NationStates Jolt Archive

"What they fear is their children are being brainwashed," Robert Sinsheimer, who represented the families, told the court in Boston. "It's a form of propaganda specifically intended to wipe out their way of life."

You heard it here first. The gays are trying to brainwash your kids and wipe out your way of life through gay children's books. Soon all your kids will crave cock (except for your daughters), and will exhibit fabulous fashion and interior decorating skills. Thankfully the brave families of Massachusetts are fighting back.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2007-02-07T222235Z_01_N07433957_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-GAYS-SUIT.xml&WTmodLoc=USNewsHome_C2_domesticNews-3

I knew it!

I thought I was trying to wipe out gays' way of life. Hmph.

In all seriousness, though, I take all claims of "gay brainwashing" with a pinch of salt. Only the most uptight straight teenager complains about other people being homophobic in school, so evidently the brainwashing in England hasn't worked… and England's a lot more PC than America.

*sigh of relief* Thank God DCD came to warn us about it. Now we can prepare our defenses against the homo onslaught on our way of life!


[/facetious]

;)

Call Pat Robertson to cleanse this thread!

We should get Ted Haggard to consult. He's been over to the Fabulous Side and come back.

Doesn't this remind you of Nazi germany claiming that jews were destroying the german way of life and that they were using evil magic to brainwash good germans?

TEH GAYZ R REEEDING TEH STOREEEZZZ!!!!1111111onegay

Doesn't this remind you of Nazi germany claiming that jews were destroying the german way of life and using evil magic to brainwash good germans?

You mean the gays and the jews are working together?!:eek:

Doesn't this remind you of Nazi germany claiming that jews were destroying the german way of life and using evil magic to brainwash good germans? Hitler successfully used the occult? :eek:

looks like we're gonna have to genetically engineer some seriously straight men, and then get them to run into the gays, if my theory is sound they should annihilate each other

You mean the gays and the jews are working together?!:eek:

Oh God. Now we're really screwed! :eek:



[/joking]

Hitler successfully used the occult? :eek:

I mean he accused the jews of using evil magic to brain wash good germans m sorry.

No, I think you mean the Inquisition.

Anyway, it is slightly… odd… to be reading 7 year olds a story about a prince and a prince. Would probably confuse them more than anything else. Children are vulnerable to "brainwashing" even if it is not intended - there was a report from the government (UK) recently featuring white schoolkids who didn't like being white and one girl who wanted to be mixed. So, it's not really off the wall.

But court case? Only in America.

Anyway, it is slightly… odd… to be reading 7 year olds a story about a prince and a prince.

No odder than reading them a story about a prince and a princess. You don't see any of these hypocrites bitching about that and calling it "sex ed".

Would probably confuse them more than anything else.

Why? Some men fall in love with women, some men fall in love with men. There's nothing confusing about it, not even to a child.

No, I think you mean the Inquisition.


The Inquisiiition -- what a show!

/Mel Brooks

Yes, we must not tolerate tolerance of any kind! We must teach our children to reject all lifestyles other than our own, or else we will succumb to... um... something. Probably terrorists. That's it! If we are tolerant of gays, the terrorists will win, because the terrorists hate gays and... um... Wait, give me a minute, I'm sure I can think of another reason... um... Bill Clinton! That's it! We must not tolerate gays because Bill Clinton got a blow job in the Oval Office from an intern! A female intern! Obviously an attempt by gays to brainwash us all into... um... Did I already mention terrorists? :confused:

No, I think you mean the Inquisition.
http://ng.netgate.net/~mette/fandom/costumes/spanish/SpanishOrig3.jpg
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!

http://i13.tinypic.com/2e3vbfc.jpg

Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!

<snip>

"Hey, Torquemada, whaddaya say?"

"I just got back from the auto-da-fe."

"Auto-da-fe? What's an auto-da-fe?"

"It's what you oughta not do but you do anyway!"

:D

No odder than reading them a story about a prince and a princess. You don't see any of these hypocrites bitching about that and calling it "sex ed". Actually, it's a lot odder. I don't think I knew what gay meant when I was 7 years old. And this is evidently about gayness - prince+princess isn't changed to prince+prince just on a whim.

Why? Some men fall in love with women, some men fall in love with men. There's nothing confusing about it, not even to a child. Again, when I was 7 years old anyone asking "can men fall in love with men?" would probably get a nervous snigger and a bemused look.

This is about the normalisation and mainstreaming of same-sex romantic love. Right or wrong, it's not really right to try it on children.

Actually, it's a lot odder. I don't think I knew what gay meant when I was 7 years old. And this is evidently about gayness - prince+princess isn't changed to prince+prince just on a whim.

Again, when I was 7 years old anyone asking "can men fall in love with men?" would probably get a nervous snigger and a bemused look.

This is about the normalisation and mainstreaming of same-sex romantic love. Right or wrong, it's not really right to try it on children.

No, its exactly right to explain to children. As soon as the education system accepts it as a norm, then the next generation will be more tolerant than these idiot parents complaining in the news article.

Actually, it's a lot odder. I don't think I knew what gay meant when I was 7 years old. And this is evidently about gayness - prince+princess isn't changed to prince+prince just on a whim.

Again, when I was 7 years old anyone asking "can men fall in love with men?" would probably get a nervous snigger and a bemused look.

I think this says a lot about the failures of the adults in your life when you were growing up.

It's a pity that you didn't have any grown-ups around who could speak to you honestly and openly about the world. Hell, it's sad that you didn't personally know any out gay individuals, because you probably could have grown up feeling much more comfortable and understanding when it comes to homosexuality.

Kids are just as able to understand "princess-princess" as they are able to understand "prince-princess." It's only through the deliberate efforts of homophobic adults that children grow up in ignorance, these days. You actually have to put a whole lot of effort into making your kid remain ignorant and homophobic, as this very thread demonstrates! :D


This is about the normalisation and mainstreaming of same-sex romantic love. Right or wrong, it's not really right to try it on children.
Um, nobody is advocating that we "try out" same-sex love on children. That would be pedophilia, and is a completely different topic.

What people are suggesting is that we should stop artificially creating bigots by teaching children to view homosexuality as somehow less natural or normal than heterosexuality. Rest assured, that is not a belief that magically springs into kids' heads all by itself...you have to teach them to be nervous about sexuality. By themselves, normal little kids aren't all uptight about sexuality.

Well I suppose it could work if you catch them early, I mean it's worked in eradicating racism, hasn't it… hasn't it…? Surely?

When I said "try out" I didn't mean the whole conversion-to-homosexuality thing that some pundits go on and on about. I meant trying out social engineering, something which this government is pretty keen on and has decided to try yet again.

I guess my parents never told me about homosexuality when I was 7 because it was not necessary. I didn't know what Australian Aborigines looked like either, and I haven't got the urge to go shoot a couple of them.

By the way, homosexuality *is* less normal than heterosexuality, and that is not a value judgement. Just like in a women's college, sopranos are more common than basses.

No, I think you mean the Inquisition.

Anyway, it is slightly… odd… to be reading 7 year olds a story about a prince and a prince. Would probably confuse them more than anything else. Children are vulnerable to "brainwashing" even if it is not intended - there was a report from the government (UK) recently featuring white schoolkids who didn't like being white and one girl who wanted to be mixed. So, it's not really off the wall.

But court case? Only in America.

Why is it odd? Because children shouldn't know about homosexuality?

Actually, it's a lot odder.

No, it isn't. Heterosexuals get to instil into children that it's OK to be straight - get to bombard them with imagery that solidifies heteronormativity with no thought of what sort of damage that does to those children who will grow up to be gay who never get to hear that it's OK to be gay too - but as soon as someone does what straight people do all the time, tell them stories of coupling and love, all of a sudden there's hissy fit.

I don't think I knew what gay meant when I was 7 years old.

But I bet that they had already gotten to you, that they had already made you think of it as something "odd", which we shall see later...

And this is evidently about gayness - prince+princess isn't changed to prince+prince just on a whim.

Of course not on a whim, but on fairness and equality.

Again, when I was 7 years old anyone asking "can men fall in love with men?" would probably get a nervous snigger and a bemused look.

... and here, we get back to it. That's more an impugnment of your upbringing than any sort of testament to children's ability to understand that some people fall in love with the opposite sex and some the same. Seems to me you would have needed to be read this story and spared all the "every prince wants a princess" nonsense.

This is about the normalisation and mainstreaming of same-sex romantic love. Right or wrong, it's not really right to try it on children.

It is right, and children are fair game because they are fair game to heterosexuals doing the same thing.

Why is it odd? Because children shouldn't know about homosexuality?

Prince + princess = love. Prince + prince = sodomist porn. :rolleyes:

Why is it odd? Because children shouldn't know about homosexuality?

It's come up with our little one, and I just say that there are some people who prefer their own gender. It's never been a big deal.

When I said "try out" I didn't mean the whole conversion-to-homosexuality thing that some pundits go on and on about. I meant trying out social engineering, something which this government is pretty keen on and has decided to try yet again.

Teaching kids only about heterosexuality would constitute "social engineering." Indeed, exclusively teaching kids about heterosexuality would be a far more egregious example of such engineering, because it requires that you exclude actual facts in order to project a false worldview. Teaching kids that homosexuality exists is simply teaching fact.


I guess my parents never told me about homosexuality when I was 7 because it was not necessary.

Yet you needed to know about heterosexuality? What for?


I didn't know what Australian Aborigines looked like either, and I haven't got the urge to go shoot a couple of them.

Sounds like you grew up in a very colorless, uninformed world. That's too bad. :(

My parents taught me anything and everything I was curious about, and more. But then, my parents are big nerds, and there are bookshelves in every single room of their house (including bathrooms). :)


By the way, homosexuality *is* less normal than heterosexuality, and that is not a value judgement. Just like in a women's college, sopranos are more common than basses.
If you mean to say that homosexuality is less common than heterosexuality, you are correct.

Of course, being male is less common than being female. Being 85 years old is less common than being an infant. Being able to access the internet is less common than being unable to access the internet. Do you advocate that we wait until kids are in secondary school to teach them about males, grandparents, and the internet?

Fassigen, are you Fass?

Can I clarify… I'm not saying children shouldn't be taught about homosexuality. And bullying on any grounds should be met strictly. But it should be left until secondary school when the critical thinking faculties have hopefully kicked in a bit more.

I understand your point about kids who grow up to be gay having problems dealing with not being normal, but since they'd only realise it in adolescence there's no reason to bring the subject up earlier.

Prince + prince = sword fight in my experience, except with Charlie.

By the way, homosexuality *is* less normal than heterosexuality, and that is not a value judgement. Just like in a women's college, sopranos are more common than basses.

I dislike the word 'normal', simply because it implies the opposite is 'abnormal' or wrong, even if used in a quantitative way.

It's come up with our little one, and I just say that there are some people who prefer their own gender. It's never been a big deal.
Yeah, I don't get what the big deal is. Unless you feel the need to teach your small children that sex is about sticking a penis into a vagina, I don't see where the problem would be. Love doesn't require any particular body parts.

Fassigen, are you Fass?

Can I clarify… I'm not saying children shouldn't be taught about homosexuality. And bullying on any grounds should be met strictly. But it should be left until secondary school when the critical thinking faculties have hopefully kicked in a bit more.

I understand your point about kids who grow up to be gay having problems dealing with not being normal, but since they'd only realise it in adolescence there's no reason to bring the subject up earlier.

Prince + prince = sword fight in my experience, except with Charlie.

Some knew from a very young age that they're gay.

But not talking about it at a young age reenforces the idea that it's something wrong. You don't need to get into the gory details with a child. But homosexuality /= the actual sex act. Having a story about a child with 2 mommies or daddies or a story of two princes is not a bad thing.

Well I suppose it could work if you catch them early, I mean it's worked in eradicating racism, hasn't it… hasn't it…? Surely?

When I said "try out" I didn't mean the whole conversion-to-homosexuality thing that some pundits go on and on about. I meant trying out social engineering, something which this government is pretty keen on and has decided to try yet again.

I guess my parents never told me about homosexuality when I was 7 because it was not necessary. I didn't know what Australian Aborigines looked like either, and I haven't got the urge to go shoot a couple of them.

By the way, homosexuality *is* less normal than heterosexuality, and that is not a value judgement. Just like in a women's college, sopranos are more common than basses.

More "common" and more "normal" are not the same thing.

anyway, I suppose a lot of my opinion on this depends on how the books are written. I've been trying to imagine such a story in a kid friendly format, But I think I've looked at far too much porn for that to be possible anymore.

Yeah, I don't get what the big deal is. Unless you feel the need to teach your small children that sex is about sticking a penis into a vagina, I don't see where the problem would be. Love doesn't require any particular body parts.


Well, she's very young and still of the boy-girl thing. But whatever. If she decides later in life that she likes girls, who cares? She's still an awesome kid.

(She's not my daughter but my girlfriend's from a previous relationship. But I'm trying my damnedest to help raise her with an open mind.)

More "common" and more "normal" are not the same thing.

anyway, I suppose a lot of my opinion on this depends on how the books are written. I've been trying to imagine such a story in a kid friendly format, But I think I've looked at far too much porn for that to be possible anymore.

Take any story currently written with a mom and a dad figure, replace one. Porn free children's story.

Or take any story with a male and female figure. Replace one. Think about Rapunzel with two women.

BTW the fact that it's so hard to imagine a porn free children's story about same- sex couples really illustrates the need for them.

Fassigen, are you Fass?

I don't know how I can make it any more apparent than being called "Fassigen".

Can I clarify… I'm not saying children shouldn't be taught about homosexuality. And bullying on any grounds should be met strictly. But it should be left until secondary school when the critical thinking faculties have hopefully kicked in a bit more.

Why? Heterosexuality doesn't get left until secondary school.

I understand your point about kids who grow up to be gay having problems dealing with not being normal, but since they'd only realise it in adolescence there's no reason to bring the subject up earlier.

Nonsense. I knew I was different from most of the other boys when I was seven, but because of heteronormative propaganda that pushed out the notion of there being anything else I spent some very long childhood years feeling alone and strange and worthless - the amount of pain that I could have been spared by having someone tell me "there are people like this, too, people like you and that's OK" is immeasurable, but no, I got to wait all that time with the tacit screaming of society to me that even though I didn't know what was different with me it was wrong and I should rather die than dare ask my parents about it (so wrong was it), not to mention waiting until I was 10 before finding out what sort of "hellbound disgusting freaks" "faggots" were by Jimmy from my parallel class whose parents were Christian fundies... oh, they had nothing against "teaching" him about homosexuality...

Take any story currently written with a mom and a dad figure, replace one. Porn free children's story.

Or take any story with a male and female figure. Replace one. Think about Rapunzel with two women.

Wasn't Rapunzel about masturbation anyway?
No, that was Rumplestiltskin I think.

Anyway. If 'that way of life' (from the article) gets 'wiped out', I can't say I'm too bothered.

Did anyone notice the town in Massachusetts where this happened? Those pinko commie gay-agenda-promoting ... words fail me. Why, 200 some years ago, the ancestors of those same people actually fired upon the peace-keeping forces of the legitimate government of Massachusetts when those brave troops tried to capture a cache of arms and ammunition gathered by the terrorists. These people should be thrown in jail and the keys disposed of in a safe, environmentally friendly manner.

:D

Did anyone notice the town in Massachusetts where this happened? Those pinko commie gay-agenda-promoting ... words fail me. Why, 200 some years ago, the ancestors of those same people actually fired upon the peace-keeping forces of the legitimate government of Massachusetts when those brave troops tried to capture a cache of arms and ammunition gathered by the terrorists. These people should be thrown in jail and the keys disposed of in a safe, environmentally friendly manner.

:D

/yourself

Take any story currently written with a mom and a dad figure, replace one. Porn free children's story.

Or take any story with a male and female figure. Replace one. Think about Rapunzel with two women.

I suppose you're right. I've just got such a damn dirty mind.

It's kind of illustrative of the whole situation in society that even as a bisexual the idea of two men having a completely normal relationship, indistinguishable from one a heterosexual couple would have, seems out of place.

Of course, it doesn't help that I still haven't had a relationship yet...

Nonsense. I knew I was different from most of the other boys when I was seven, but because of heteronormative propaganda that pushed out the notion of there being anything else I spent some very long childhood years feeling alone and strange and worthless - the amount of pain that I could have been spared by having someone tell me "there are people like this, too, people like you and that's OK" is immeasurable, but no, I got to wait all that time with the tacit screaming of society to me that even though I didn't know what was different with me it was wrong and I should rather die than dare ask my parents about it (so wrong was it), not to mention waiting until I was 10 before finding out what sort of "hellbound disgusting freaks" "faggots" were by Jimmy from my parallel class whose parents were Christian fundies... oh, they had nothing against "teaching" him about homosexuality...

Yeah, I'm still trying to sort my sexuality out. I knew I was attracted to women from a really young age. My childhood was alot of confusion, especially when my grandmother slapped me when I was six and told me I was acting like a lesbian. She then lectured me on the mental disorder I had and how I wouldn't be able to get a job when I grew up if I didn't knock it off. Thankfully my mom has been nothing but accepting of me, unfortunately she is the only one in the family. My other grandparents lecture endlessly on why gay marriage is wrong and that they never aknowledge my g/f's. While conversly any male friends are automatically considered a b/f. I've long stopped trying.

I think things would have been easier for me if I knew that I wasn't weird as a child. Maybe I'd be less confused about the whole thing as an adult.

Actually, it's a lot odder. I don't think I knew what gay meant when I was 7 years old. And this is evidently about gayness - prince+princess isn't changed to prince+prince just on a whim.

Again, when I was 7 years old anyone asking "can men fall in love with men?" would probably get a nervous snigger and a bemused look.

This is about the normalisation and mainstreaming of same-sex romantic love. Right or wrong, it's not really right to try it on children.

Yes. That's exactly right. And they shouldn't have done that with trans-racial couples either. They started doing that and look what happened. Now they are tolerated as if they are acceptable to God. These books started having one races mixing with others and suddenly we have tolerant children. Well, I'm not letting that happen again, bygummit.

Oh, don't worry about the gays. I'm straight and I'm trying to wipe out all of your ways of life.

Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabulous.

its not the gays that are to blame, its the crab people

A van of gay couples drive up to the end of a cul-de-sac where an American family is just sitting down to enjoy their meals. The two exit the van in black cloaks and matching pumps, very tasteful, where they kick open the family's door and begin fucking the shit out of each other. Another american family is destroyed.

:D

:D

The Sodomobile is back in action...

I don't know how I can make it any more apparent than being called "Fassigen".



Why? Heterosexuality doesn't get left until secondary school.



Nonsense. I knew I was different from most of the other boys when I was seven, but because of heteronormative propaganda that pushed out the notion of there being anything else I spent some very long childhood years feeling alone and strange and worthless - the amount of pain that I could have been spared by having someone tell me "there are people like this, too, people like you and that's OK" is immeasurable, but no, I got to wait all that time with the tacit screaming of society to me that even though I didn't know what was different with me it was wrong and I should rather die than dare ask my parents about it (so wrong was it), not to mention waiting until I was 10 before finding out what sort of "hellbound disgusting freaks" "faggots" were by Jimmy from my parallel class whose parents were Christian fundies... oh, they had nothing against "teaching" him about homosexuality...

You're Fass!? What happened to Battegan?

You heard it here first. The gays are trying to brainwash your kids and wipe out your way of life through gay children's books. Soon all your kids will crave cock (except for your daughters), and will exhibit fabulous fashion and interior decorating skills. Thankfully the brave families of Massachusetts are fighting back.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2007-02-07T222235Z_01_N07433957_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-GAYS-SUIT.xml&WTmodLoc=USNewsHome_C2_domesticNews-3

We are the gays. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. :p

You heard it here first. The gays are trying to brainwash your kids and wipe out your way of life through gay children's books. Soon all your kids will crave cock (except for your daughters), and will exhibit fabulous fashion and interior decorating skills. Thankfully the brave families of Massachusetts are fighting back.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2007-02-07T222235Z_01_N07433957_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-GAYS-SUIT.xml&WTmodLoc=USNewsHome_C2_domesticNews-3

They were elementary school students. Too early to mention homosexuality...

We are the gays. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. :p

Resistance is also encouraged in some role play scenarios.

No odder than reading them a story about a prince and a princess. You don't see any of these hypocrites bitching about that and calling it "sex ed".
I disagree with glorifying monarchy!

Resistance is also encouraged in some role play scenarios.

:eek:

:D

I disagree with glorifying monarchy!

Just let the kids read about Charles and Diana, Diana and Hewitt, Charles and Camilla...

Are these parents so insecure in their faith that they won't let their children understand the opposing belief?

Are these parents so insecure in their faith that they won't let their children understand the opposing belief?

The only thing their children need to understand about opposing beliefs is how much it is gonna hurt to be burned for an eternity.

You heard it here first. The gays are trying to brainwash your kids and wipe out your way of life through gay children's books. Soon all your kids will crave cock (except for your daughters), and will exhibit fabulous fashion and interior decorating skills. Thankfully the brave families of Massachusetts are fighting back.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2007-02-07T222235Z_01_N07433957_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-GAYS-SUIT.xml&WTmodLoc=USNewsHome_C2_domesticNews-3
Bloody homosexual penguins.

Are these parents so insecure in their faith that they won't let their children understand the opposing belief?

Yes. And because of it, they are trying to raise their children without any true faith. =(

Hitler successfully used the occult? :eek:

Do a bit of research on the Thule Society.

Regarding success, I'd not be able to measure their "success" in using occultism unless I was there. They DID get the masses to do things no sane man would, though. Whether or not only historical circumstances and Hitler's charisma account for this is up for (somewhat fruitless) debate.

(Ok, I'll stop threadjacking now.)

My other grandparents lecture endlessly on why gay marriage is wrong and that they never aknowledge my g/f's. While conversly any male friends are automatically considered a b/f. I've long stopped trying. Lol… your grandparents don't have a problem with assuming you have multiple boyfriends?

Grandparents will be grandparents…

Fassigen, if children are not naturally homophobic then why is it necessary to teach them not to be at a young age?

Actually, it's a lot odder. I don't think I knew what gay meant when I was 7 years old. And this is evidently about gayness - prince+princess isn't changed to prince+prince just on a whim.
It's not evidently about gayness, anymore than Cinderalla is evidently about heterosexuality(ness).

Again, when I was 7 years old anyone asking "can men fall in love with men?" would probably get a nervous snigger and a bemused look.
Would you? I expect I would have thought the matter over and replied yes. I base this on the fact that when I was about 8 years old I asked a teacher at my school what the word 'homosexual' meant. The teacher explained that some people are 'really naughty' because either they were men wanting to marry and love another man or women wanting to marry and love another woman. I was utterly confused and couldnt for the life of me work out how that made such people 'naughty'. I didnt see the problem then, and I still dont. I dont know why you would have had such an issue with it at a similar age.

This is about the normalisation and mainstreaming of same-sex romantic love.
If by normalisation, you mean not acting as though it's either non-existent or a terrible, awful catastrophe and a vile evilness, then you might be right.

Right or wrong, it's not really right to try it on children.
I'm sorry, even if it is right it's not right? You make no sense here. I'm not even sure what 'it' is that you think oughten be 'tried out' on children. Exposing them to ideas about the community they live in, reading fairytales that include characters who show preferences that are less common than some other more common preference? :confused:

Well I suppose it could work if you catch them early, I mean it's worked in eradicating racism, hasn't it… hasn't it…? Surely?
It's worked to reduce racism in many cases, certainly.

When I said "try out" I didn't mean the whole conversion-to-homosexuality thing that some pundits go on and on about. I meant trying out social engineering, something which this government is pretty keen on and has decided to try yet again.
You're joking surely? Telling kids that they ought to try hard so they can enjoy good jobs and be able to buy the things they want is social engineering, is it improper to expose children to these realities accordingly? Explaining the role of police in our society to young children inevitably involves endorsing the police, the law system and the tennants and methodology of justice practised in the territory of issue, another words it socially engineers attitudes about and towards the justice system, should discussing police and the law be forbidden in schools to prevent such blatent social engineering? Or do you somehow think that there is some difference between engineering established and non-established ideas/attitudes other than when the engineering started?

I guess my parents never told me about homosexuality when I was 7 because it was not necessary. I didn't know what Australian Aborigines looked like either, and I haven't got the urge to go shoot a couple of them.
That's as maybe, however, that you managed to survive child-hood without developing an urge to shoot people based on their ethnicity, is hardly an astonishing outcome. Plenty of people damaged by absurd prejudices do not feel urges to commit murder. But not feeling inclined to shoot people due to their ethnicity is a necessary, rather than sufficient condition for having a healthy outlook on issues of ethnicity and ethnic diversity.

By the way, homosexuality *is* less normal than heterosexuality, and that is not a value judgement. Just like in a women's college, sopranos are more common than basses.
Er, no. Your reasoning doesnt hold up. Normal and most common are not identical. Tigers are far less common than the common domestic cat, but they are not abnormal, nor are domestic cats inherently more normal than tigers.

Lol… your grandparents don't have a problem with assuming you have multiple boyfriends?

Grandparents will be grandparents…



My grandparents are definately odd and make no sense. I love their selective hearing:

Me: Can I bring my g/f Leah to thanksgiving?
Grandparents: We really don't want you bringing friends to dinner.
Me: You let me bring Larry.
GP: Because he was your boyfriend. Why don't you bring your boyfriend?
Me: I'm dating Leah.
GP: Wasn't his name Rick? Why don't you bring Rick, we'd love to meet him.
Me: ... I just remembered I gotta work, I won't be down.
GP: Well you still need to bring Rick down. You've been seeing him for quite sometime.
Me: ...

It's not evidently about gayness, anymore than Cinderalla is evidently about heterosexuality(ness).
Would you? I expect I would have thought the matter over and replied yes. I base this on the fact that when I was about 8 years old I asked a teacher at my school what the word 'homosexual' meant. The teacher explained that some people are 'really naughty' because either they were men wanting to marry and love another man or women wanting to marry and love another woman. I was utterly confused and couldnt for the life of me work out how that made such people 'naughty'. I didnt see the problem then, and I still dont. I dont know why you would have had such an issue with it at a similar age. No, I didn't say I'd have a problem. I probably would have had to think about it for a while before I got the gist.

If by normalisation, you mean not acting as though it's either non-existent or a terrible, awful catastrophe and a vile evilness, then you might be right. Uh, I've never met anyone who thinks it's a vile evilness. A mental illness, well some people think that, but then again the definition of mental illness seems to be totally fluid now.

Believe it or not there are many people who neither hate gays nor believe homosexuality to be the equal of, for want of a better term, "normal" sexuality. The baby-making kind.

I'm sorry, even if it is right it's not right? You make no sense here. I'm not even sure what 'it' is that you think oughten be 'tried out' on children. Exposing them to ideas about the community they live in, reading fairytales that include characters who show preferences that are less common than some other more common preference? :confused: It is not necessary at age 7. It will probably cause utter confusion (quite normal in children really), especially if they run into other attitudes from their parents.

It's worked to reduce racism in many cases, certainly. And this is why racism is increasing dramatically in France and Britain?

You're joking surely? Telling kids that they ought to try hard so they can enjoy good jobs and be able to buy the things they want is social engineering, is it improper to expose children to these realities accordingly? Explaining the role of police in our society to young children inevitably involves endorsing the police, the law system and the tennants and methodology of justice practised in the territory of issue, another words it socially engineers attitudes about and towards the justice system, should discussing police and the law be forbidden in schools to prevent such blatent social engineering? Or do you somehow think that there is some difference between engineering established and non-established ideas/attitudes other than when the engineering started? Saying that different types of social training are qualitatively the same is like saying that enforcing a law allowing police to shoot demonstrators and enforcing a law allowing police to arrest burglars are equal.

Er, no. Your reasoning doesnt hold up. Normal and most common are not identical. Tigers are far less common than the common domestic cat, but they are not abnormal, nor are domestic cats inherently more normal than tigers. It is much more normal to find the domestic cat in someone's house. A tiger in someone's house would be considered very much not normal.

It's not evidently about gayness, anymore than Cinderalla is evidently about heterosexuality(ness).
Would you? I expect I would have thought the matter over and replied yes. I base this on the fact that when I was about 8 years old I asked a teacher at my school what the word 'homosexual' meant. The teacher explained that some people are 'really naughty' because either they were men wanting to marry and love another man or women wanting to marry and love another woman. I was utterly confused and couldnt for the life of me work out how that made such people 'naughty'. I didnt see the problem then, and I still dont. I dont know why you would have had such an issue with it at a similar age. No, I didn't say I'd have a problem. I probably would have had to think about it for a while before I got the gist.

If by normalisation, you mean not acting as though it's either non-existent or a terrible, awful catastrophe and a vile evilness, then you might be right. Uh, I've never met anyone who thinks it's a vile evilness. A mental illness, well some people think that, but then again the definition of mental illness seems to be totally fluid now.

Believe it or not there are many people who neither hate gays nor believe homosexuality to be the equal of, for want of a better term, "normal" sexuality. The baby-making kind.

I'm sorry, even if it is right it's not right? You make no sense here. I'm not even sure what 'it' is that you think oughten be 'tried out' on children. Exposing them to ideas about the community they live in, reading fairytales that include characters who show preferences that are less common than some other more common preference? :confused: It is not necessary at age 7. It will probably cause utter confusion (quite normal in children really), especially if they run into other attitudes from their parents.

It's worked to reduce racism in many cases, certainly. And this is why racism is increasing dramatically in France and Britain?

You're joking surely? Telling kids that they ought to try hard so they can enjoy good jobs and be able to buy the things they want is social engineering, is it improper to expose children to these realities accordingly? Explaining the role of police in our society to young children inevitably involves endorsing the police, the law system and the tennants and methodology of justice practised in the territory of issue, another words it socially engineers attitudes about and towards the justice system, should discussing police and the law be forbidden in schools to prevent such blatent social engineering? Or do you somehow think that there is some difference between engineering established and non-established ideas/attitudes other than when the engineering started? Saying that different types of social training are qualitatively the same is like saying that enforcing a law allowing police to shoot demonstrators and enforcing a law allowing police to arrest burglars are equal.

Er, no. Your reasoning doesnt hold up. Normal and most common are not identical. Tigers are far less common than the common domestic cat, but they are not abnormal, nor are domestic cats inherently more normal than tigers. It is much more normal to find the domestic cat in someone's house. A tiger in someone's house would be considered very much not normal.

Fassigen, if children are not naturally homophobic then why is it necessary to teach them not to be at a young age?

If children are not naturally homosexual until "saved" by religion, why must they be "protected" from this story? If children are not naturally suicidal, why is it necessary to teach them not to put their heads in the oven? If children are not naturally willing to be abused and raped, why is it necessary to teach them not to be lured away by strangers?

That's how stupid your question is - one the most stupid ones I've ever been asked here, in fact. The reason they need to be taught that being gay is OK is that if they're not, they will hear the opposite from these bigoted hypocrites just like Jimmy from my parallel class did; they want homosexuality to be taught the way they were taught it, as something bad and for "disgusting faggot freaks".

You heard it here first. The gays are trying to brainwash your kids and wipe out your way of life through gay children's books. Soon all your kids will crave cock (except for your daughters), and will exhibit fabulous fashion and interior decorating skills. Thankfully the brave families of Massachusetts are fighting back.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2007-02-07T222235Z_01_N07433957_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-GAYS-SUIT.xml&WTmodLoc=USNewsHome_C2_domesticNews-3

I haven't been this ashaed of being a Bay Stater in a long time. :(

On a lighter note, the daughters....mmm....

No offense meant to any lesbians who happen to read this post. Please don't kill me.

If children are not naturally homosexual until "saved" by religion, why must they be "protected" from this story?If children are not naturally suicidal, why is it necessary to teach them not to put their heads in the oven? If children are not naturally willing to be abused and raped, why is it necessary to teach them not to be lured away by strangers? I already said I don't feel particularly passionate about this, but your analogy is flawed. Kids don't stick their heads in ovens hoping to get fried. But teaching stuff early on does have a lasting effect. This is obvious by the fact that virtually everyone dutifully spouts the safe sentiment of the times when confronted with an issue which has a goodthink side and crimethink side. I'm not talking about homosexuality by the way, or anything in particular.

That's how stupid your question is - one the most stupid one's I've ever been asked here, in fact. The reason they need to be taught that being gay is OK is that if they're not, they will hear the opposite from these bigoted hypocrites just like Jimmy from my parallel class did; they want homosexuality to be taught the way they were taught it, as something bad and for "disgusting faggot freaks". I suppose it would be stupid if every parent were like Fred Phelps, but that is not the case with most children. Besides, do we really have the right to indoctrinate children in case their parents have "undesirable" views? If their parents teach them to attack gays then that gets covered in bullying and in any case what we're talking about has nothing to do with that level of extremity.

There's anti-semitism and we never got taught not to hate Jews.
There's anti-Frenchism and we never got taught about the humanity of the French.
There's anti-Irish sentiment and we never got taught not to tell IRA jokes.

In fact, I've heard a lot of IRA jokes bandied around, me and a few other Irish-descended people told that Ireland never contributed anything to the world, and all of that. I don't really mind this, but it's the same sort of parallel. No one should have protected status.

No, I didn't say I'd have a problem. I probably would have had to think about it for a while before I got the gist.
Perhaps I should rephrase, I dont see why you would have had a problem getting the gist, comprehending the question, or returning a sensible reasoned answer.

Uh, I've never met anyone who thinks it's a vile evilness.
I have, further I have encountered such veiws being propagated by an even greater number of persons.

A mental illness, well some people think that, but then again the definition of mental illness seems to be totally fluid now.
Yes, some people do think such things, which again indicates that rather than being superfluous or wrong, it is desirable to help children form healthy attitudes at an early age in order to help them form world-views that are free of such absurd dellusions. The definition of mental illness is not to my knowledge totally fluid at this time.

Believe it or not there are many people who neither hate gays nor believe homosexuality to be the equal of, for want of a better term, "normal" sexuality. The baby-making kind.
Of course I believe it, I just dont see why it is desirable or necessary to avoid helping children develop a world-view free from such an absurd and damaging notion.

It is not necessary at age 7. It will probably cause utter confusion (quite normal in children really), especially if they run into other attitudes from their parents.
I do not see any indication that it is not necessary, in fact that more you post, the more you sway me towards veiwing as probably both desirable and necessary. I see no reason why it would be confusing unless the children concerned are already endangered by exposure damaging ideas and views that are inherently confused in their own right. Another words the only confusion likely is in the minds of the already confused, who evidently and most likely to gain the greatest benefit if their current confused state can be resolved in favour of a more rational and realistic view of things - even if the only way to do this initially increases confusion before resolving it.

And this is why racism is increasing dramatically in France and Britain?
No, I expect factors that have contributed to dramatic reductions in racism (be they quantitive or qualitive reductions) are not the reason why racism is increasing dramatically in some contexts. The fact that there are racial problems in Britain today, doesnt negate the fact that only a few decades ago, before the kind of measures we are discussing were initiated, it was common to find assertions such as 'no blacks' or 'whites only' on signs advertising jobs or places to rent should give you some perspective for judging current concerns. In the past, instead of problems between ethnic groups, you had overt, socially respected discrimination that was considered normal and right, while failing to be racist was considered suspect, abnormal and potentially damaging to society. You need to see where things have come from to judge the progress, you also need to differentiate between the problems that the measures were designed to address and problems that although similar in some ways, post-date the design of the measures, stem from different causes and not equally well addressed by solutions designed for the earlier problem.

Saying that different types of social training are qualitatively the same is like saying that enforcing a law allowing police to shoot demonstrators and enforcing a law allowing police to arrest burglars are equal.
Well I'm not sure about that, what I am sure about is that I didnt compare social training of qualitively different types. The exact same kind of story-book methodology was used in my schools to 'socially train' children into awareness, acceptance of and appropriate attitudes toward getting an education in order to work for a living and the role and obligations the justice system and citizens have toward each other, as is being used for the 'social training' you object to. Whether you call it social training or social engineering there is no qualitive difference in the type of trainings I compared. You claimed to object to social engineering, yet if what is being engineered meets your approval, you call it social training and try to claim it is qualitively different. What you disapprove of as social engineering is no more qualitively different to either of the engineerings you prefer to call social training, than each of these is to the other. Is what you really mean 'it's social engineering and bad if I dont fully endorse or am uncomfortable with the subject matter, but if it's something I think is desirable, then it's perfectly acceptable social training'?

It is much more normal to find the domestic cat in someone's house. A tiger in someone's house would be considered very much not normal.
And so? It's much more normal to find a homosexual having romantic relationships with a homosexual or bi-sexual of the same sex/gender than it is to find them having romantic relationships with heterosexual of the opposite sex, this is true regardless which is more or less common. That doesnt make homosexuality or heterosexuality more or less abnormal, either inherently or in relation to one another.

I haven't been this ashaed of being a Bay Stater in a long time. :(

On a lighter note, the daughters....mmm....

No offense meant to any lesbians who happen to read this post. Please don't kill me.
Don't be. Read carefully:
"The schools are exposing youngsters to something that is the law of the community they life in. The parents seem to know about it and can teach the children that they believe it is wrong," said Judge Mark Wolf, who will decide whether to dismiss the suit.

"Almost all moral education is indoctrination," Wolf said. "It's the reason we have public schools. We're preparing people for citizenship." He pointed out that the parents had the option of enrolling their children in private schools, or of lobbying the school board to have the curriculum changed.
Check out that statement. Methinks the suit doesn't have that good of a chance of flying.

Hitler successfully used the occult? :eek:

Duh. Didn't you read the Illumanitus! Trilogy?

We are the gays. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. :p

Please drop your pants and prepare to be boarded.

OH YEAH! I'M A GALAXIAN WARRIOR NOW!!!


Does anyone remember that questionaire some college kids passed out on National Day of Silence? It had questions like "Have you ever wondered if your heterosexuality is just a phase?", "If you've never slept with a member of the same gender, how do you know you wouldn't like it more?", and some similar questions. Basically all questions launched at gays and reversed to apply to heterosexuals.

When I was 7 the kids in our school was still on the "Boys yeah, girls blah!" and vice versa thing. From what I've seen reading this kind of book would be okay, and it won't inspire boy to kiss boys and vice versa.... cause puberty hits at 13, not 7, and puberty is what sets people into what they really are... gay or not.

When I was 7 the kids in our school was still on the "Boys yeah, girls blah!" and vice versa thing. From what I've seen reading this kind of book would be okay, and it won't inspire boy to kiss boys and vice versa.... cause puberty hits at 13, not 7, and puberty is what sets people into what they really are... gay or not.

Actually, that's not true. Girls it can start as early as eight, and guys it can start about ten.

Bump to defeat the gay menace.

You heard it here first. The gays are trying to brainwash your kids and wipe out your way of life through gay children's books. Soon all your kids will crave cock (except for your daughters), and will exhibit fabulous fashion and interior decorating skills. Thankfully the brave families of Massachusetts are fighting back.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2007-02-07T222235Z_01_N07433957_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-GAYS-SUIT.xml&WTmodLoc=USNewsHome_C2_domesticNews-3

I'm not surprised, they're like feminaizis, they scream out for equal rights yet like any other militant group on a crusade all they want to do is get all the power and privileges. And in this case get back at the society which "oppressed" them earlier in human history.

Secondly I hate the idea of mind manipulation that doesn't involve tutoring a child to become a useful member of society. Brainwash and any other forms of mind manipulation to get an end is evil. What good is acquiring human rights if it means removing the natural rights (liberty, ability to think for oneself, and ect.) of many more?

Actually, this might be a bit good. Not many people want their daughter to "crave cock"

:p

Actually, this might be a bit good. Not many people want their daughter to "crave cock"

:p

Here's a test for all subversive groups, arm them all with guns then their intentions become clear...

Edit: If you wouldn't trust them with guns their guilty of something and can't be trusted. The gov should crack down on these imperialistic bastards and make the US safe from terror!

Here's a test for all subversive groups, arm them all with guns then their intentions become clear...

But...I don't want them to have guns.

And what if you give anti-gun nuts guns? Do they like explode into little clouds of illogic?

*Gather angry mod in Boston to prepare to take the city and install a conservative kingdom of True America."

But...I don't want them to have guns.

And what if you give anti-gun nuts guns? Do they like explode into little clouds of illogic?

Swords? :confused: Anyway if you wouldn't trust them with any form of armed power then they can't be trusted, if the CIA used this philosophy the subversive parasites would all be destroyed and all the holes in US society maybe able to begin healing.

Swords? :confused: Anyway if you wouldn't trust them with any form of armed power then they can't be trusted, if the CIA used this philosophy the subversive parasites would all be destroyed and all the holes in US society maybe able to begin healing.

I don't trust the CIA with anything deadlier than a blunt crayon.

I don't trust the CIA with anything deadlier than a blunt crayon.

Well somebody's got to stop them before they screw things up some more, its because of these kinds of people that the life expectancy in the US is lower than in a third world country like Cuba. :(

:eek: ________________________________:sniper: Another subversive nut claims another life...

Am not!

*Hides copy of "Heather has Two Mommies"*

Am not!

*Hides copy of "Heather has Two Mommies"*

:confused: Huh? Ummm... I wasn't referring to you I was refering to groups like the KKK, Waco cults, militant Baptists who burn clinics, feminazis and gays who want everyone gay and will stop at nothing to do it.

gays who want everyone gay and will stop at nothing to do it.

Who are you talking about?

:confused: Huh? Ummm... I wasn't referring to you I was refering to groups like the KKK, Waco cults, militant Baptists who burn clinics, feminazis and gays who want everyone gay and will stop at nothing to do it.

The Waco guys weren't doing anything. And the comment there was about "The gays are trying to wipe out our way of life!"

Who are you talking about?

The link in the first post is a perfect example. We all know children are suggestible and here they are trying to fill their minds with this stuff, we must expose kids to whats normal so that they can choose freely rather than being psychologically forced into homosexuality. Those homos are the type that hate heteros for hating them earlier in human history and now they want to make them suffer or wipe them out maybe.

Maybe if they shut up once everyone gave them rights but to keep going means that they just want power. I have no problem with the centrist ones who don't force their sexuality on people but brainwashing people to be like them is wrong, and it doesn't matter who you are trying to mentally assimilate innocent children into your collective is EVIL!

The Waco guys weren't doing anything. And the comment there was about "The gays are trying to wipe out our way of life!"

Wac cultists and hetero haters share one thing, they want to exterminate those who aren't like them. Either through propaganda, the legal system or use or arms.

The link in the first post is a perfect example. We all know children are suggestible and here they are trying to fill their minds with this stuff, we must expose kids to whats normal so that they can choose freely rather than being psychologically forced into homosexuality.

Bullshit.

If exposing them to homosexuality "psychologically force[s]" them into homosexuality, then exposing them to heterosexuality must similarly "psychologically force" them into heterosexuality... and the only justified option, according to the framework you have advocated, is to avoid all references to marriage, couples, romance, etc. until everyone has already reached puberty.

That is, of course, impossible.

Bullshit.

If exposing them to homosexuality "psychologically force[s]" them into homosexuality, then exposing them to heterosexuality must similarly "psychologically force" them into heterosexuality... and the only justified option, according to the framework you have advocated, is to avoid all references to marriage, couples, romance, etc. until everyone has already reached puberty.

That is, of course, impossible.

Sex is natural, so no need to indoctrinate. It comes naturally.

no need to indoctrinate.

No one is advising indoctrination.

No one is advising indoctrination.

The message that book teaches is "guys should dump girls and go for the same sex"

If you were being sarcastic, please disregard this post. If not...

The link in the first post is a perfect example. We all know children are suggestible and here they are trying to fill their minds with this stuff, we must expose kids to whats normal so that they can choose freely rather than being psychologically forced into homosexuality.

Did you actually read the article? The story in question is very specifically designed to "expose kids to what's normal" - i.e. BOTH heterosexuality and homosexuality. I am 100% certain these kids have heard stories in which princes fall in love with princesses; they are simply also hearing a story in which a prince falls in love with another prince. No one wants to "psychologically force" anyone into anything. (Of course, one can't "force" someone to have any particular sexual orientation, though kids can certainly be forced into living with constant fear, depression, and self-loathing if people only tell them that they're abnormal and dirty and wrong. How dare these bastards in Massachusetts acknowledge the existence of gay people without adding such comments! :rolleyes: )


Those homos are the type that hate heteros for hating them earlier in human history and now they want to make them suffer or wipe them out maybe.

"Those homos" are...who? A pair of fictitious princes in a children's story? To the best of my knowledge, they're the only homosexuals referenced in the article as such, and I somehow doubt the story included a coda in which, after they kissed, the two happy little princes started killing all the straight people. Therefore, I'm pretty sure you're just making shit up.


Maybe if they shut up once everyone gave them rights but to keep going means that they just want power.

Sadly, outside of Massachusetts, gay people in the US are still being denied fundamental rights, so I see no good reason they should "shut up." Of course, I don't exactly think they should ever "shut up" as far as acknowledging the existence of gay people goes. That would be stupid.

I have no problem with the centrist ones who don't force their sexuality on people but brainwashing people to be like them is wrong, and it doesn't matter who you are trying to mentally assimilate innocent children into your collective is EVIL!

Indeed. Which is why it's important to let kids grow up aware that the world contains both straight and gay people, and that neither group is icky or evil or sinful. I'm glad you've grasped this idea after all.

The message that book teaches is "guys should dump girls and go for the same sex"

How does it teach that?

"Those homos" are...who? A pair of fictitious princes in a children's story? To the best of my knowledge, they're the only homosexuals referenced in the article as such, and I somehow doubt the story included a coda in which, after they kissed, the two happy little princes started killing all the straight people. Therefore, I'm pretty sure you're just making shit up

I meant the ones that wrote the book, I think its intended for propaganda purposes.

The message that book teaches is "guys should dump girls and go for the same sex"

Only if the message Cinderella teaches is "guys should only go for girls with small feet," and the message Snow White teaches is "guys should only go for apparently dead chicks."

I agree with Poliwanacraca. There's nothing wrong with a love story between two guys. See the film "Beautiful Thing".

I'm straight and I've thought about hooking up with a guy. Mind you I'm pretty drunk right now, but Ive thought about it. It's not unnatural, shit animals do it all the time.

I don't see what's wrong with reading kids a story about two princes falling in love. At the age of 7, it would actually probably make as much sense to them as a prince and princess falling in love, since at that age, a lot of kids think the opposite sex is gross. It would be nice if the next generation understood that homosexuality was just as normal and natural as heterosexuality, just less common. That way puberty wouldn't be even more difficult than it already is for anyone.

The link in the first post is a perfect example. We all know children are suggestible and here they are trying to fill their minds with this stuff,
'This stuff' being the knowledge that certain people who actually do exist, exist and are in fact people? I dont find myself concerned or alarmed by this.

we must expose kids to whats normal so that they can choose freely rather than being psychologically forced into homosexuality.
This is absurd, firstly, you try to dress up 'hiding truth from people in order to manipulate their sense of the normal to suit your personal notions as to what that is' as ensuring they can choose freely. You are suggesting that someone decide what children should think is normal, and that we restrict information accordingly in order to deliberatly manipulate their world-view into conformity, and you try to call this allowing them to choose freely.
You then suggest that exposure to something other than what you deem to be normal, (rather than letting them make their own minds up), might somehow force them psychologically into homosexuality. This is of course absurd. If it were possible to psychologically force someone into one or another sexuality what you are suggesing is equally farcical than if it is not.
As if the mere knowledge that someone prefers their own gender would possibly conteract the constant bombardment of knowledge about heterosexuality that everyone is constantly exposed to from the day they're born. Either knowledge about sexuality cannot psychologically force people to be one or another sexuality, or no one would be homosexual because everyone is bombarded with information and further direct examples of heterosexuality from birth. It simply is not true that many, if any, homosexual people were exposed to more information, examples, or influences towards homosexuality than heterosexuality.
The fact is knowing something exists and making your own mind up if the information about that thing makes it 'abnormal' (or whatever you think homosexuality is) leaves a person more freedom to make up their mind than distorting their knowledge of reality in order to prevent them from deciding something you dislike isnt abnormal.

Those homos are the type that hate heteros for hating them earlier in human history and now they want to make them suffer or wipe them out maybe.
I have no idea who you are on about, but I suspect since they dont exist outside your head, it's of no import.

Maybe if they shut up once everyone gave them rights but to keep going means that they just want power.
Seriously, what the hell are you on about?

I have no problem with the centrist ones who don't force their sexuality on people but brainwashing people to be like them is wrong,
What has that got to do with anything here? The only ones trying to force their sexuality on anyone in this whole issue are heterosexuals. As for the 'brainwashing' comment, talk about BS. I do not know of a single homosexual who has suggested that children ought only ever be exposed to their sexuality as you are doing, and you are the one accusing overs of trying to brainwash people? It's you who wants to manipulate the truth in order to force your view of the world on children, it's you who wants to force your sexuality on others by censoring any suggestion that it is not the only possible way for a human to be.

and it doesn't matter who you are trying to mentally assimilate innocent children into your collective is EVIL!
And yet that is precisely what you are demanding a right to do.

There's anti-semitism and we never got taught not to hate Jews.
There's anti-Frenchism and we never got taught about the humanity of the French.
There's anti-Irish sentiment and we never got taught not to tell IRA jokes.

Did they cut all of the jews out of your stories so you wouldn't be "exposed". All the french people? All the Irish? Did they pretend Jews and the French and the Irish are a taboo subject that is too dirty for a seven-year-old to know about?

More importantly, if there was a group arguing that all books with Jewish, Irish and French characters be removed from the shelves of schools would you endorse that group or would you recognize them for the bigots they are?

This isn't teaching children about homosexuality because the story is NOT about sexuality at all. This is telling children a story that contains characters they reflect the types of people found in society.

If you want to talk about exposing them to concepts they migth confusing because they are highly unlikely to encounter anyone of that particular nature, then it's the fact they are Princes that you should be bitching about.

The link in the first post is a perfect example. We all know children are suggestible and here they are trying to fill their minds with this stuff, we must expose kids to whats normal so that they can choose freely rather than being psychologically forced into homosexuality. Those homos are the type that hate heteros for hating them earlier in human history and now they want to make them suffer or wipe them out maybe.

Maybe if they shut up once everyone gave them rights but to keep going means that they just want power. I have no problem with the centrist ones who don't force their sexuality on people but brainwashing people to be like them is wrong, and it doesn't matter who you are trying to mentally assimilate innocent children into your collective is EVIL!

Wow. Just wow. So apparently one's hold on heterosexuality is so tenuous that simply reading a story that contains two men in love will "psychologically force them into homosexuality".

Wow, one must wonder how you made it this far as a heterosexual. Certainly, you've encounter a gay person or 20 by now in your life. Apparently just seeing one will suddenly make you desire to listen to showtunes and become a decorator or any number of other stereotypes.

I agree with Poliwanacraca. There's nothing wrong with a love story between two guys. See the film "Beautiful Thing".

I prefer stories with men kissing each other to stories with men killing each other.

I prefer stories with men kissing each other to stories with men killing each other.

That's just weird. Most of my favorite books and movies involve men killing each other and none involve men kissing each other.

That's just weird. Most of my favorite books and movies involve men killing each other and none involve men kissing each other.

A chacun son gout, DcD. Vive la difference.

The gays are trying to brainwash your kids and wipe out your way of life through gay children's books.

Oh no, guys, the straights are on to us!

Abort the plan! Abort! Everyone to the fabulously decorated pink escape pods! :D

A chacun son gout, DcD. Vive la difference.

Je non parle Francais.

The link in the first post is a perfect example. We all know children are suggestible and here they are trying to fill their minds with this stuff, we must expose kids to whats normal so that they can choose freely rather than being psychologically forced into homosexuality. Those homos are the type that hate heteros for hating them earlier in human history and now they want to make them suffer or wipe them out maybe.

Maybe if they shut up once everyone gave them rights but to keep going means that they just want power. I have no problem with the centrist ones who don't force their sexuality on people but brainwashing people to be like them is wrong, and it doesn't matter who you are trying to mentally assimilate innocent children into your collective is EVIL!

So in other words, you're gay, but you think by bashing gays verbally no one will suspect you.

Je non parle Francais.

Verbs are negated with "ne...pas" (or "ne... point", but that's posh and archaic), so "Je ne parle pas Francais". Don't you love learnin'?

Verbs are negated with "ne...pas" (or "ne... point", but that's posh and archaic), so "Je ne parle pas Francais". Don't you love learnin'?

I told you I don't speak no French. BTW, what did Dobbs say?

DCD, you said "I no speak French". You actually spoke pidgin. :D

I told you I don't speak no French.

That's just a sad circumstance that is easily rectified.

BTW, what did Dobbs say?

"A chacun son goût" = lit. "To each his taste" ~ "To each his own". "Vive la différence" = "[Long] Live difference!".

That's just a sad circumstance that is easily rectified.



"A chacun son goût" = lit. "To each his taste" ~ "To each his own". "Vive la différence" = "[Long] Live difference!".

Thank you.

DCD, you said "I no speak French". You actually spoke pidgin. :D

Well I do like birds.

I told you I don't speak no French. BTW, what did Dobbs say?

Y'know, I bet Babel Fish could probably handle it without dropping the ball too egregiously.

What I said was, "to each their own taste", or as we'd say in English, simply "to each their own". But now I'm curious.

each one its taste has

Meh, close enough for jazz.

Babelfish sucks with French. I translated "gunship frigate" to French and back, and it came up as "drain-hole frigate". What the fuck is up with that?

It is generally useful for homeworks though. Thank God I've given up French.

Thank you.

Pas de quoi.

That's a shortening of "Il n'y a pas de quoi me remercier" which means "There is nothing to thank me for" and is just one of several ways French people say "You're welcome" (the most informal way of saying it).

Others are "de rien" (most common), "je vous en prie" (most formal) and "avec plaisir" (works in all situations).

Why isn't anyone afraid that exposure to a book that portrays a royal family in a positive light will convert their children into rabid monarchists, ready to overthrow the government at a moment's notice?

Why isn't anyone afraid that exposure to a book that portrays a royal family in a positive light will convert their children into rabid monarchists, ready to overthrow the government at a moment's notice?

Wasn't Camilla just in the US? That should put most of those concerns to rest.

How is it people can't see the hypocrisy of it?

How is it people can't see the hypocrisy of it?

They're too enamoured by the horse face.

How is it people can't see the hypocrisy of it?

The hypocrisy of what?

*Gather angry mod in Boston to prepare to take the city and install a conservative kingdom of True America."

Wouldn't that work better in Texas?

The hypocrisy of what?The hypocrisy of making a fuss about homorelations in childrens books, while going out of one's way not to make a fuss about heterorelations in childrens books.

One'd think that if relationships were bad they'd be so universally, or if they're acceptable they're universally acceptable.

Pure fucking doublethink.

How is it people can't see the hypocrisy of it?

Because in the minds of many of these people, same-sex attraction and expressions of same-sex attraction are tolerable in the privacy of your home - and nowhere else.

Otherwise, you're "shoving it down their throats."

If the parents don't like it, they should find another school. It is America, I'm sure there are plenty.

Because in the minds of many of these people, same-sex attraction and expressions of same-sex attraction are tolerable in the privacy of your home - and nowhere else.

Otherwise, you're "shoving it down their throats."I know, I know. It just never ceases to amaze me people can make themselves act so insane.

Because in the minds of many of these people, same-sex attraction and expressions of same-sex attraction are tolerable in the privacy of your home - and nowhere else.

Otherwise, you're "shoving it down their throats." Oddly enough, this is the view of many self-proclaimed "enlightened" individuals when it comes to religion.

Oddly enough, this is the view of many self-proclaimed "enlightened" individuals when it comes to religion.

The two are simply not comparable. Religious belief has far wider, and potentially far more annoying and harmful, implications for your behavior than same-sex attraction does.

Oddly enough, this is the view of many self-proclaimed "enlightened" individuals when it comes to religion.Emphasis mine. I'm wondering where these many are? I'm absolutely in favour of keeping religion out of the public sphere, but I am also absolutely opposed to making it taboo.

Wanna wear your holy symbol in public? Fine with me. Wanna build churches & shit? Fine with me. Wanna bug other people with your religion by engaging them in conversations & whatnot? Not so fucking fine.

I don't have any problems with heteros & homos making out in public. It's normal human behaviour. I'd have a problem with if it I got cum flying in down my neck from the backseat of the bus, because that makes me a participant in your shit, without my consent.

The two are simply not comparable. Religious belief has far wider, and potentially far more annoying and harmful, implications for your behavior than same-sex attraction does. That's about as subjective and relevant as me bringing up STDs would be.

That's about as subjective

Yes, it is indeed "subjective." Most things are.

and relevant as me bringing up STDs would be.

Only the harm and annoyance potentially caused by religion extends far further than the potential, fairly easily preventable consequences of generally consensual acts.

For one, we don't try to convert you.

(For what it's worth, not only do I have no real problem with public expressions of religion in general, but I also have no objection to people trying to convert me... unless they are manipulative and cruel about it. I still think the analogy is illegitimate, however, and insofar as "public expressions of religion" that manifest sexism and homophobia go, I have no tolerance at all.)

<Snip>... I'm just gonna let you post replies for me from nw on, because damn man, you make me look bad.

Oddly enough, this is the view of many self-proclaimed "enlightened" individuals when it comes to religion.

Religion is a belief system. They are not comparable. This isn't even about homosexuality. This is about same-sex relationships, and if you want to claim that relationship should remain entirely private then it cannot be applied discriminatorily. So no more Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty either.

If you wanted an even remotely appropriate comparison, then you'd have to say that asking homosexuals to keep their relationships hidden within the home would be like, oh, I don't know, asking Christians to keep their beliefs hidden while letting buddhism be taught in school.

And as pointed out, very few want to make religion taboo, only that one can try and convert people using public forums. These books are make no more effort to convert people to homosexuality than a book about a heterosexual couple does.

The message that book teaches is "guys should dump girls and go for the same sex"


Wow, you just totally lost all respect. I had agreed with you about the subversive groups, until you started ranting about the Waco cultists and Gays wanting to exteminate everyone. And man, you just synched it.

If you wanted an even remotely appropriate comparison, then you'd have to say that asking homosexuals to keep their relationships hidden within the home would be like, oh, I don't know, asking Christians to keep their beliefs hidden while letting buddhism be taught in school.

I believe a more appropriate comparison would be asking Buddhists to keep their beliefs hidden while Christianity is taught in school.

This isn't even about homosexuality. This is about same-sex relationships

Uh...what the fuck?

Oh no, guys, the straights are on to us!

Abort the plan! Abort! Everyone to the fabulously decorated pink escape pods! :D

Yes! Let's abort! Our final strike against the breeders! *Aborts children*

This isn't even about homosexuality. This is about same-sex relationships *snip*

Ummm...

Ummm...

Apparently he's fine with homosexuals, so long as they limit themselves to one-night stands.

Because there is no sexuality in the book being discussed any more than there is in Cinderella. It has nothing to do with sexuality. Only relationships.

Okay, I guess that's a point.

I believe a more appropriate comparison would be asking Buddhists to keep their beliefs hidden while Christianity is taught in school.



Uh...what the fuck?

Because there is no sexuality in the book being discussed any more than there is in Cinderella. It has nothing to do with sexuality. Only relationships.

Ummm...

I've stated this repeatedly. They imply with the usage that these books are impressing a particularly sexuality on people, but these books aren't about sexuality of any meaning. These books only happen to have characters in a particular type of relationship. The characters could be homosexual, bisexual or technically even heterosexual and just engaging in a same-sex relationship. They don't deal with attraction in any meaningful way. Sexuality is not defined by what we do, but by who we are attracted to.

Because there is no sexuality in the book being discussed any more than there is in Cinderella. It has nothing to do with sexuality. Only relationships.

Cinderella was a slut who would put out for material possessions. Put some glass on her toes and she's your bitch.

I've stated this repeatedly. They imply with the usage that these books are impressing a particularly sexuality on people, but these books aren't about sexuality of any meaning. These books only happen to have characters in a particular type of relationship. The characters could be homosexual, bisexual or technically even heterosexual and just engaging in a same-sex relationship. They don't deal with attraction in any meaningful way. Sexuality is not defined by what we do, but by who we are attracted to.

So Cinderella might have been a lesbian who just happened to be in a heterosexual relationship?

That is the most bizarre thing I've ever heard.

Then again, the undertones of bestiality in Little Red Riding Hood ARE disturbing...:confused:

A chacun son gout, DcD. Vive la difference.
what is that? Quebecois?

what is that? Quebecois?

Only if you're speaking American.

Cinderella was a slut who would put out for material possessions. Put some glass on her toes and she's your bitch.

Well, if it was a Jimmy Choo or Manolo Blahnik, who can blame her?

So Cinderella might have been a lesbian who just happened to be in a heterosexual relationship?

That is the most bizarre thing I've ever heard.

Then again, the undertones of bestiality in Little Red Riding Hood ARE disturbing...:confused:

Of course she could have been. Why not? You've never heard of someone married for twenty years and then leaving for someone of the same sex? Sexuality is not about action. It's about desire.

Of course she could have been. Why not? You've never heard of someone married for twenty years and then leaving for someone of the same sex? Sexuality is not about action. It's about desire.

So we WEREN'T led to believe in that story that Cinderella was in fact heterosexual, in a heterosexual relationship? We were, instead, to infer that it was possible she was actually a lesbian, or a lebanese man in drag perhaps?

You are claiming that the story has nothing to do with sexuality, just relationships. Clearly Cinderella was attracted to the prince. Assuming (but we can't know, according to your supposition) that she was a woman, then the relationship was heterosexual. Maybe later on they both discovered they were gay and the dynamics of the relationship changed, and the issue of sexuality shifted, but that isn't covered in the scope of the book. It's bizarre in the extreme that you would think children hearing or reading these stories are not going to be making judgments about relationships AND sexuality based on the facts put before them.

Well, if it was a Jimmy Choo or Manolo Blahnik, who can blame her?
I'd even be someone's bitch for that.

Then again, the undertones of bestiality in Little Red Riding Hood ARE disturbing...:confused:

Cinderella was a slut who would put out for material possessions. Put some glass on her toes and she's your bitch.

...Don't forget it's okay to cut deals with satan to find your true love! The Little Mermaid did it!

now that I think about it, my parents were wonderful. When I was little, My parents just said "Some women love other women, and some men love other men. They're not very common though, so I'm not sure if you'll ever meet one. They meet alot of prejudice because they're different. But they're just people."

Cue Junior High later I'm a staunch Ally. To my sister and I, my dad said "I don't really care what they do. It's their life, and they can do as they wish. I disagree with civil unions because they're a half-assed bastardization of a real marriage. Just bloody give them the whole thing. Oh, and if one of you two turns lesbian, don't tell me. I have a heart condition."

Amusingly enough, my mother is against gay marriage. Reason?

Mom: "I'm against gay marriage because of tax reasons."
Rest of family: "...come again?"
Mom: "Marriage equals tax exemptions. If more people get married, more people get tax exemptions. And if more people get tax exemptions, tax will rise all over the place. We should keep people from getting married. Like Britney Spears."
Dad: "I have... no idea... what to say about that. Because... it's a little true.... but it's kinda wrong... I don't know."

So we WEREN'T led to believe in that story that Cinderella was in fact heterosexual, in a heterosexual relationship? We were, instead, to infer that it was possible she was actually a lesbian, or a lebanese man in drag perhaps?

You are claiming that the story has nothing to do with sexuality, just relationships. Clearly Cinderella was attracted to the prince. Assuming (but we can't know, according to your supposition) that she was a woman, then the relationship was heterosexual. Maybe later on they both discovered they were gay and the dynamics of the relationship changed, and the issue of sexuality shifted, but that isn't covered in the scope of the book. It's bizarre in the extreme that you would think children hearing or reading these stories are not going to be making judgments about relationships AND sexuality based on the facts put before them.

We weren't led to believe anything that we didn't put on it. You think kids are looking at this story and deciding that Cinderella is attracted to the Prince? Really? You were thinking about sexuality at seven? How sad for you. I was thinking about playing football with my friends or pretending we were soldiers. I definitely not thinking about what gender or sex of people I wanted to have sex nor what gender or sex of people other people wanted to have sex with. I don't remmeber Cinderella or the Prince saying that other was cute or sexy or hot or any such thing. I don't recall any indication that they were doing ANYTHING other than fulfilling a sort of simplistic and cliched role for one another.

Children cannot be sexualized unless WE sexualize them. A story that is simply about two individuals in a relationship designed for children has nothing to do with sex nor should it.

And if we look to these stories to teach any bad thing, any bad form of indoctrination, it's that these women should hide out or wait for a some man to come and save them from the evil that would overtake them if not for said man. No complaints coming about that though. Just complaints that children might see two people of the same sex in a relationship because heterosexuality is a part of us that sits on a tiny little peak just waiting to be pushed off by exposure to anything else.

now that I think about it, my parents were wonderful. When I was little, My parents just said "Some women love other women, and some men love other men. They're not very common though, so I'm not sure if you'll ever meet one. They meet alot of prejudice because they're different. But they're just people."

Cue Junior High later I'm a staunch Ally. To my sister and I, my dad said "I don't really care what they do. It's their life, and they can do as they wish. I disagree with civil unions because they're a half-assed bastardization of a real marriage. Just bloody give them the whole thing. Oh, and if one of you two turns lesbian, don't tell me. I have a heart condition."

Amusingly enough, my mother is against gay marriage. Reason?

Mom: "I'm against gay marriage because of tax reasons."
Rest of family: "...come again?"
Mom: "Marriage equals tax exemptions. If more people get married, more people get tax exemptions. And if more people get tax exemptions, tax will rise all over the place. We should keep people from getting married. Like Britney Spears."
Dad: "I have... no idea... what to say about that. Because... it's a little true.... but it's kinda wrong... I don't know."

I think I like your parents. But that argument of your mom's is messed up and... well I agree with your dad's assessment of it.

I'd even be someone's bitch for that.

I've been a bitch for less, so the girl deserves a break.

Well, if it was a Jimmy Choo or Manolo Blahnik, who can blame her?

Her conscience?


Why can't I ask that with a straight face?

I've been a bitch for less, so the girl deserves a break.
Or you deserve worse :p

I've been a bitch for less, so the girl deserves a break.

Fass, have you or anyone you know who is homosexual ever had a romantic relationship with someone of the opposite sex?

Fass, have you or anyone you know who is homosexual ever had a romantic relationship with someone of the opposite sex?

No, not apart from sham/beard arrangements.

Her conscience?

And whom would this be hurting to cause any sort of need for a conscience?

Why can't I ask that with a straight face?

You're really asking the wrong person.

Or you deserve worse :p

Fortunately for me, antiquated notions of "morality" play no part in my life.

And whom would this be hurting to cause any sort of need for a conscience?


My joke failed. I feel like I need to throw up but not because of this topic but because I am sick. Nobody would be hurt. I'm just an idiot.

My joke failed. I feel like I need to throw up but not because of this topic but because I am sick. Nobody would be hurt. I'm just an idiot.

Don't be so hard on yourself, and have some miso soup. That always soothes when I'm ill.

Who the hell are some of you thining you are. You say 'Gay' and 'Gay's'as if its a disease. Grow up open your minds, the 'gays are just people like us, they talk they laugh they fall in love bla bla...just like us. Yeah ok some are very 'Fahbulous!' but still how can they ruin our lives with a book people are brainwashed when they see no alternative , in this world we have alternatives.

Don't be so hard on yourself, and have some miso soup. That always soothes when I'm ill.

This is an excellent idea.

No, not apart from sham/beard arrangements.

I don't exclude them. Come on, we're talking about a story about two people who have never interacted in any real way and he doesn't even recognize her until she puts the shoe on. It's really hope no one is learning that this represents how relationships should be in any real way.

The point is that we have all seen people who were in relationships for whatever reason that weren't actually attracted to that sex of person or that particular person.

I don't exclude them. Come on, we're talking about a story about two people who have never interacted in any real way and he doesn't even recognize her until she puts the shoe on. It's really hope no one is learning that this represents how relationships should be in any real way.

The point is that we have all seen people who were in relationships for whatever reason that weren't actually attracted to that sex of person or that particular person.

That's not a romantic relationship, and if you deem it such, well, that's just sad, really.

:eek: AAH! The Gays have turned you! *runs*

Quick! Jump in the black, poorly decorated hummer!

Who the hell are some of you thining you are. You say 'Gay' and 'Gay's'as if its a disease. Grow up open your minds, the 'gays are just people like us, they talk they laugh they fall in love bla bla...just like us. Yeah ok some are very 'Fahbulous!' but still how can they ruin our lives with a book people are brainwashed when they see no alternative , in this world we have alternatives.

:eek: AAH! The Gays have turned you! *runs*

This is an excellent idea.

You can never go wrong with miso. I'm addicted to it. In fact, I just made myself a cup. *yummy for my tummy*

That's not a romantic relationship, and if you deem it such, well, that's just sad, really.

I'd say it's as romantic as a relationship where a prince shows up to kiss a woman on the lips in order to wake her up from a trance put on her by a witch or a prince can't tell if a woman is the woman he "loves" until he finds out if her foot will fit in the shoe he brought with him. And they are considered in love forever, never having spoken or even knowing anything about each other. Sham relationships, beards, arranged marriages, prince/damsel in distress relationships, none of them are anything to aspire to or to consider any kind of a relationship of romantic value.

I'd say it's as romantic as a relationship where a prince shows up to kiss a woman on the lips in order to wake her up from a trance put on her by a witch. And they are considered in love forever, never having spoken or even knowing anything about each other. Sham relationships, beards, arranged marriages, prince/damsel in distress relationships, none of them are anything to aspire to or to consider any kind of a relationship of romantic value.

Convoluted and over-laboured as that was, I fail to see your point. A sham is a sham - the heterosexual relationships in the stories, however flat and two dimensional they may be (some would claim all heterosexual relationships to be that way :)) are not meant to be shams, they're meant to be full of "love", or what passes as a poor heterosexual substitute for it.

Convoluted and over-laboured as that was, I fail to see your point. A sham is a sham - the heterosexual relationships in the stories, however flat and two dimensional they may be (some would claim all heterosexual relationships to be that way :)) are not meant to be shams, they're meant to be full of "love", or what passes as a poor heterosexual substitute for it.

Ah, does anyone ever get tired of Fass's gay trolling?

Isn't it interesting this is one of those cases you can call something stupid "gay" and not be offensive?

Not to mention making a deal with the devil so you can grow legs.

Not to mention making a deal with the devil so you can grow legs.

Did it already earlier in the thread:

...Don't forget it's okay to cut deals with satan to find your true love! The Little Mermaid did it!

Ah, does anyone ever get tired of Fass's gay trolling?

Well, if they get as tired as I do of certain people's lack of humour...

Convoluted and over-laboured as that was, I fail to see your point. A sham is a sham - the heterosexual relationships in the stories, however flat and two dimensional they may be (some would claim all heterosexual relationships to be that way :)) are not meant to be shams, they're meant to be full of "love", or what passes as a poor heterosexual substitute for it.

Both relationships are flat and one-dimensional for different reasons. In both cases these are just people falling into stereotypical roles, the only difference is the reason and in no instance is that reason based on attraction. I don't see a difference.

There is nothing in any of these stories that suggest anything resembling attraction or even a mild basis of it. For the most part the only thing these stories bank on is that one is automatically a great catch if he is a prince and that he would automatically want to spend his life with a damsel if she happens to be in distress.

Even if one reads into it, it becomes about good and evil, not who we are or aren't attracted to. Something tells me that no matter how good or evil a woman is that you'll never be attracted to her even if you are a prince.

EDIT: Don't worry, I'm sure I'm not the only one who laughed.

Both relationships are flat and one-dimensional for different reasons. In both cases these are just people falling into stereotypical roles, the only difference is the reason and in no instance is that reason based on attraction. I don't see a difference.

There is nothing in any of these stories that suggest anything resembling attraction or even a mild basis of it. For the most part the only thing these stories bank on is that one is automatically a great catch if he is a prince and that he would automatically want to spend his life with a damsel if she happens to be in distress.

Even if one reads into it, it becomes about good and evil, not who we are or aren't attracted to. Something tells me that no matter how good or evil a woman is that you'll never be attracted to her even if you are a prince.

I still don't see the point you're trying to make, and why with me?

Did it already earlier in the thread:

Damn you! :D

Convoluted and over-laboured as that was, I fail to see your point. A sham is a sham - the heterosexual relationships in the stories, however flat and two dimensional they may be (some would claim all heterosexual relationships to be that way :)) are not meant to be shams, they're meant to be full of "love", or what passes as a poor heterosexual substitute for it.
More people would claim that homosexuals can never experience love :)

Very few of these fairy-tails are actual about the male-female relationship. Cinderella, for instance, is about oppression and reward. Beauty and The Beast is alternatively about a women changing her perception about sex or looking past outside appearances. Sleeping Beauty is about making Disney money.

Trying to make them about relationships is like trying to make The Tortoise and The Hare about the abuse of steroids in modern sports.

More people would claim that homosexuals can never experience love :)

And that fringe are called loonies, but that's no news to you, eh?

More people would claim that homosexuals can never experience love :)

Very few of these fairy-tails are actual about the male-female relationship. Cinderella, for instance, is about oppression and reward. Beauty and The Beast is alternatively about a women changing her perception about sex or looking past outside appearances. Sleeping Beauty is about making Disney money.

Trying to make them about relationships is like trying to make The Tortoise and The Hare about the abuse of steroids in modern sports.

You mean it's not? :eek:

I still don't see the point you're trying to make, and why with me?

I wasn't trying to make a point to you. I asked you specifically because you make it clear that you're gay... period. You're don't regret being gay and nothing about you suggests that you might actually care to be in a heterosexual relationshp.

It's basically being suggested that because two people date that we can conclude they are attracted to one another and that simply isn't necessarily true.

I wasn't arguing with you. I was asking you to be an example or to hold up an example. By being comfortable with who you are and likely having friends who are also comfortable with who they are, you were a good person to ask.

The fact that you don't entirely agree with my point actually helps in my opinion as it shows that you're not just trying to support me.

I wasn't trying to make a point to you. I asked you specifically because you make it clear that you're gay... period. You're don't regret being gay and nothing about you suggests that you might actually care to be in a heterosexual relationshp.

It's basically being suggested that because two people date that we can conclude they are attracted to one another and that simply isn't necessarily true.

I wasn't arguing with you. I was asking you to be an example or to hold up an example. By being comfortable with who you are and likely having friends who are also comfortable with who they are, you were a good person to ask.

The fact that you don't entirely agree with my point actually helps in my opinion as it shows that you're not just trying to support me.

It's not that I don't agree, it's that I don't get it.

Very few of these fairy-tails are actual about the male-female relationship. Cinderella, for instance, is about oppression and reward. Beauty and The Beast is alternatively about a women changing her perception about sex or looking past outside appearances. Sleeping Beauty is about making Disney money.

Trying to make them about relationships is like trying to make The Tortoise and The Hare about the abuse of steroids in modern sports.

Fairytale... and more or less, yes. These stories are actually piss-poor examples of relationships of any type and one would hope that teaching the kinds of gender roles they espouse would be of greater concern than whether or not that they are heterosexual enough.

And that fringe are called loonies, but that's no news to you, eh?
You're right. I should ally with the completely sane group who says that all heterosexual relationships are two-dimensional and superficial.

You mean it's not? :eek:
Nope. It obviously about a race war started by black athletes. What are you, dense?

And that fringe are called loonies, but that's no news to you, eh?

So...when you claim heterosexuals cannot truely experience love, it's reasonable, but when anyone claims homosexuals cannot truely experience love, it's lunacy?

You're right. I should ally with the completely sane group who says that all heterosexual relationships are two-dimensional and superficial.

If it doesn't get in the way of your humourless anonymous meetings, then be our guest.

You're right. I should ally with the completely sane group who says that all heterosexual relationships are two-dimensional and superficial.

Join the Log Cabin Republicans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhzKPvqI0D8&NR)

:D

So...when you claim heterosexuals cannot truely experience love

See, tired. (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12314718&postcount=178)

See, tired. (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12314718&postcount=178)
You obviously missed the smiley by my post :)

What, can't take a joke?

See, tired. (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12314718&postcount=178)

Fass, maybe you should lay off the "joking" straight bashing. It's making a lot of people consider you a troll, in my opinion.

See this guy?

http://www.satoripaint.com/images/tutorials/Digitpic3.jpg

This is how people are starting to imagine you.

It's not that I don't agree, it's that I don't get it.

I'm merely saying that sexuality is about whom you are attracted to, not whom you date. A man can marry a woman, have children with her, even love her, but if he's attracted to men alone, he's a homosexual no matter how his relationship might make things appear. It's precisely on this point that many fundamentalists who claim they are 'curing' homosexuals are being tripped up. You could date women for the rest of your life but your homosexuality will never be any different than it always was.

This story doesn't ever touch on anything relating to attraction. It's demonstrates gender roles, but nothing at all about attraction. In some cases, they princes who are trying to save the various damsels don't even see or talk or know anything about the damsel before they come to "claim" them.

You obviously missed the smiley by my post :)

What, can't take a joke?

I take everything by you as a joke, so don't sweat it.

Fass, maybe you should lay off the "joking" straight bashing. It's making a lot of people consider you a troll, in my opinion.

See this guy?

http://www.satoripaint.com/images/tutorials/Digitpic3.jpg

This is how people are starting to imagine you.

Hawt! :)

Am I the only one who's tired of everyone defending a bunch of freaks with mental problems who can never love trying to pass themselves off as people "following a different lifestyle?"

Fass, maybe you should lay off the "joking" straight bashing. It's making a lot of people consider you a troll, in my opinion.

This is me not caring.

^ Whee, look at me go!

See this guy?http://www.satoripaint.com/images/tutorials/Digitpic3.jpg
This is how people are starting to imagine you.

Butch - that would be a novel change.

This is me not caring.


No matter whether or not you care, gays have a deep mental problem and need treatment.

No matter whether or not you care, gays have a deep mental problem and need treatment.

Me not caring is also me not biting, so you might want to try your sadness on someone else.

Me not caring is also me not biting, so you might want to try your sadness on someone else.

Now who doesn't have a sense of humor? Gotcha.

:p

Now who doesn't have a sense of humor?

Still you, it would seem - which coincidentally was the sadness I was alluding to.

Still you, it would seem - which coincidentally was the sadness I was alluding to.

Are you sure it's not you? It seems to be you. Yup.

Are you sure it's not you?

You leave me without doubt.

You leave me without doubt.

Funny, I feel the same way about you. :fluffle:

Explain why it's "humorous" when you troll, but it isn't when I do it?

There is only one way to settle this: Thunderdome.

:)

There is only one way to settle this: Thunderdome.

:)

I looked that up on wikipedia. Are you referring to the Mad Max thing?

I looked that up on wikipedia. Are you referring to the Mad Max thing?

Duh.

Duh.

Sorry...I've only seen one Mad Max movie, and it was when I was like six or seven, alright?

Explain why it's "humorous" when you troll, but it isn't when I do it?

Because I don't troll and because my jokes are funny.

I looked that up on wikipedia. Are you referring to the Mad Max thing?

Two men enter! One man leaves! :)

Two men enter! One man leaves! :)

I predict either reverse Siamese surgery or a sex change op. :)

I predict either reverse Siamese surgery or a sex change op. :)

I suspect the latter because it's easier to do with a chainsaw. :)

Because I don't troll and because my jokes are funny.

...Um...You're saying that saying straight people cannot experience love is not trolling and is funny?

Is it just me or should 7-year olds be learning about grammar and arithmetic in class, rather than homosexuality?

Is it just me or should 7-year olds be learning about grammar and arithmetic in class, rather than homosexuality?

If they're learning about heterosexuality, and by that age they certainly are, shouldn't they also be learning about homosexuality?

Because I don't troll and because my jokes are funny.

*snort* At the last part, anyway. Way to dictate what's humourous.

Aah, sometimes I just don't know weather to laugh or cry at some things that go on today... I guess apathy works too :rolleyes:

Convoluted and over-laboured as that was, I fail to see your point. A sham is a sham - the heterosexual relationships in the stories, however flat and two dimensional they may be (some would claim all heterosexual relationships to be that way :)) are not meant to be shams, they're meant to be full of "love", or what passes as a poor heterosexual substitute for it.

I got a present for you. A big box of STFU.

...Um...You're saying that saying straight people cannot experience love is not trolling and is funny?

Yes, since it's a parodistic mockery of all those who claim the same about homosexual relationships. See, you actually have to think about it a bit, alien as such a task may strike you.

*snort* At the last part, anyway. Way to dictate what's humourous.

Of course I dictate what's humorous. Who else would for me?

I got a present for you. A big box of STFU.

I shall have to return to a seemingly very needy sender.

...Um...You're saying that saying straight people cannot experience love is not trolling and is funny?

Fass isn't a troll. Maybe try thinking a bit about what he's saying.

Fass isn't a troll. Maybe try thinking a bit about what he's saying.

I did. And promptly decided it was stupid.

Is it just me or should 7-year olds be learning about grammar and arithmetic in class, rather than homosexuality?

Grammar, arithmatic are important but we should also learn about cultures.

I did. And promptly decided it was stupid.

I believe it was meant to be satirical.

But unfortunately is all too often the rule instead of the exception.

I believe it was meant to be satirical.

More parodistic as I wrote, but obviously there is a certain ilk it is lost on, and I have to say it's best that way.

I believe it was meant to be satirical.

But unfortunately is all too often the rule instead of the exception.

I know it was meant to be satirical. The problem is however, fass tends to make his satire a little to close to reality. And then start ripping into people who can't tell.

Is it just me or should 7-year olds be learning about grammar and arithmetic in class, rather than homosexuality?

They are also learning about reading. And you may be surprised by this, but books have these things called characters. Characters have these things called traits. Apparently if one of these traits is dating or marrying the opposite gender that is acceptable to the various bigots who are complaining, but if it happens to be dating or marrying the same gender then it's shoving homosexuality down their throats or brainwashing or indoctrination or any number of other ridiculous claims.

I know it was meant to be satirical. The problem is however, fass tends to make his satire a little to close to reality. And then start ripping into people who can't tell.

So you admit this all started because you can't see the sarcasm in his statements. Good. Knowing is half the battle.

Meanwhile, aren't you embarrassed that you've allowed your conversation to degrade to:

A: You've got ugly knees.
B: I know you do but what am I?
A: Nuh-uh
B: Yeah, it's you.
A: No, you.

etc.

You mean the gays and the jews are working together?!:eek:

Don't count on that, plenty of Jewish clerics raised a stink over gay 'sinners' trying to hold World Pride in Jerusalem. Jewish people aren't above homophobia, even though we were right there with them in the concentration camps. But, then, Jewish people are people as prone to bigotry as any other people. None of us learns from history.

Would probably confuse them more than anything else.


Why? Some men fall in love with women, some men fall in love with men. There's nothing confusing about it, not even to a child.

In fact, it would probably be *more* confusing to a kid who happens to have a crush on another kid of the same gender, if everything they heard and saw and read showed boys getting together with girls. Is it any wonder that in a system where such a shrill, righteous stink is raised over portrayals of diversity that gay kids have been growing up feeling isolated?

And that fringe are called loonies, but that's no news to you, eh?

Yes. They are loonies. Are you a loony then? ;)

Look, I know it's a parody, but it's not one of your better jokes, I didn't find it funny either.

In fact, it would probably be *more* confusing to a kid who happens to have a crush on another kid of the same gender, if everything they heard and saw and read showed boys getting together with girls. Is it any wonder that in a system where such a shrill, righteous stink is raised over portrayals of diversity that gay kids have been growing up feeling isolated?

Exactly. There's little reason that same sex relationships should make any less sense to a 7 year old than opposite sex ones. And if people grew up with the understanding that homosexuality wasn't something abnormal, just less common, then puberty wouldn't be any more difficult than it already is if one was homosexual. A kid who found themself attracted to the same sex wouldn't worry about that particular issue any more than a kid who was attracted to the opposite sex.

Exactly. There's little reason that same sex relationships should make any less sense to a 7 year old than opposite sex ones.
Actually, children of around seven years old have a better understanding of sexuality, or what should rather be called heteronormativity, than you're implying. They most likely see heterosexual couples everywhere around them, they will most likely have heterosexual parents and the division between girls and boys and the implications this has for their sexual identity are very well understood at this age; just look at a bunch of kids playing house. Therefore I do think that reading a story like King & King will confuse them, and I like that idea for the exact same reasons these parents hate it. The kids will be confused, they think about it and start to ask questions, look around, do everything they can to understand what exactly same sex relationships are. I think throwing a story like this at them before they have any preconceived notions of homosexuality is the only way to allow for an honest exploration of the subject. If I'd live in Boston I'd know where to send my kids to school.

Is it just me or should 7-year olds be learning about grammar and arithmetic in class, rather than homosexuality?
Fasle dilema.
We no more choose between teaching either grammar/arithmetic or basic social understandings about the society our children are being taught how to paticipate in and contribute to, than we need to choose between giving our children good diets or ensuring they get sufficient sleep.

Exactly. There's little reason that same sex relationships should make any less sense to a 7 year old than opposite sex ones. And if people grew up with the understanding that homosexuality wasn't something abnormal, just less common, then puberty wouldn't be any more difficult than it already is if one was homosexual. A kid who found themself attracted to the same sex wouldn't worry about that particular issue any more than a kid who was attracted to the opposite sex.Why is that an issue at all? I mean, where do you live? Since when do kids give a shit for a society's position on anything (especially since the nineties) ? If one is attracted to another person that one will find a way. You really overestimate the society's influence on somebody's personal life.

Why is that an issue at all? I mean, where do you live? Since when do kids give a shit for a society's position on anything (especially since the nineties) ? If one is attracted to another person that one will find a way. You really overestimate the society's influence on somebody's personal life.

Even the San Francisco Bay Area, I have seen first hand that it really sucked for those who were gay during their adolescent years, middle school moreso than high school. Why? Because even today, the prevalent underlying attitude is that homosexuality is something abnormal. Most kids, when they hit puberty, don't really think about the fact that they're attracted to the opposite sex, it's kinda taken for granted. However, for some poor kid who's not, who instead finds themself having those feelings for members of their own sex, this time would be very confusing and maybe even frightening, since, let's be honest, our society still doesn't view homosexuality as being just as normal as heterosexuality.

I'm not talking about adult society's position, but that of the other students. And if you think that doesn't matter to an individual student, you must be either stupid or incredibly naive. Anybody who has been different from the percieved 'norm' in middle school especially knows that it's not fun. And for a kid who is homosexual, they can't really change that difference. The fact that every other insult used by their peers is "that's gay" or "fag," doesn't help either. And yes, this is in the San Francisco Bay Area. If the supposed gay capital of the US has such homophobia, I dread to think how much it must suck to grow up gay elsewhere in this country. That is why we need to change the perception that homosexuality is somehow abnormal or unnatural. It is neither, it's just less common. Red hair is also this way. Unless you live in Ireland.

so who'se this we? somebody got a mouse in their pocket again?

the cameroi/carlemnarian/lananaran way of life exists primarily in our own mind.
though small parts of it appear here and there from time to time.

it doesn't have a damd thing to do with what anyone does or does not go to bed with, where, when or how often, but it certainly has no love for belligerance, aggressiveness or fanatacism, of any sort.

as for what happens to the way of life currently dominant on mundane planet earth, or ever has been, whether or not it would be any sort of a loss entirely depends on what, if anything, it's replaced by.

personaly i'd like to see a return to natural diversity, with a loose unity in diversity over riding and preventing the excessess of soverignty.

=^^=
.../\...

Proud Member of the Vast Gay-Wing Conspiracy

Proud Member of the Vast Gay-Wing ConspiracyI'm guessing that involves lots of arm-flapping & jumping off tall buildings?

Even the San Francisco Bay Area, I have seen first hand that it really sucked for those who were gay during their adolescent years, middle school moreso than high school. Why? Because even today, the prevalent underlying attitude is that homosexuality is something abnormal. Most kids, when they hit puberty, don't really think about the fact that they're attracted to the opposite sex, it's kinda taken for granted. However, for some poor kid who's not, who instead finds themself having those feelings for members of their own sex, this time would be very confusing and maybe even frightening, since, let's be honest, our society still doesn't view homosexuality as being just as normal as heterosexuality.

I'm not talking about adult society's position, but that of the other students. And if you think that doesn't matter to an individual student, you must be either stupid or incredibly naive. Anybody who has been different from the percieved 'norm' in middle school especially knows that it's not fun. And for a kid who is homosexual, they can't really change that difference. The fact that every other insult used by their peers is "that's gay" or "fag," doesn't help either. And yes, this is in the San Francisco Bay Area. If the supposed gay capital of the US has such homophobia, I dread to think how much it must suck to grow up gay elsewhere in this country. That is why we need to change the perception that homosexuality is somehow abnormal or unnatural. It is neither, it's just less common. Red hair is also this way. Unless you live in Ireland.San Francisco Bay Area? And you sound like you've never been outside your country, have you? At least in the larger cities in Europe nobody really gives a shit for anyone's sexual orientation, although there may still be used phrases like "that's gay" or so. But there really are more important things to ponder. And the fucking USA should rather see to cleaning up their mess in the Middle East and drop their aggressive politics and policies instead of bickering about homos. Homosexuality is a non-issue. And it helps reduce overpopulation.

You realize you just asked the impossible, right?

San Francisco Bay Area? And you sound like you've never been outside your country, have you? At least in the larger cities in Europe nobody really gives a shit for anyone's sexual orientation, although there may still be used phrases like "that's gay" or so. But there really are more important things to ponder. And the fucking USA should rather see to cleaning up their mess in the Middle East and drop their aggressive politics and policies instead of bickering about homos. Homosexuality is a non-issue. And it helps reduce overpopulation.

I love how this suddenly becomes about the Iraq war. Because that's not a false dichotomy. If only they'd spend more time TALKING about Iraq instead of homosexuality, it would make NOT ONE LICK of difference. I wish they'd spend more time worrying about the dumbass politicians who are spending all their time talking about Iraq but not doing anything. That's what I wish. But that has NOTHING to do with this issue or anything surrounding, so how about you leave the USA bashing for more appropriate venues like tonight when you're swigging a pint.

Amusingly enough, my mother is against gay marriage. Reason?

Mom: "I'm against gay marriage because of tax reasons."
Rest of family: "...come again?"
Mom: "Marriage equals tax exemptions. If more people get married, more people get tax exemptions. And if more people get tax exemptions, tax will rise all over the place. We should keep people from getting married. Like Britney Spears."
Dad: "I have... no idea... what to say about that. Because... it's a little true.... but it's kinda wrong... I don't know."

Wow, an argument against gay marriage NOT rooted in religion.

I love how this suddenly becomes about the Iraq war. Because that's not a false dichotomy. If only they'd spend more time TALKING about Iraq instead of homosexuality, it would make NOT ONE LICK of difference. I wish they'd spend more time worrying about the dumbass politicians who are spending all their time talking about Iraq but not doing anything. That's what I wish. But that has NOTHING to do with this issue or anything surrounding, so how about you leave the USA bashing for more appropriate venues like tonight when you're swigging a pint.Well, the US are so obsessed with "moral issues" that they forget what they really should direct their attention to, like the bloodbath they have caused and continue to cause in Iraq. And the mess I was referring to includes more than just Iraq.

Wow, an argument against gay marriage NOT rooted in religion.against marriage in general, it would seem :rolleyes:

Does this mean it's legal for us gays to write books? Oh, and I should have warned you first, but as this message was posted by a gay, you will probably be gay too by now after reading it. Sorry. :eek:

why can't they acknowledge that this is obviously nailing homosexuality into children's' heads?! We know how kids are, they're curious, they are copycats and they don't fully understand things so its easier to manipulate their minds, especially since they're naturally suggestible because they're in that stage of life where they copy their parents.

If gays only wanted to get people to "realize they're people too and that they exist" like they say then instead of brainwashing toddlers would probably be trying so send a more of a "leave us alone" message rather than a "become like us" message.

why can't they acknowledge that this is obviously nailing homosexuality into children's' heads?! We know how kids are, they're curious, they are copycats and they don't fully understand things so its easier to manipulate their minds, especially since they're naturally suggestible because they're in that stage of life where they copy their parents.

If gays only wanted to get people to "realize they're people too and that they exist" like they say then instead of brainwashing toddlers would probably be trying so send a more of a "leave us alone" message rather than a "become like us" message.

Why can't you accept that homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality and that kids aren't born bigots? The goal is for them to ultimately ascribe no more importance to someone being homosexual than they do to someone being heterosexual, and simply accept that some people love those of the same gender.