarily make it objectively morally wrong, but it makes it as close as we can get.

Actually, naturalist go to quite some effort to explain the benefits of species infanticide. Such as, the stronger male lions that displaces a weaker male lion’s position in a tribe will kill off the young of the weaker lion to make way for his own ‘theoretically’ stronger and more fit off spring. Likewise, they will try to explain away the bottlenose dolphin that kills the young of less fit and competing males, for the betterment of the species.

But the truth be told, we all know that in the end, it’s self motivation that drives our motivations when we behave badly, even if, in the end, the species as a whole is thought to manage a way to benefit from our behavior, it is simply making the best of a bad situation.

Care to objectively show that homosexuality hurts someone?

Why do I need to? The original statement was that it was unnatural, not unbeneficial or harmful.

Actually, it is a perfectly good argument, in context. Nothing that occurs in nature can be logically said to be unnatural. Suggesting that homosexuality is unnatural is like suggesting that defecating is unnatural - it simply doesn't makes sense.

Interesting example you have chosen. Is it natural to use something for a purpose it was not grown to do? Would we use a heart as a lung, a stomach as a kidney? No, it goes against it’s nature and it could therefore be called an unnatural act or role for it to be put to a use it wasn’t designed to do. Now, with your anus defecating example, I think you can summarize the unnatural purpose other people might assign to it, yes? In which case, the words, “It’s unnatural” is not out of place.
Dobbsworld
29-04-2006, 06:47
Yay for more stories about men kissing and Boo to more stories about men killing.
Hakartopia
29-04-2006, 06:54
sodomy isn't just male on male.

Sodomy is intolerance and cruelty towards those less fortunate than you.
Says so in the bible.
The Cat-Tribe
29-04-2006, 07:00
Actually, naturalist go to quite some effort to explain the benefits of species infanticide. Such as, the stronger male lions that displaces a weaker male lion’s position in a tribe will kill off the young of the weaker lion to make way for his own ‘theoretically’ stronger and more fit off spring. Likewise, they will try to explain away the bottlenose dolphin that kills the young of less fit and competing males, for the betterment of the species.

But the truth be told, we all know that in the end, it’s self motivation that drives our motivations when we behave badly, even if, in the end, the species as a whole is thought to manage a way to benefit from our behavior, it is simply making the best of a bad situation.

Why do I need to? The original statement was that it was unnatural, not unbeneficial or harmful.

You are the one try to make the rather bizarre judgment that "unnatural" means bad. (Or, more accurately, because you think something is wrong, it must be unnatural.)

As you argue, infanticide is something that occurs in nature. We call murder wrong, but intentional killing is clearly natural -- animals do it continuously. Just because animals do something doesn't make it either right or wrong.

If you wish to argue there is something wrong with homosexuality you will need to come up with a better argument that it is unnatural.

Interesting example you have chosen. Is it natural to use something for a purpose it was not grown to do? Would we use a heart as a lung, a stomach as a kidney? No, it goes against it’s nature and it could therefore be called an unnatural act or role for it to be put to a use it wasn’t designed to do. Now, with your anus defecating example, I think you can summarize the unnatural purpose other people might assign to it, yes? In which case, the words, “It’s unnatural” is not out of place.

Can you use a "heart as lung" or a "stomach as a kidney"? No.

Does this occur in nature? No.

Interesting that you think each body part must "be grown to do" a single thing. Our sex organs are also used for waste removal. Are you saying that sex is unnatural altogether?

Care to explain why anal penetration can be pleasurable? What is the purpose of that?

Again, if you wish to argue there is something wrong with homosexuality you will need to come up with a better argument that it is unnatural.
Oriadeth
29-04-2006, 07:10
This thread makes me think of that clip from rainbow that's so full of innuendo it's ridiculous.

http://rainbow.arch.scriptmania.com/rainbow_tv_episode.html

(Zippy peeling a banana)

Zippy: "One skin, two skin, three skin, four.... "

George: "Zippy, where is Bungle?"

Absolute class
I agree totally.
Miss Katelynne
29-04-2006, 07:41
This is simply appalling. I consider myself a devout Christian, but I see nothing- nothing- wrong with homosexuals. They are no different than other people, except usually nicer. As to people who say it's "sinful," wake up, idiots. We're ALL sinners. Why judge others when we should be judging ourselves!?

A world of word. :D
Miss Katelynne
29-04-2006, 07:48
animals in the wild have been seen to have male/male or female/female relationships...

in fact, a while ago, there were two male peguins who made the news who ppl were trying to get an egg for them.


Yep. They did end up getting an egg to hatch. The baby penguin is named Tango.

Also, the University of Oregon did studies on rams and found that the rams had sex with each other quite frequently.
Dempublicents1
29-04-2006, 15:30
Actually, naturalist go to quite some effort to explain the benefits of species infanticide.

In animals? Yes, there is an advantage given.

However, last time I checked, we were talking about morality - which applies to human beings. Thus, we were talking about the idea of human beings practicing infanticide.

But the truth be told, we all know that in the end, it’s self motivation that drives our motivations when we behave badly, even if, in the end, the species as a whole is thought to manage a way to benefit from our behavior, it is simply making the best of a bad situation.

Ok, first you were talking about other creatures, which are largely believed to have little self-motivation (do you really think the lion killing off the young of another stops and thinks about why he is doing it?), and then you try to make the jump to human beings.

Morality can really only apply in those creatures that can understand its implications. While there may be a few other species with that level of intelligence, for them most part, that means us.

Why do I need to? The original statement was that it was unnatural, not unbeneficial or harmful.

Actually, your contention seemed to be with my statement that the morality of it would have to be decided by the person with the moral code. There is no possible way to argue with the fact that it is natural.

Interesting example you have chosen. Is it natural to use something for a purpose it was not grown to do? Would we use a heart as a lung, a stomach as a kidney?

No, we wouldn't - because it wouldn't work. It has nothing to do with "natural" or "unnatural". It would simply be "ineffective".

But we use things for purposes they were not grown for all the time. We build heart valves and other implants out of abdominal tissue. We take veins or other arteries and place them in the coronary artery position. We take cartilage from one place and move it to another. And so on....

Much of medicine is "using something for a purpose it was not grown to do."

No, it goes against it’s nature and it could therefore be called an unnatural act or role for it to be put to a use it wasn’t designed to do. Now, with your anus defecating example, I think you can summarize the unnatural purpose other people might assign to it, yes? In which case, the words, “It’s unnatural” is not out of place.

Wait, now you're saying "goes against its nature, which is wholly different. Of course, a homosexual's nature is to be attracted to members of the same sex. It would be heterosexual relationships that "go against their nature."

Meanwhile, it is rather evident that the excretory system and the sexual organs were "designed" in concert. Excretory organs double as sexual organs. Considering the existence of the male G-spot, I see no reason to believe that the anus wasn't "designed" for sex.
Dempublicents1
29-04-2006, 15:33
Also, the University of Oregon did studies on rams and found that the rams had sex with each other quite frequently.

Indeed. In bighorn rams, there is much more male-on-male sex than male-on-female sex. This is because, throughout most of the year, they travel in male-only and female-only herds. The males will try and mate year-round, but the females will only mate during the mating season. Thus, year-round, the males will mount each other and have sex. If they meet a female herd outside of the mating season, they will try, and the females will not allow it.

Interestingly enough, some males are what can only be called transgendered. They are males by biology, but are females by behavior. They travel with the female herd and will only let other males mount them during mating season. Kind of interesting that in bighorn sheep, the unusual male sexuality is to generally refuse homosexual sex.
Schwarzchild
29-04-2006, 17:59
Sodomy is intolerance and cruelty towards those less fortunate than you.
Says so in the bible.

Oh, please. People quote the Bible out of context constantly, and this is just another supreme example of that abhorrent practice. If we took the Bible literally, a woman who committed adultery by the Old Testament would be stoned to death in public.

The Bible has passed through so many pairs of hands and been translated so often that it is doubtful that the original text and intent of it has survived.

Further, I think organized religion is by far the most sinful group of predominently evil men on the planet. This is not to say that your local parish priest has any idea the level of corruption in the hiearchy of his religion, nor is it entirely impossible that some people have a genuine calling to the clergy.

History is replete with examples of egregious sins committed in Christ's name by high church officials.

That being said, I think Wiccans have said it best with their Rede.

"Do as ye will, and do ye no harm."

Oh, and for your information, Hark...anything other than missionary sex for procreational purposes either has been or can be defined as "sodomy." So remember that when you go down on your girlfriend, or your girlfriend goes down on you and performs oral sex.

I am so sick of people who think sodomy is only anal intercourse between two men. Read your state and local laws from before the time that the Supreme Court of the United States struck down all of the sodomy laws (Lawrence vs Texas).

JC
Kazus
29-04-2006, 18:00
Then, equally, it's logically impossible for infanticide to be unnatural. It occurs in nature, therefore, it is natural.

Yes, it is natural. Some animals kill their own offspring, and even eat it.

See, that's not much of an argument is it, perhaps we should find a better one?

Well since their is no objective list of what is morally right and wrong...
The Nazz
29-04-2006, 18:13
I am so sick of people who think sodomy is only anal intercourse between two men. Read your state and local laws from before the time that the Supreme Court of the United States struck down all of the sodomy laws (Lawrence vs Texas).

JC
You may want to reread Lawrence--what it struck down were sodomy laws that singled out homosexual couples. States can still ban sodomy as long as they ban it for everyone, and many are still on the books. They're just rarely, if ever, enforced.
Dark-dragon
29-04-2006, 18:14
Umm, should we be the judge? I have the understanding that only "god" will be the judge.
Seems to me, a lot of religious people take it upon themselves to do the judging.
We should take responsibility for our own actions, and if we have erred in life, and "if" there is a god, then we will be judged.
All the people wishing to make us "heathens" bow down to their archaic and out of touch moral agendas, should take a good long hard look at the persecution that has been handed out liberally for the last 2000 years in the name of god.
The catholic church is a prime example of this.
So are the crusades.
So is any behaviour the church uses to twist gullible peoples minds and make them see normal people as some kind of monster.
I mean, its okay for the catholic church to bellittle the effects of pedophile priests and such, even though it is their greedy, narrow minded practises which promote this behavior in the first place.
What I'm trying to say, is that people with half a brain can tell what is actually wrong and what is not.
Use your brains, not some old chinese whisper crap based on obvious common sense and unfortunately a whole lot of ambiguous bullshit.

fair point mate i myself am not against homosexuality instead im against the ones who try and force the fact they are down your neck the live and let live bit should (pardon the pun) swing both ways, so basicaly if you prefer women be glad some men are gay! it leaves a far wider choice for us who prefer the ladys lmao.

(waits for the religious nuts to tell him is soul is going to hell an wish death on him)
EDIT: hmm if you do wish death or misfortune on me read your ''good'' book and justify casting the first stone for i have done no wrong in this matter (gotta love the small print)
Xenophobialand
29-04-2006, 18:22
Then, equally, it's logically impossible for infanticide to be unnatural. It occurs in nature, therefore, it is natural.

As for "right" (of infanticide and inter-species murder and consumption of our own young etc.,), if you mean "morally right", you have to make your own decision on that.


See, that's not much of an argument is it, perhaps we should find a better one?

. . .By your logic, it's natural for a lion to eat its young. That says nothing about humans, however, because humans have different natures than lions. In the case of humans, infanticide brings no benefit, because unlike female lions, female humans continue ovulating even while nursing. Ergo, it is unnatural to commit infanticide in humans for reproductive purposes.

If you want to riddle me why homosexual sex is unnatural for humans, I'd be happy to hear it, but I'm not sure you're going to get anywhere. Clearly, sexual congress in humans can't be purely about reproduction, because women can and do have sex at any time of the month, even when they cannot conceive. If so, then the form of humans does not follow the function of strictly reproductive sex.
Schwarzchild
29-04-2006, 22:07
You may want to reread Lawrence--what it struck down were sodomy laws that singled out homosexual couples. States can still ban sodomy as long as they ban it for everyone, and many are still on the books. They're just rarely, if ever, enforced.

Indeed. I apologize for the generality, and I will try to be a little more clear when I cite a source.

It is clear that SCOTUS wanted to make a statement rather more narrow in scope than what I implied. As it stands, existing laws regarding sodomy still do exist in state statutes, and are valid and enforceable despite possibly being outdated. I speak only generally regarding a recent ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts validating Governor Romney using a miscegenation law written in 1913 to prevent out of state same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts.

Frankly, the whole same-sex marriage issue is a bloody mess until DoMA is repealed or possibly struck due to Constituional issues. We will have 50 states all with different laws and almost no reciprocity across state borders.

JC
Fass
29-04-2006, 22:23
You may want to reread Lawrence--what it struck down were sodomy laws that singled out homosexual couples. States can still ban sodomy as long as they ban it for everyone, and many are still on the books. They're just rarely, if ever, enforced.

"Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life."

They ruled that case on the basis of substantive due process, and it thus invalidates laws on heterosexual "sodomy" as well. However, Griswold vs. Connecticut comes into play there, too.
DubyaGoat
29-04-2006, 22:38
. . .By your logic, it's natural for a lion to eat its young. That says nothing about humans, however, because humans have different natures than lions. In the case of humans, infanticide brings no benefit, because unlike female lions, female humans continue ovulating even while nursing. Ergo, it is unnatural to commit infanticide in humans for reproductive purposes.

Sure, it says a lot about humans. Look at the number of stories about royalty being murdered in their youth because they represent some sort of potential future threat to a new monarch or precariously held Kingship. Just like lions, in nearly every culture, in every age throughout history, human leaders have from time to time murdered their rival's offspring. Cousins killing cousins, Kings killing nephews, etc., the stories are endless. And with that in mind, we very well CAN see a similarity between our behavior and that of creatures in the animal kingdom.

My point is that ‘nature’ is not a good excuse to force us to accept bad behaviors. It might be perfectly ‘natural’ to murder a rival’s offspring, but that does not mean that we have to allow it, too look the other way. No, we are right to outlaw it, to ban it, to punish those that participate in it. We can and should shun it and discourage it and work to end the ‘nature’ that forces us to do it. I have no reason, or inclination, to believe that our ‘nature’ makes our actions good or okay.

Perhaps, it is because we can and do recognize the shortcomings of our ‘nature’ and because we can choose to act against it, is one of the primary reasons that we are better than the animals, not constrained to our biological shortcomings, like they are.


If you want to riddle me why homosexual sex is unnatural for humans, I'd be happy to hear it, but I'm not sure you're going to get anywhere. Clearly, sexual congress in humans can't be purely about reproduction, because women can and do have sex at any time of the month, even when they cannot conceive. If so, then the form of humans does not follow the function of strictly reproductive sex.

Our nature may be to do evil, I have no intention of trying to prove that something has to be ‘unnatural to be bad.’ Bad behaviors can be perfectly natural, in fact, they most likely are our ‘natural’ state of being. Justifying my bad behavior by pointing at the animals which share my bad behavior hardly seems to me to be a beneficial argument.


Indeed. In bighorn rams, there is much more male-on-male sex than male-on-female sex. This is because, throughout most of the year, they travel in male-only and female-only herds. The males will try and mate year-round, but the females will only mate during the mating season. Thus, year-round, the males will mount each other and have sex. If they meet a female herd outside of the mating season, they will try, and the females will not allow it.

Interestingly enough, some males are what can only be called transgendered. They are males by biology, but are females by behavior. They travel with the female herd and will only let other males mount them during mating season. Kind of interesting that in bighorn sheep, the unusual male sexuality is to generally refuse homosexual sex.

It’s interesting that you’ve chosen a specific animal and a specific behavior that we can directly correlate to brain biology (hypothalamus) in the animal in question. We have every reason to speculate that this behavior can be modified via drugs given during fetal development and/or possibly genetic medications for after birth modification, perhaps even ‘corrective surgery’ and most certainly breeding practices. Why would you choose this animal and it’s behavior to equate to human homosexuality? So far as I know, we are no closer to thinking that human male homosexual attraction can be modified or measured in any of the same methodologies.

http://www.ohsu.edu/news/2004/030504sheep.html
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001979.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3008
Kiwi-kiwi
29-04-2006, 22:50
Sure, it says a lot about humans. Look at the number of stories about royalty being murdered in their youth because they represent some sort of potential future threat to a new monarch or precariously held Kingship. Just like lions, in nearly every culture, in every age throughout history, human leaders have from time to time murdered their rival's offspring. Cousins killing cousins, Kings killing nephews, etc., the stories are endless. And with that in mind, we very well CAN see a similarity between our behavior and that of creatures in the animal kingdom.

My point is that ‘nature’ is not a good excuse to force us to accept bad behaviors. It might be perfectly ‘natural’ to murder a rival’s offspring, but that does not mean that we have to allow it, too look the other way. No, we are right to outlaw it, to ban it, to punish those that participate in it. We can and should shun it and discourage it and work to end the ‘nature’ that forces us to do it. I have no reason, or inclination, to believe that our ‘nature’ makes our actions good or okay.


Um... yeah. There's a big difference between humans killing a rival's offspring or children they feel might become a threat and lion's killing off another male's offspring when they take over a pride.

The reasons lions do it is because otherwise they'd end up putting time and effort into raising cubs that don't share their DNA, which is folly in the game of natural selection.

What humans do has absolutely nothing to do with the natural drive to ensure that your genes see it into the next generation as many times as possible.
DubyaGoat
29-04-2006, 23:08
.snip.

You really should read more history stories. Sometimes, the exact reason they do/did it, was to ensure that that their offspring would sit on the throne (protecting genetic heritage lines) instead of their rival’s offspring.

The example is about as perfect as animal to human correlation examples can get. Trying to pretend like we know 'why' a lion does what it does is a pointless exercise. A new leader killing it’s rivals offspring to build a stronger position for it’s own offspring describes both Lion and Human behaviors.
Kiwi-kiwi
29-04-2006, 23:14
You really should read more history stories. Sometimes, the exact reason they do/did it, was to ensure that that their offspring would sit on the throne (protecting genetic heritage lines) instead of their rival’s offspring.

The example is about as perfect as animal to human correlation examples can get. Trying to pretend like we know 'why' a lion does what it does is a pointless exercise. A new leader killing it’s rivals offspring to build a stronger position for it’s own offspring describes both Lion and Human behaviors.

I still think higher political power and ensuring the continuation of genes are very different things, but whatever. It's unimportant.