NationStates Jolt Archive

"my positions on homosexual marriage (I do not support it, and I do not support education about homosexuality in early public school that morally equates it with heterosexuality, although I really don’t care what gay people do in their private lives so long as they do it with consenting adults),"

Ignoring the awful grammar, I would have to say that it reminds me of the 'separate but equal' crap that was part of USian culture from 1870 to 1970.

Heterosexuality has no inherent morality. And anyone who supports a lack of education is merely supporting ignorance.

"my positions on homosexual marriage (I do not support it, and I do not support education about homosexuality in early public school that morally equates it with heterosexuality, although I really don’t care what gay people do in their private lives so long as they do it with consenting adults),"

Strange, doesn't like gay people, it seems, doesn't want to educate others in early public schools about it. Sounds similar to what a catholic priest might say, doesn't give any evidence as to why this should be. Trying to promote it as a common sense opinion, which are often incorrect or misinformed.

In conclusion, sounds insulting to peoples human rights, to marry who they wish, effectively inferring that gay people shouldn't be married.

He's basically saying that he thinks homosexuality are immoral and aren't equal to heterosexuals and they shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals. However, they are free to fuck who they want as long as they don't bring it out in public, because that may make some people "uncomfortable"

Whoever says that need to get his/her head out of the Bible and into the real world.

"my positions on homosexual marriage (I do not support it, and I do not support education about homosexuality in early public school that morally equates it with heterosexuality, although I really don’t care what gay people do in their private lives so long as they do it with consenting adults),"

what I think the statement says: I don't like nor will I support Homosexual rights, except the right for Homosexuals to have their relationship as long as it's not where there's a chance I'll see it.

He's basically saying that he thinks homosexuality are immoral and aren't equal to heterosexuals and they shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals. However, they are free to fuck who they want as long as they don't bring it out in public, because that may make some people "uncomfortable"

Whoever says that need to get his/her head out of the Bible and into the real world.

Actually the individual is an avowed atheist. One of his comments on christians is:

"And this pathetic soul dares to claim he was denied because of his belief in an imaginary SuperMan with a beard?"

Smells like 'My right not to have to see you be gay trumps your right to be gay' to me. I'm not sure if there's a specific term for that. You know, apart from fucking retarded.

Actually the individual is an avowed atheist. One of his comments on christians is:

"And this pathetic soul dares to claim he was denied because of his belief in an imaginary SuperMan with a beard?"

Doesn't make him any less ignorant.

What's wrong with not teaching any form of sexuality in "early" public school to begin with? Last I check they don't have sex ed in elementary schools. It shouldn't even be a homosexual vs heterosexual argument.

Doesn't make him any less ignorant.

I agree. His justification is that 'many' studies show that gays are less healthy and inherently promiscuous. His defense is that the majority support his view.

What's wrong with not teaching any form of sexuality in "early" public school to begin with? Last I check they don't have sex ed in elementary schools. It shouldn't even be a homosexual vs heterosexual argument.

Actually I remember having classes in the 'basics" (where do babies come from) in the 5th grade.

As for the practical side (here's what a condom is for), I agree.

"my positions on homosexual marriage (I do not support it, and I do not support education about homosexuality in early public school that morally equates it with heterosexuality, although I really don’t care what gay people do in their private lives so long as they do it with consenting adults),"

That the person who said it is an ignorant homophobe

What's wrong with not teaching any form of sexuality in "early" public school to begin with? Last I check they don't have sex ed in elementary schools. It shouldn't even be a homosexual vs heterosexual argument.
Since when have we been able to teach sexuality? I don't recall choosing to be taught to be straight over being taught to be gay or something else.
I agree. His justification is that 'many' studies show that gays are less healthy and inherently promiscuous. His defense is that the majority support his view.

Appeal to popularity, a classic.

What's wrong with not teaching any form of sexuality in "early" public school to begin with? Last I check they don't have sex ed in elementary schools. It shouldn't even be a homosexual vs heterosexual argument.

They did in 4th grade in my catholic elemenetry school

Last I check they don't have sex ed in elementary schools.

Yes, we do.

Yes, we do.

A point in favor of Sweden.

Yes, we do.

that's the way it should be. Elementary school kids are already getting horrible misinformation, someone has to counteract it before they start believing it, besides girls in the US are starting puberty at 10 years old now, someone has to tell them what's happening way before it starts......and parents won't.

I thought Bush cut all the funds off sex ed and promote abstinence programs, which I wouldn't consider sex ed. Just paying some people come in and nag about not doing it isn't what I will put in the category of education.

Edit: I just notice how US oriented my argument was, when I said elementary schools doesn't have sex ed.

that's the way it should be. Elementary school kids are already getting horrible misinformation, someone has to counteract it before they start believing it, besides girls in the US are starting puberty at 10 years old now, someone has to tell them what's happening way before it starts......and parents won't.

I started puberty at 9. :( And yes, there should be some sort of puberty/where babies come from education.

Why, I'll bet some of his best friends have been mistaken for gays. :rolleyes:

The speaker is a bigot. And a liar. He says he doesn't care what gays do with consenting adults (implication: that old lie that lots of gays are pedophiles?), but he cares enough to want to prevent them marrying and enough to declare them morally inferior to heterosexuals. Yeah, whatever.

Oh, btw, my elementary school (NYC, USA) had reproductive education (the names of all the parts and where babies come from) as part of biology class starting in the 4th grade and sex education (social/personal issues about pregnancy, disease, birth control, talks with a visiting expert on how to talk to parents and doctors) in the 5th or 6th grade (can't remember exactly which). Not a lot of talk about sexual orientations, but not a lot of assumptions about it, either.

I like your school :)

"my positions on homosexual marriage (I do not support it, and I do not support education about homosexuality in early public school that morally equates it with heterosexuality, although I really don’t care what gay people do in their private lives so long as they do it with consenting adults),"
Why, I'll bet some of his best friends have been mistaken for gays. :rolleyes:

The speaker is a bigot. And a liar. He says he doesn't care what gays do with consenting adults (implication: that old lie that lots of gays are pedophiles?), but he cares enough to want to prevent them marrying and enough to declare them morally inferior to heterosexuals. Yeah, whatever.

Oh, btw, my elementary school (NYC, USA) had reproductive education (the names of all the parts and where babies come from) as part of biology class starting in the 4th grade and sex education (social/personal issues about pregnancy, disease, birth control, talks with a visiting expert on how to talk to parents and doctors) in the 5th or 6th grade (can't remember exactly which). Not a lot of talk about sexual orientations, but not a lot of assumptions about it, either.

What's wrong with not teaching any form of sexuality in "early" public school to begin with? Last I check they don't have sex ed in elementary schools. It shouldn't even be a homosexual vs heterosexual argument.

The purpose of Elementary school should to learn the basics: Math, Reading/English (America), Science & History. Followed by Phy. Ed., Music and Art. Children at such a young age should not be indoctrinated about anything, be it homosexuality, politics or anything else of that sort. If I was to ever find out that the public school my child went to was teaching him/her about homosexuality I would remove them from that school.

The purpose of Elementary school should to learn the basics: Math, Reading/English (America), Science & History. Followed by Phy. Ed., Music and Art. Children at such a young age should not be indoctrinated about anything, be it homosexuality, politics or anything else of that sort. If I was to ever find out that the public school my child went to was teaching him/her about homosexuality I would remove them from that school.

there is enough indoctrination going on in history alone for you to pull your kid out of school.

I like your school :)

A nostalgic moment:

Ah, good old Public School 90, of Richmond Hill, Queens, NY. I remember it well. Happy times. Always in the top 5% of NYC schools in performance and grade averages. Most of the teachers had been there over 20 years, had some kind of tenure arrangement, and could say "fuck you" to the state mandated curriculum. And say it, they did. Six years at PS 90 put me a permanent 5-6 grade levels above the average for both junior high (middle school for those outside of NY) and high school in every subject area except math -- because I suck at math. I consider that elementary school my true alma mater, a family legacy. My mom went there before me. One of her little friends from that school grew up to become my first grade teacher. And then there was Mr. Zimmler -- the finest teacher I've ever met. My mom had him in 4th grade. I had him in 5th grade. I remember my first day with him, and him reading the info on all his students, and reading my mom's name off the file and glowering down at me and growling, "I remember her." And me withering a bit and thinking, "Oh, crap." I loved that man. I went to his retirement party 10 years later.

Yep, we had human biology and sex education, plus foreign languages, and computer science before the personal computer was even invented. (Mr. Zimmler kept abreast of things and figured we'd need to know that stuff.) Not to mention college prep English, Literature and History, even though those curricula were not state-approved for our grade levels. The last I heard, PS 90 was still one of NYC's top performing elementary schools.

Actually I remember having classes in the 'basics" (where do babies come from) in the 5th grade. Same here.

Oh, I thought it seemed familiar - Alexander Tristan Riley! Professional Internet bigot troll who tried to scrub his Internet record clean before he was hired by a gun control organisation. Too bad for him, the Internet never forgets.

The purpose of Elementary school should to learn the basics: Math, Reading/English (America), Science & History. Followed by Phy. Ed., Music and Art. Children at such a young age should not be indoctrinated about anything, be it homosexuality, politics or anything else of that sort. If I was to ever find out that the public school my child went to was teaching him/her about homosexuality I would remove them from that school.

Why do you feel threatened by the possibility of your child finding out that some boys like boys and some girls like girls?

The purpose of Elementary school should to learn the basics: Math, Reading/English (America), Science & History. Followed by Phy. Ed., Music and Art. Children at such a young age should not be indoctrinated about anything, be it homosexuality, politics or anything else of that sort. If I was to ever find out that the public school my child went to was teaching him/her about homosexuality I would remove them from that school.

Education about a subject =/= indoctrination
Sex ed. classes serve to teach children about their bodies, responsible sexual behaviour, and make them aware of all types of sexualities. Or should do, at least, anything less is a disservice to them.

The purpose of Elementary school should to learn the basics: Math, Reading/English (America), Science & History. Followed by Phy. Ed., Music and Art. "Where do babies come from" and "Why Heather has two mommies" are basics too.

"Where do babies come from" and "Why Heather has two mommies" are basics too.


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


No they're not.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


No they're not.Yes they are. Prove me wrong.

Yes they are. Prove me wrong.



Burden of proof is on you kid. You made the statement not me.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


No they're not.

Personally, I don't see how much more basic you can get

Personally, I don't see how much more basic you can get


How?

Burden of proof is on you kid. You made the statement not me.Reproduction has been around longer and has been more necessary for the survival of societies than math or history. Likewise, relationships are more important. 10 is a good age when kids can begin to grasp the concepts of reproduction without being prone to the shame associated with it during adulthood. Understanding why Heather has two mommies is just as important as to why Tommy is black. So long as you don't go into the subject of sex, children should be exposed to that even earlier.

"my positions on homosexual marriage

are confused. I cannot speak about the subject without broadening the field. Right at the end I'll get back to a feeble swipe at WHY I do not support it.

(I do not support it,

actually, I'm opposed to it. But it's more advantageous to me to be seen defending than attacking, so "not support" it is.

and I do not support education about homosexuality in early public school that morally equates it with heterosexuality,

I don't really believe that gays are created by bad moral education, but I do believe that gayness can be prevented by scaring the crap out of children. They should get a clear message "straight sex good, gay sex bad. Get married before you have sex."

Yeah, sorry about not answering the question, just, whenever I think of marriage I think of children. Small children, in the little school. Another thing I am strongly opposed to is educating children about sex at all, it's much more fun when they don't know what to expect. Small children. Marriage, children. Panties! Children. Marriage. Cowlicks, children, moral education, lubricant, little white socks! Marriage. And finally, one more time, children! Aaa-aahh!

although I really don’t care what gay people do in their private lives so long as they do it with consenting adults),"

... and so long as they don't call it marriage, because marriage is a sacred blah blah. Oh, and they better not go looking all gay out in the street or on my television, and they definitely should not be allowed to have anything to do with children. The children are all mine!

Thanks for asking me about my position on gay marriage. Have a small child, they're quite nice.

How?

See below, stated much better than I could have.

Reproduction has been around longer and has been more necessary for the survival of societies than math or history. Likewise, relationships are more important. 10 is a good age when kids can begin to grasp the concepts of reproduction without being prone to the shame associated with it during adulthood. Understanding why Heather has two mommies is just as important as to why Tommy is black. So long as you don't go into the subject of sex, children should be exposed to that even earlier.

I don't really believe that gays are created by bad moral education, but I do believe that gayness can be prevented by scaring the crap out of children. They should get a clear message "straight sex good, gay sex bad. Get married before you have sex."

Yeah, sorry about not answering the question, just, whenever I think of marriage I think of children. Small children, in the little school. Another thing I am strongly opposed to is educating children about sex at all, it's much more fun when they don't know what to expect. Small children. Marriage, children. Panties! Children. Marriage. Cowlicks, children, moral education, lubricant, little white socks! Marriage. And finally, one more time, children! Aaa-aahh!



... and so long as they don't call it marriage, because marriage is a sacred blah blah. Oh, and they better not go looking all gay out in the street or on my television, and they definitely should not be allowed to have anything to do with children. The children are all mine!

Thanks for asking me about my position on gay marriage. Have a small child, they're quite nice.

It's good to see the Puritans are alive and well :headbang:

Reproduction has been around longer and has been more necessary for the survival of societies than math or history. Likewise, relationships are more important. 10 is a good age when kids can begin to grasp the concepts of reproduction without being prone to the shame associated with it during adulthood. Understanding why Heather has two mommies is just as important as to why Tommy is black. So long as you don't go into the subject of sex, children should be exposed to that even earlier.



:rolleyes:


You didn't prove why it is important or basic. And what does teaching kids about homosexuality have to do with reproduction? You can teach reproduction without teaching them about gays. And both my sisters are gay so don't start that homophobe BS with me.

See below, stated much better than I could have.

Doesn't say much about you then.

How?It's part of the generalized knowledge of the world that people need to get by.
What are clouds?
If they're water, how come they fly?
Why do I have a dad?
If I have a mom and a dad, how come Cryptic Nightmare has two daddies?

That sort of thing. If kids can't get that kind of basic, bare bones information about the world they live in, they start to make shit up, based on personal (and usually hugely misleading) experiences. When kids do that, they tend to ignore factual information, or only assimilate the parts that don't conflict with their imagined view of the world. This is a massive problem for teachers, and in the long run, a massive problem for you, as you'll probably depend on the next generation for a country & a comfortable standard of living.

Do you understand it now?

Doesn't say much about you then.

You didn't read it very well then.

:rolleyes:


You didn't prove why it is important or basic. Correct. However I did prove that it was more basic and important than the other "basics", which is all I had to do.
And what does teaching kids about homosexuality have to do with reproduction? Er... Nothing? Where'd you get the idea that they should both be taught at the same time?
You can teach reproduction without teaching them about gays. Yes, exactly. Teaching them about gays should come a lot earlier, which was my point.
And both my sisters are gay so don't start that homophobe BS with me.Ooh! Preemptive argument! I am sooo disarmed.

It's part of the generalized knowledge of the world that people need to get by.
What are clouds?
If they're water, how come they fly?
Why do I have a dad?
If I have a mom and a dad, how come Cryptic Nightmare has two daddies?

That sort of thing. If kids can't get that kind of basic, bare bones information about the world they live in, they start to make shit up, based on personal (and usually hugely misleading) experiences. When kids do that, they tend to ignore factual information, or only assimilate the parts that don't conflict with their imagined view of the world. This is a massive problem for teachers, and in the long run, a massive problem for you, as you'll probably depend on the next generation for a country & a comfortable standard of living.

Do you understand it now?


If that were true everybody in the world would hate gay people even me as I was never introduced to homosexuality in school but didn't end up saying ewwwww nasty homos. I guess my mother should hate gay people then to, she doesn't. In the long run you don't need that to get by and things like that are better handled by the parents. Both my nephews have 2 mothers and none of their friends take issue with it, nor do anybody in their familes. Anything you talk about is just a phase that is grown out of by the time they are 14.

I also doubt the kids not learning about why heather has two mommies at 10 will cause them to not be able to run a country at 40.

Oh, I thought it seemed familiar - Alexander Tristan Riley! Professional Internet bigot troll who tried to scrub his Internet record clean before he was hired by a gun control organisation. Too bad for him, the Internet never forgets.

Why yes. That would be him. :)

I take it you've dealt w/ this individual as well?

Correct. However I did prove that it was more basic and important than the other "basics", which is all I had to do.


I was asking in regards to teaching kids about it at 10 years old.

Er... Nothing? Where'd you get the idea that they should both be taught at the same time?

You put them in the same argument.

Yes, exactly. Teaching them about gays should come a lot earlier, which was my point.

Why?

Ooh! Preemptive argument! I am sooo disarmed.


Making sure you don't call me a gay hater.

Reread my earlier post. I won't repeat it just because you didn't understand.


Meaning you can't so rather than admitt it you just accuse me of not understanding. :rolleyes: Can somebody else answer for Laerod since s/he obviously can't?

I was asking in regards to teaching kids about it at 10 years old.



You put them in the same argument.The post was about basics. The ten year olds applys to sex ed. I had every reason to put both in the same argument.

Why? Reread my earlier post. I won't repeat it just because you didn't understand.

If that were true everybody in the world would hate gay people even me as I was never introduced to homosexuality in school but didn't end up saying ewwwww nasty homos.Why would that happen? Is it some sort of hive mind thing or what?

That aside, most people do hate homos (and think we beesexuals are sex-crazed nymphos). Just like most people used to hate left handed people.I also doubt the kids not learning about why heather has two mommies at 10 will cause them to not be able to run a country at 40.Humans make the most sense when viewed as nonlinear dynamic systems. Screw with the initial conditions and you get unexpected results.

Incidentally, a fern can run a country. Not a single human being throughout recorded history has done a good job of it. Indeed, most countries in the world right now, are run by people who won't recognise GLBTs as fellow human beings.

Why would that happen? Is it some sort of hive mind thing or what?

Just saying not teaching 10 year olds about gays won't make everybody on earth hate them.

That aside, most people do hate homos (and think we beesexuals are sex-crazed nymphos). Just like most people used to hate left handed people.Humans make the most sense when viewed as nonlinear dynamic systems. Screw with the initial conditions and you get unexpected results.


What makes you say most? And when did people hate left-handed people? You would have made a better argument with the line people fear what they don't understand, which is very true.

BTW, are you bi?

Incidentally, a fern can run a country. Not a single human being throughout recorded history has done a good job of it. Indeed, most countries in the world right now, are run by people who won't recognise GLBTs as fellow human beings.



And not liking gay people isn't the reason they didn't do a good job of it. Do you think Dubya would have run the country better if he loved GLBT's?

Meaning you can't so rather than admitt it you just accuse me of not understanding. :rolleyes: Can somebody else answer for Laerod since s/he obviously can't?Not my fault if you're too lazy to do your own research. I made my statements in my earlier post. The difference between Heather's two mommies and Tommy's black dad aren't very profound, and there's no reason why a five year old should be shielded from the concept of same sex couples.

Not my fault if you're too lazy to do your own research. I made my statements in my earlier post. The difference between Heather's two mommies and Tommy's black dad aren't very profound, and there's no reason why a five year old should be shielded from the concept of same sex couples.I wish I could remember who said the "Information's only dangerous to those who'd monopolize it" bit I always end up paraphrasing in bars at 5 in the morning. Anyway, seems kinda appropriate here.

<SNIP>(and think we beesexuals are sex-crazed nymphos). <SNIP>

:eek: you're not? :(

Indeed, most countries in the world right now, are run by people who won't recognise GLBTs as fellow human beings.This actually reminds me of the interesting fact that while Iran hunts and persecutes G, L, and B, they have found reasons as to why T is legal.

Not my fault if you're too lazy to do your own research. I made my statements in my earlier post. The difference between Heather's two mommies and Tommy's black dad aren't very profound, and there's no reason why a five year old should be shielded from the concept of same sex couples.



It's not my job to back up your argument kid. :rolleyes: The fact you assumed I should proves you have no clue what you are talking about. I force people to back up their claims as best they can, even if I agree/understand what they are saying or not! Its not my fault you can't!

I am against teaching about homosexuality in elementary school. Take a moment to think about what will happen when they get home.

Kid: Teacher teach us about why Timmy have 2 daddies
Parents: Oh that's nice
In this situation, the Kid probably doesn't need the school to teach them about homosexuality anyway.

Kid: Teacher teach us about why Timmy have 2 daddies
Parents: WHAT? Gays are just wrong, and evil. They shouldn't be teaching that kind of shit to our kids. We gotta call the school up.
Now this situation is where the kid needed the education the most. But what ends up happening is that their parents/culture vastly overpower what a school can do. And mentioning this topic simply triggers more "counter arguments" by the end of the day. Making the effort counterproductive.

So if school is to teach children about homosexuality, it makes more sense to do it during teenage, when they can think for themselves better and are typically less obedient to their parents.

I am against teaching about homosexuality in elementary school. Take a moment to think about what will happen when they get home.

Kid: Teacher teach us about why Timmy have 2 daddies
Parents: Oh that's nice
In this situation, the Kid probably doesn't need the school to teach them about homosexuality anyway.

Kid: Teacher teach us about why Timmy have 2 daddies
Parents: WHAT? Gays are just wrong, and evil. They shouldn't be teaching that kind of shit to our kids. We gotta call the school up.
Now this situation is where the kid needed the education the most. But what ends up happening is that their parents/culture vastly overpower what a school can do. And mentioning this topic simply triggers more "counter arguments" by the end of the day. Making the effort counterproductive.

So if school is to teach children about homosexuality, it makes more sense to do it during teenage, when they can think for themselves better and are typically less obedient to their parents.


Not if you beat the daily starting at 3. Kids can be very well behaved with daily beatings. :D

Not back up: Try to understand and disprove. All you're really doing is ad hominems.

No I am trying to get you to back up your claims which you have yet to do. Whatever, I'm done. *click*

Incidentally, a fern can run a country.

You reactionary! Vote for the Ficus!

Just saying not teaching 10 year olds about gays won't make everybody on earth hate them.Which is utterly redundant. Nobody said that would happen. Most of your peers here are familiar with the way GLBTs are perceived in their societies.
What makes you say most?The facts. Check the wiki or something iif you're not prepared to take my word for it.And when did people hate left-handed people?It's still on-going actually, but has died out in most of the world over the past ca. 300 years. Ever wondered where the word Sinister comes from? It's a bastardisation of sinistral, which is the "proper" term for left handedness.You would have made a better argument with the line people fear what they don't understand, which is very true.Good thing you were smart enough to make it for me then, yeh?BTW, are you bi?I'm married and you're obviously very young. I might just damage your moral fibres or some other type of cereal, if I don't withhold that trivial bit of information.And not liking gay people isn't the reason they didn't do a good job of it. Do you think Dubya would have run the country better if he loved GLBT's?Wrong question. Would the country be better if all the humans living in it had the status of full human beings? I believe the answer is yes.

:eek: you're not? :(Just kidding, 'course we're nymphos. Wanna fuck? Fucky-fucky? Now? I's gots no clothes on!!1one!

It's not my job to back up your argument kid. :rolleyes: The fact you assumed I should proves you have no clue what you are talking about. I force people to back up their claims as best they can, even if I agree/understand what they are saying or not! Its not my fault you can't!Not back up: Try to understand and disprove. All you're really doing is ad hominems.

"my positions on homosexual marriage (I do not support it, and I do not support education about homosexuality in early public school that morally equates it with heterosexuality, although I really don’t care what gay people do in their private lives so long as they do it with consenting adults),"

I think that considering your opinion, you should be waived from having to marry a homosexual on the condition that you keep your opinion to yourself where it belongs. As for schooling, if you don't care for a public education that teaches equality, I am certain that you can find an alternative schooling more to your liking. :)

Meaning you can't so rather than admitt it you just accuse me of not understanding. :rolleyes: Can somebody else answer for Laerod since s/he obviously can't?

I'll give it a go. :)

Part of basic elementary education is socialization. Socialization gives the child the basic social skills and awareness necessary to go out on their own in the world. In a pluralistic society, such as most modern urbanized nations, there is a benefit in having that socialization come from more than one source, i.e. schools as well as parents, government as well as churches, social peers as well as authorities. So, from the point of view of what is best for society, it is not sufficient to have all the child's socialization come exclusively from their parents, though the major part of it should, ideally. It is more beneficial both to the child and to society for the child to be exposed at least superficially to the broad expanse of views current in the society he is a part of.

Also, age 10 is the approximate time that children will start to question the nature of the world around them, question their own natures, and want to experiment with making a mark of their own in their social group. It is the age at which individual differences start to be felt most strongly. Again, in a pluralistic society, it is considered more beneficial for people to learn to be comfortable with differences around them, than to feel pressured to conform to a single approved social model.

Teaching children that homosexuality is a factor in human life and that some people around them will be gay is part of a program designed to make children less fearful of differences, and less fearful of being different (whether they are gay themselves or not).

One of the main confusions about sex education is that people don't seem to undertand that it has more than one part. There is the practical aspect, which teaches children things about human biology and health, and there is the social aspect which seeks to prepare children for the varied world they are about to enter, at a time when they will soon start to feel and look to express their own sexuality as well. Teaching children about homosexuality and heterosexuality is and should be part of the socialization aspect of sex ed, not part of the practical part.

Now, if you are going to argue that socialization is not part of a child's education, or that reproductive biology and human health are not basic information, then we will simply have to disagree on that.

Which is utterly redundant. Nobody said that would happen. Most of your peers here are familiar with the way GLBTs are perceived in their societies.
The facts. Check the wiki or something iif you're not prepared to take my word for it.It's still on-going actually, but has died out in most of the world over the past ca. 300 years. Ever wondered where the word Sinister comes from? It's a bastardisation of sinistral, which is the "proper" term for left handedness.Good thing you were smart enough to make it for me then, yeh?I'm married and you're obviously very young. I might just damage your moral fibres or some other type of cereal, if I don't withhold that trivial bit of information.Wrong question. Would the country be better if all the humans living in it had the status of full human beings? I believe the answer is yes.

Just kidding, 'course we're nymphos. Wanna fuck? Fucky-fucky? Now? I's gots no clothes on!!1one!


And let the you toos yoongs attacks begin. Later kid, I have better things to do than waste my time getting attacked by the likes of you. *click*

I am against teaching about homosexuality in elementary school. Take a moment to think about what will happen when they get home.

Kid: Teacher teach us about why Timmy have 2 daddies
Parents: Oh that's nice
In this situation, the Kid probably doesn't need the school to teach them about homosexuality anyway.

Kid: Teacher teach us about why Timmy have 2 daddies
Parents: WHAT? Gays are just wrong, and evil. They shouldn't be teaching that kind of shit to our kids. We gotta call the school up.
Now this situation is where the kid needed the education the most. But what ends up happening is that their parents/culture vastly overpower what a school can do. And mentioning this topic simply triggers more "counter arguments" by the end of the day. Making the effort counterproductive.

So if school is to teach children about homosexuality, it makes more sense to do it during teenage, when they can think for themselves better and are typically less obedient to their parents.Not to punch a hole in your valuable argument, but that rationale would support teaching segregation simply because some parents aren't comfortable with their kids being in the same room as others that have darker skin.

I'll give it a go. :)

Part of basic elementary education is socialization. Socialization gives the child the basic social skills and awareness necessary to go out on their own in the world. In a pluralistic society, such as most modern urbanized nations, there is a benefit in having that socialization come from more than one source, i.e. schools as well as parents, government as well as churches, social peers as well as authorities. So, from the point of view of what is best for society, it is not sufficient to have all the child's socialization come exclusively from their parents, though the major part of it should, ideally. It is more beneficial both to the child and to society for the child to be exposed at least superficially to the broad expanse of views current in the society he is a part of.

Also, age 10 is the approximate time that children will start to question the nature of the world around them, question their own natures, and want to experiment with making a mark of their own in their social group. It is the age at which individual differences start to be felt most strongly. Again, in a pluralistic society, it is considered more beneficial for people to learn to be comfortable with differences around them, than to feel pressured to conform to a single approved social model.

Teaching children that homosexuality is a factor in human life and that some people around them will be gay is part of a program designed to make children less fearful of differences, and less fearful of being different (whether they are gay themselves or not).

One of the main confusions about sex education is that people don't seem to undertand that it has more than one part. There is the practical aspect, which teaches children things about human biology and health, and there is the social aspect which seeks to prepare children for the varied world they are about to enter, at a time when they will soon start to feel and look to express their own sexuality as well. Teaching children about homosexuality and heterosexuality is and should be part of the socialization aspect of sex ed, not part of the practical part.

Now, if you are going to argue that socialization is not part of a child's education, or that reproductive biology and human health are not basic information, then we will simply have to disagree on that.

You did what Laerod could not, explain the comment in detail. Good for you.


have a cookie.

http://wiki.coolmon.org/files/cookie.jpg

Thank you. *munches cookie* Perhaps Laerod just didn't understand what part of his statement you were not understanding. In any event, glad you liked my answer.

I don't see how he wouldn't know, I asked him pretty straight forward and got a duh laced with insults in response.

You did what Laerod could not, explain the comment in detail. Good for you.


have a cookie.

http://wiki.coolmon.org/files/cookie.jpg

Thank you. *munches cookie* Perhaps Laerod just didn't understand what part of his statement you were not understanding. In any event, glad you liked my answer.

Not to punch a hole in your valuable argument, but that rationale would support teaching segregation simply because some parents aren't comfortable with their kids being in the same room as others that have darker skin.

The difference? In teaching segregation, you are actively promoting it
Not teaching homosexuality at an age where they are too young to rebel help "reduce" the amount of time the hate messages gets bought up.
it will be equal to not teaching kids about "racial diversity" during elementary school one century ago. Cultural shift takes time, and adults need to learn to at least tolerate, through laws and order, before you can teach their kids to accept.

Another topic I will bring up is, have racism really gone down due to how our elementary school teach us about Martin Luther Kings jr day during history class? Or was it the force diversity that we have, making us learn about other race by being with them? But you can't do that with homosexuality here now can you? Sexuality, unlike skin color, is something a person can hide in a classroom.

I am against teaching about homosexuality in elementary school. Take a moment to think about what will happen when they get home.

Kid: Teacher teach us about why Timmy have 2 daddies
Parents: Oh that's nice
In this situation, the Kid probably doesn't need the school to teach them about homosexuality anyway.

Kid: Teacher teach us about why Timmy have 2 daddies
Parents: WHAT? Gays are just wrong, and evil. They shouldn't be teaching that kind of shit to our kids. We gotta call the school up.
Now this situation is where the kid needed the education the most. But what ends up happening is that their parents/culture vastly overpower what a school can do. And mentioning this topic simply triggers more "counter arguments" by the end of the day. Making the effort counterproductive.

That sounds like it makes sense, but it's a false dualism. "There are cool parents, and pro-censorship militant parents."

The consequence of this "give up because we might lose" policy is to deny education to all kids (those with cool parents, those with homophobic parents and all those in between) because of the few who are going to kick up a fuss.

Great. Let's just cave in to the homophobes. Gee, hell, we wouldn't want a goddamned debate on the matter would we? OMG, the homophobes might come up with a counter argument, and then we'd be totally fucked. Oh, dread!

So if school is to teach children about homosexuality, it makes more sense to do it during teenage, when they can think for themselves better and are typically less obedient to their parents.

Terrific. Let's welcome the kids to puberty and the discovery of their own sexuality with a big warm morass of ignorance and prejudice. It's not like they're going to be confused or troubled at all by a bit of uninformed homophobia, is it?

Why teach children about homosexuality at all? I notice you don't endorse that. In fact, your argument serves the interests of "gays are evil" censorship advocators remarkably well. Perhaps you are one.

I don't see how he wouldn't know, I asked him pretty straight forward and got a duh laced with insults in response.
so the same sort of response you give out?

The difference? In teaching segregation, you are actively promoting it
Not teaching homosexuality at an age where they are too young to rebel help "reduce" the amount of time the hate messages gets bought up.
it will be equal to not teaching kids about "racial diversity" during elementary school one century ago. Cultural shift takes time, and adults need to learn to at least tolerate, through laws and order, before you can teach their kids to accept.Yeah, "cultural shift takes time" was something that got thrown at opponents of segregation as well.

Another topic I will bring up is, have racism really gone down due to how our elementary school teach us about Martin Luther Kings jr day during history class? Or was it the force diversity that we have, making us learn about other race by being with them? But you can't do that with homosexuality here now can you? Sexuality, unlike skin color, is something a person can hide in a classroom.Please. How can Heather hide that she has two mommies when both of them pick her up?

Please. How can Heather hide that she has two mommies when both of them pick her up?

Well obviously they should lie to protect the innocents
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

so the same sort of response you give out?

Nice to see you have the maturity to avoid such things as pointless attacks...wait a mintue...:rolleyes: *click*

"my positions on homosexual marriage (I do not support it, and I do not support education about homosexuality in early public school that morally equates it with heterosexuality, although I really don’t care what gay people do in their private lives so long as they do it with consenting adults),"

Bigotry, and inexcusable.

Equality means equality.

Nice to see you have the maturity to avoid such things as pointless attacks...wait a mintue...:rolleyes: *click*

So pointing out that you have done the same sort of thing (in this thread no less) is immature?

What's wrong with not teaching any form of sexuality in "early" public school to begin with? Last I check they don't have sex ed in elementary schools. It shouldn't even be a homosexual vs heterosexual argument.
At my school labeling diagrams of male and female reproductive organs, puberty, what it entails and whatnot where taught in grades 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11. This is largely because I changed school every year and different schools are inconsistant. My grade 5 sex ed. was more in depth than my grade 6 or 9 sex ed. My grade 8 sex ed was probably the most informative, followed by grade 11 which came far too late.

I was asking in regards to teaching kids about it at 10 years old.

I started my period at 9. I began to like people at 10. It would have been nice to know exactly what gays/straights/bisexuals are without all the rumors and stereotyping at this point as it will apply to you and leads to a lot less confusion. Also, some of the "information" going around the playground was horribly inaccurate, and there are enough sexuality and birth control myths going around. It would help if we got a decent education from an early age.

The purpose of Elementary school should to learn the basics: Math, Reading/English (America), Science & History. Followed by Phy. Ed., Music and Art. Children at such a young age should not be indoctrinated about anything, be it homosexuality, politics or anything else of that sort. If I was to ever find out that the public school my child went to was teaching him/her about homosexuality I would remove them from that school.

Socialization and human sexuality -- it doesn't GET any more basic than that. You can have an educated professional (okay, most teachers are educated professionals, I won't sugar coat the sometimes unpleasant truth about who shortages force some districts to hire) discuss the topic with an impressionable bunch of 10-year olds -- some of whom may be undergoing puberty at the time -- or you can have the kids fumble their way through the maze of half-truths, myths, lies and those who'd take advantage of them without the benefit of any knowledge at all. Which would you rather?

Just saying not teaching 10 year olds about gays won't make everybody on earth hate them.

Of course not, but not teaching 10-year-olds about gays won't make ANYone ready to deal with them in a rational, positive manner (as opposed to an irrational, negative and sometimes violent manner), either...let alone deal with the possibility that they might be gay themselves.

And when did people hate left-handed people?

With varying degrees of institutionalized severity, from the dawn of organized religion to about 30-40 years ago. My mother was determined to allow me to express my natural handedness because she was forced into right-handed mode by her parents. When she picked up a spoon (set on the right side of any bowl) with her left hand as a child, her parents smacked her left hand and told her NO. Now THAT's indoctrination.

My mother, thankfully, placed my spoon in front of the bowl, easily accessible to either hand. I chose left, and the rest is history...and adaptation, as there were no lefty scissors in the house, but I learned to use those things that were righty-only as I needed them...by the time Mom got me lefty scissors, I'd become too facile with righties to switch. Being a lefty, my father taught me to golf right handed because clubs were cheaper + he'd read an article by Jack Nicklaus saying that the ideal is to have the dominant hand on the lead side of the swing.

You would have made a better argument with the line people fear what they don't understand, which is very true.

Agreed.

Do you think Dubya would have run the country better if he loved GLBT's?

He wouldn't have to love them to do right by them. A president with W's complete bulldozer approach to policy issues could have done a world of good for the acceptance of the GLBT community. But there's no common ground between they who got him elected and they who deserve his help as the President of all Americans.

You reactionary! Vote for the Ficus!

Never! I'm a Rhododenron man forever!

And let the you toos yoongs attacks begin. Later kid, I have better things to do than waste my time getting attacked by the likes of you. *click*

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over? Seriously, I hae no idea what you said there.

And this whole "click" thing? Very adult. If you had better things to do with your time, you wouldn't be posting here at all.

That sounds like it makes sense, but it's a false dualism. "There are cool parents, and pro-censorship militant parents."

The consequence of this "give up because we might lose" policy is to deny education to all kids (those with cool parents, those with homophobic parents and all those in between) because of the few who are going to kick up a fuss.

Great. Let's just cave in to the homophobes. Gee, hell, we wouldn't want a goddamned debate on the matter would we? OMG, the homophobes might come up with a counter argument, and then we'd be totally fucked. Oh, dread!



Terrific. Let's welcome the kids to puberty and the discovery of their own sexuality with a big warm morass of ignorance and prejudice. It's not like they're going to be confused or troubled at all by a bit of uninformed homophobia, is it?

Why teach children about homosexuality at all? I notice you don't endorse that. In fact, your argument serves the interests of "gays are evil" censorship advocators remarkably well. Perhaps you are one.

You seem to miss the point that, there are no elementary school kids on this forum. People here are old enough to understand what homosexuality means without resorting to explaining it with "why do Timmy have 2 daddies".

As for false dualism? Really where do you think an elementary school kid learn about "homosexuality is immoral and wrong" from? To say that their parents or religion isn't a primary influence is bullshit. This makes your whole "in between" argument invalid because even "in betweens" won't actively teach their kids how wrong and immoral homosexuality is. Only a parents who's really against it will flip out like that, and yes those are probably the kids who are on high risk and needed the most help. Teaching it during elementary school, knowing the kid is too young to figure out rather the school or their parents are right themselves, is essentially giving up on helping those kids.

Aside from that, teaching them about sexuality and the normality of it during puberty sounds about right to me. It can give those who discover themselves as homosexual a sense of support, and those around them can learn to accept. I don't see what's wrong with this idea at all. It's actually relevant to their life and will actually have reasons to think about the topic.

Nice to see you have the maturity to avoid such things as pointless attacks...wait a mintue...:rolleyes: *click*

Once again, you're really posting things like "rolleyes + *click*" over and over again and trying to claim the high ground on maturity? I'm trying to take you serously, but you're making it difficult.

Once again, you're really posting things like "rolleyes + *click*" over and over again and trying to claim the high ground on maturity? I'm trying to take you serously, but you're making it difficult.

And once you ignore the personal attacks that caused me to reply that way, I have no time for personal attack and don't give a %^&! about you. I can claim the high ground when the poster launched a personal attack on me for no valid reason...like you are doing. You love flambaiting don't you? Every post you have ever made towards me has been flambait, I am trying to take you seriously...wait...No I'm not.


http://www.northcountyfire.org/sections/safety/Extinguisher1.jpg

You seem to miss the point that, there are no elementary school kids on this forum. People here are old enough to understand what homosexuality means without resorting to explaining it with "why do Timmy have 2 daddies".

A) You don't know that for sure. B) Nobody here is asking for a picture-book explanation. They're using it as an example of books that already exist to explain certain family constructs to children who might be running into them, and the concepts they represent, for the first time.

As for false dualism? Really where do you think an elementary school kid learn about "homosexuality is immoral and wrong" from? To say that their parents or religion isn't a primary influence is bullshit. This makes your whole "in between" argument invalid because even "in betweens" won't actively teach their kids how wrong and immoral homosexuality is. Only a parents who's really against it will flip out like that, and yes those are probably the kids who are on high risk and needed the most help. Teaching it during elementary school, knowing the kid is too young to figure out rather the school or their parents are right themselves, is essentially giving up on helping those kids.

You seem to be of the opinion that "teaching" always involves a classroom and someone in front with a text or some other educational material. Parents and others teach kids all the time by example. When a kid hears a parent say something derogatory about anyone, be they gay, a different race or nationality, or anything, the kid learns. In that sense, there is reason to believe that some concepts have no low-end limit on when they can be introduced. It's all a matter of how.

Aside from that, teaching them about sexuality and the normality of it during puberty sounds about right to me. It can give those who discover themselves as homosexual a sense of support, and those around them can learn to accept. I don't see what's wrong with this idea at all. It's actually relevant to their life and will actually have reasons to think about the topic.

Wow. That was a reasonable and rational paragraph. Is the same person who typed paragraphs 1 & 2 the same person who typed this one? If it's the same person, your swotching back and forth between sides of this issue is dizzying.

I'm trying to take you serously, but you're making it difficult.Meh, I gave up on that a couple posts ago.

And once you ignore the personal attacks that caused me to reply that way, I have no time for personal attack and don't give a %^&! about you. I can claim the high ground when the poster launched a personal attack on me for no valid reason...like you are doing. You love flambaiting don't you? Every post you have ever made towards me has been flambait, I am trying to take you seriously...wait...No I'm not.

How has anything I've posted here qualify as flamebait? And if you feel so strongly, why not show them to Moderation? I am simply trying to point out that you BELLOW for maturity and then post immature things. It's a dichotomy that you don't seem to realize, but that's fine, I won't point it out anymore.

I have not read any personal attacks on you in this thread that do not rise to the same level of low-grade antagonism that you seem to post on a regular basis. You actively seek confrontation through the tone and tenor of your posts and then express a kind of fake persecution/surprise at the responses you get.

Nobody can "cause" you to type anything, junior (and if you don't like "junior", then stop using "kid") -- those are YOUR fingers on the keyboard.

Tell you what. I'll drop this if you will.

Yeah, "cultural shift takes time" was something that got thrown at opponents of segregation as well.

So did may other arguments that ever existed, from both the liberals and the conservative side.

Please. How can Heather hide that she has two mommies when both of them pick her up?

So you are assuming there's always a kid in the classroom with homosexual parents? To put it as a school standard, you have to teach it to every class. And to teach it hypothetically isn't exactly something you can do in elementary school. They have to understand what homosexuality is before you can tell them it's normal.

That aside, the argument was saying that people learn about racial diversity by force busing and classroom placement. And you are not going to make that happen for homosexual because you have to either identify and place a homosexual kid in every classroom, or hire a gay teacher in every school. Come to think of it the second option doesn't sound too impossible.

How has anything I've posted here qualify as flamebait? And if you feel so strongly, why not show them to Moderation? I am simply trying to point out that you BELLOW for maturity and then post immature things. It's a dichotomy that you don't seem to realize, but that's fine, I won't point it out anymore.

I have not read any personal attacks on you in this thread that do not rise to the same level of low-grade antagonism that you seem to post on a regular basis. You actively seek confrontation through the tone and tenor of your posts and then express a kind of fake persecution/surprise at the responses you get.

Nobody can "cause" you to type anything, junior (and if you don't like "junior", then stop using "kid") -- those are YOUR fingers on the keyboard.

Tell you what. I'll drop this if you will.



I never started it you did, if you could read you would have notice the abuse towards me in this thread over nothing, mind your own buisness and get of you high horse.

I never started it you did, if you could read you would have notice the abuse towards me in this thread over nothing, mind your own buisness and get of you high horse.

What abuse towards you?

Meh, I gave up on that a couple posts ago.


I owned you and made you back up your bullshit with logic, you dropped the ball and now attack me because you failed to defend yourself. There is no reason for me to take you seriously as you fail to back up your claims, so bad here somebody else had to do it for you. Stop taking the high ground and learn to back your shit up with something.

What abuse towards you?

You can read right? Look back at page 2.

I never started it you did, if you could read you would have notice the abuse towards me in this thread over nothing, mind your own buisness and get of you high horse.

Very well. It's clear to me that you're not happy unless you feel persecuted. If you cannot read your own words and see how deliberately inflammatory they are, that's your own lookout. I will respond no more, but I do feel pity for you.

You can read right? Look back at page 2.

No, he's asking you to link to a post that supports your tortured claims. It isn't that hard, and if you can't do that simple thing, believing you is going to be even more difficult...as I've explained.

Very well. It's clear to me that you're not happy unless you feel persecuted. If you cannot read your own words and see how deliberately inflammatory they are, that's your own lookout. I will respond no more, but I do feel pity for you.

Does that mean no more of your comments? Thank God! I was hoping you'd shut up!

No, he's asking you to link to a post that supports your tortured claims. It isn't that hard, and if you can't do that simple thing, believing you is going to be even more difficult...as I've explained.



I thought you were going to shut up? And look at page 2, plenty there junior.

You can read right? Look back at page 2.

Looked, didn't see any.

I owned you and made you back up your bullshit with logic, you dropped the ball and now attack me because you failed to defend yourself. There is no reason for me to take you seriously as you fail to back up your claims, so bad here somebody else had to do it for you. Stop taking the high ground and learn to back your shit up with something.I had an ex-girlfriend that told me she won every time she lost as well. I "dropped the ball" because, as I said, I've given up on reasoning with you. And if you consider me mentioning that an attack, better not go into your smiley spam and what that constitutes.

You can keep telling yourself and anyone bothering to read that you won that debate. I won't bother refuting it, as your continued behavior implies that you're very set in your ways and any effort on my behalf will just wear out the keyboard I'm on.

So you are assuming there's always a kid in the classroom with homosexual parents? To put it as a school standard, you have to teach it to every class. And to teach it hypothetically isn't exactly something you can do in elementary school. They have to understand what homosexuality is before you can tell them it's normal.
Yes, so? I support teaching it to all children and having consistancy between schools. Thats the point of a ciriculum. Why can't you teach a kid hypothetically? I haven't had trouble with that. And yes, to an extent they do have to understand homosexuality. Hence why you teach it, say what it is and teach them to tolerate others who are different. This should occur in schools, regardless.

That aside, the argument was saying that people learn about racial diversity by force busing and classroom placement. And you are not going to make that happen for homosexual because you have to either identify and place a homosexual kid in every classroom, or hire a gay teacher in every school. Come to think of it the second option doesn't sound too impossible.
I don't see how that was stated, maybe I missed it but this seems like more of a strawman. And you can teach about homosexuality without having a gay person present.

Does that mean no more of your comments? Thank God! I was hoping you'd shut up!

Seriously, grow up.

I had an ex-girlfriend that told me she won every time she lost as well. I "dropped the ball" because, as I said, I've given up on reasoning with you. And if you consider me mentioning that an attack, better not go into your smiley spam and what that constitutes.

You can keep telling yourself and anyone bothering to read that you won that debate. I won't bother refuting it, as your continued behavior implies that you're very set in your ways and any effort on my behalf will just wear out the keyboard I'm on.

What reasoning? Looked backed and you provided nothing worthwhile. And what debate? I wasn't debating you but trying to force some intelligent comments out of you..clear I failed as I asked you to back your shit up and got attacked as a result.

Seriously, grow up.



STFU and grow up son. I don't take flambait, don't like my aggressive stye? I don't give a fuck! Deal with it and grow up!

Looked, didn't see any.

I'm married and you're obviously very young. I might just damage your moral fibres or some other type of cereal, if I don't withhold that trivial bit of information.

so the same sort of response you give out?

Once again, you're really posting things like "rolleyes + *click*" over and over again and trying to claim the high ground on maturity? I'm trying to take you serously, but you're making it difficult.

Meh, I gave up on that a couple posts ago.

Very well. It's clear to me that you're not happy unless you feel persecuted. If you cannot read your own words and see how deliberately inflammatory they are, that's your own lookout. I will respond no more, but I do feel pity for you.




Seriously, grow up.


All flambait.

All flambait.

You're kidding, right?

A) You don't know that for sure. B) Nobody here is asking for a picture-book explanation. They're using it as an example of books that already exist to explain certain family constructs to children who might be running into them, and the concepts they represent, for the first time.

You seem to be of the opinion that "teaching" always involves a classroom and someone in front with a text or some other educational material. Parents and others teach kids all the time by example. When a kid hears a parent say something derogatory about anyone, be they gay, a different race or nationality, or anything, the kid learns. In that sense, there is reason to believe that some concepts have no low-end limit on when they can be introduced. It's all a matter of how.

New proposal, while still promote not teaching about homosexuality in a classroom/text/book in elementary school and wait until at least middle school, I suggest countering all the in between "learning through imitating their parents" by attempting to hire a homosexual teacher in every elementary school. This way they can learn through experience, but without the whole "teacher taught us about why Timmy have 2 daddies" shock that parents might have. It will have similar effect as "force busing" having on racism today. Sure parents might still badmouth the teacher, but having someone as an example will at least make it harder for the kids to automatically take in everything their parents said.

You're kidding, right?

I knew you just deny it. Doesn't take away they are. Funny how all I get are personal attacks followed by denials. I guess its ok for you, but if I said any one of those you be crying I am a terrible flamer. Whatever, don't like my hostile style? Don't fucking respond! I am hostile and either you fucking deal with it like a man or STFU and don't get into it with me! Simple, take it like a man or shut it. Your pick kid, because I am not polite on any level.

All flambait.

Nope. You clearly have no idea what flamebait is, bub.

STFU and grow up son. I don't take flambait, don't like my aggressive stye? I don't give a fuck! Deal with it and grow up!

What I meant was, instead of bickering with everyone else, try and continue with the arguement, as I am still posting points. If you don't want to, please leave, there are many other discussions that I'm sure you would find more interesting.

What I meant was, instead of bickering with everyone else, try and continue with the arguement, as I am still posting points. If you don't want to, please leave, there are many other discussions that I'm sure you would find more interesting.

So flaming is somehow going to encourge debate? Classic. I have tried to be nice here and ask questions and get people to explain their claims, I got attacked as a result. So no.

Nope. You clearly have no idea what flamebait is, bub.

Did I ask for your thoughts? NO!

New proposal, while still promote not teaching about homosexuality in a classroom/text/book in elementary school and wait until at least middle school, I suggest countering all the in between "learning through imitating their parents" by attempting to hire a homosexual teacher in every elementary school. This way they can learn through experience, but without the whole "teacher taught us about why Timmy have 2 daddies" shock that parents might have. It will have similar effect as "force busing" having on racism today. Sure parents might still badmouth the teacher, but having someone as an example will at least make it harder for the kids to automatically take in everything their parents said.

No, teachers should not be hired based on sexuality, regardless of what it is. They should be hired based on skill. And no, middle school is too late, myths have already been circulating, kids are already having sex, some are confused about there sexuality and many myths and confusion would have been circumvented if we had given them a decent education earlier on.

Yes, so? I support teaching it to all children and having consistancy between schools. Thats the point of a ciriculum. Why can't you teach a kid hypothetically? I haven't had trouble with that. And yes, to an extent they do have to understand homosexuality. Hence why you teach it, say what it is and teach them to tolerate others who are different. This should occur in schools, regardless.

I don't see how that was stated, maybe I missed it but this seems like more of a strawman. And you can teach about homosexuality without having a gay person present.

well there's a reason why school doesn't teach x*x=4 until a certain age. Normal kids cannot grasp hypothetical concept very well until a certain age. Again what the schools need to do here isn't trying to teach them a new word and it's meaning. What its actually doing is teach them a morality over what they hear back at home/church. I don't think its possible without a damn good example. Why else do you think we need to force busing and make kids take a whole hour bus ride just to promote diversity if we can just talk about it hypothetically?

So flaming is somehow going to encourge debate?

I'm sorry, but when did I imply that? I asked you to stay on topic, that is not flaming.

I'm sorry, but when did I imply that? I asked you to stay on topic, that is not flaming.




Seriously, grow up.




But that is.

So flaming is somehow going to encourge debate? Classic. I have tried to be nice here and ask questions and get people to explain their claims, I got attacked as a result. So no.

You have yet to show where you have been 'attacked' or 'abused'
The comments you quoted (when considered in context) aren't flaming, and if you seriously think they are then you're obviously rather thin-skinned. And you'll probably count this as an attack against you :rolleyes:

Does that mean no more of your comments? Thank God! I was hoping you'd shut up!Seriously, grow up.
But that is.

No, it isn't

You have yet to show where you have been 'attacked' or 'abused'
The comments you quoted (when considered in context) aren't flaming, and if you seriously think they are then you're obviously rather thin-skinned. And you'll probably count this as an attack against you :rolleyes:



You obviously don't know what flambait is or how it differs from flaming. Those comments were posted to piss me off and get me to flame...got it son? 2 were flat out flames. Now get lost kid!

No, it was not. As I explained, the comment was meant as a reminder to let it go and get back on topic.



Lying is not a good thing to do. It was a flame, get the fuck over it and lead by example and get back on topic and stop baiting me.

But that is.

No, it was not. As I explained, the comment was meant as a reminder to let it go and get back on topic.

No, it isn't

Did I ask for your input? NO! It was, deal with it.

well there's a reason why school doesn't teach x*x=4 until a certain age. Normal kids cannot grasp hypothetical concept very well until a certain age.
I learned Algebra at about that level in grade 6. I understood it fine. as did most kids.
Again what the schools need to do here isn't trying to teach them a new word and it's meaning.
Do you have any idea how often a school teaches children new words that are foreign to them? For example, I remember reading the Narnia series and not understanding the word "air raids" when I was eight. The teach explain, I understood. If a teach cannot teach an elementary level child a simple word they are a bad teacher.

What its actually doing is teach them a morality over what they hear back at home/church.
They need to learn to tolerate. If they don't approve, that is their issue, However, we should encourage it. Parents have plenty of opportunity to instill their values, and they do. But we can at least allow children to have another point of view, and for those who aren't straight show them that they are okay too.
I don't think its possible without a damn good example.
I think that you are wrong, however even if you are not there are plenty of story books invloving homosexuality. These can be used.
Why else do you think we need to force busing and make kids take a whole hour bus ride just to promote diversity if we can just talk about it hypothetically?

I don't think you need to. I think that if you promote diversity, tolerance and exceptance at a young age that will help a lot.

You seem to miss the point that, there are no elementary school kids on this forum.

THAT was your point?

You don't have to answer it, acknowledge it or refute it, but please read my post again and try to get my point about your argument by false dualism. You specified two cases, and dealt with each separately. That's a quite valid method of reasoning, provided the two cases cover all the possibilities. Your two cases (parents are OK with kid learning of existence of gay couples, parents are militantly opposed to same) do not cover all possibilities.

That is also known as the fallacy of the missing middle.

I learned Algebra at about that level in grade 6. I understood it fine. as did most kids.

Do you have any idea how often a school teaches children new words that are foreign to them? For example, I remember reading the Narnia series and not understanding the word "air raids" when I was eight. The teach explain, I understood. If a teach cannot teach an elementary level child a simple word they are a bad teacher.

What its actually doing is teach them a morality over what they hear back at home/church.
They need to learn to tolerate. If they don't approve, that is their issue, However, we should encourage it. Parents have plenty of opportunity to instill their values, and they do. But we can at least allow children to have another point of view, and for those who aren't straight show them that they are okay too.
I don't think its possible without a damn good example.
I think that you are wrong, however even if you are not there are plenty of story books invloving homosexuality. These can be used.


I don't think you need to. I think that if you promote diversity, tolerance and exceptance at a young age that will help a lot.

So I am assuming you are against the force busing law that is put into practice? And I wasn't thinking that 6 grade is still elementary in other places, at least not here in NYC. The beginning of middle school here is 6th grade, and I wouldn't have problem with teaching 6th grader, who can understand x*x=4, about homosexuality.

That being said, I am very well aware of the injustice involve in hiring a gay teacher in every school, as much as force busing is.

Lying is not a good thing to do. It was a flame, get the fuck over it and lead by example and get back on topic and stop baiting me.

I have been posting arguements, you have not for 4 pages.
Here, I'll make it easier for you. This is the last arguement you've made:

Just saying not teaching 10 year olds about gays won't make everybody on earth hate them.
No, it will not. However, it will cause ignorance which leads to hatred. Also, for those who are not straight it will help them and lead to less confusion, less self-hate and generally more knowledge about themselves. It can also lead to less stereotyping.

And when did people hate left-handed people?
My grandmama was punished for using her left hand, silly attitudes need to be enlightened.

Did I ask for your input? NO! It was, deal with it.

So who are you here to discuss the subject with? It's been so long since you made any kind of a point, I forget even if you are opposed to gay marriage, or opposed to sex education in early school, or what?

You obviously don't know what flambait is or how it differs from flaming. Those comments were posted to piss me off and get me to flame...got it son? 2 were flat out flames. Now get lost kid!

You immediately start calling people who don't agree with you 'kid' and 'son' and take offense to the littlest things. You don't see any sort of conflict there?


Out of curiosity, how old are you that you automatically assume every other poster is younger than you?

Did I ask for your input? NO! It was, deal with it.

News flash for you, when you post something on an internet forum, you're asking the input of anyone who reads the post.

You immediately start calling people who don't agree with you 'kid' and 'son' and take offense to the littlest things. You don't see any sort of conflict there?


Out of curiosity, how old are you that you automatically assume every other poster is younger than you?

I'm 27 and I call everbody kid and son, sometimes just in jest. And nothing I stated was little.

And when did people hate left-handed people?

My father was smacked on the hand with a ruler anytime he went to write with his left hand, because it was believed by many at the time that if you weren't right-handed, you were "wrong"-handed

News flash for you, when you post something on an internet forum, you're asking the input of anyone who reads the post.

Some of these posts are between me and the other poster, it has nothing to do with you.

So who are you here to discuss the subject with? It's been so long since you made any kind of a point, I forget even if you are opposed to gay marriage, or opposed to sex education in early school, or what?

I am asking people their thoughts and trying to suck as much out as possible, until people got hostile on me. I never stated a view on any of those.

I have been posting arguements, you have not for 4 pages.
Here, I'll make it easier for you. This is the last arguement you've made:

Not to me son, you have been attacking me from the jump.

Some of these posts are between me and the other poster, it has nothing to do with you.

regardless of whether you think you are having a discussion with one person or not, it isn't a private discussion. If you want to have a private discussion with someone you don't do it on a forum (or if you do, don't be surprised or offended when other people offer their opinion).

Ah, you also seem to be clueless of how a discussion forum works. While it really is hilarious to see you make a fool of yourself like this, you should stop for your own sake before you come across as even more of a stereotypical "n00b".



Is attacks all you do? You are more a noob than anyone here.:upyours:

regardless of whether you think you are having a discussion with one person or not, it isn't a private discussion. If you want to have a private discussion with someone you don't do it on a forum (or if you do, don't be surprised or offended when other people offer their opinion).

And when they do I will tell them :upyours: .

Did I ask for your thoughts? NO!

Ah, you also seem to be clueless of how a discussion forum works. While it really is hilarious to see you make a fool of yourself like this, you should stop for your own sake before you come across as even more of a stereotypical "n00b".

I'm 27 and I call everbody kid and son, sometimes just in jest. And nothing I stated was little.

Yeah, a lot of it was, if you don't agree then you're rather thin-skinned.

for example:
Looked, didn't see any.
I did look, and didn't see anything that was offensive
You didn't read it very well then.
You didn't seem to have put any effort into trying to understand what was said.

Is attacks all you do? You are more a noob than anyone here.:upyours:

Fass, a n00b, you've got to be kidding me. While I rarely agree with Fass, he is certainly not a n00b, nor has he attacked you in any way.

And when they do I will tell them :upyours: .

here, I'll put it in big letters for you

Discussions on forums are not private

Is attacks all you do?

Is martyrdom all you feign to yourself when you've so clearly inflicted it upon yourself? You're such a victim, you are.

You are more a noob than anyone here.:upyours:

I did advise you to stop for your own sake. For my sake, you can go on all you want - I'm laughing heartily at your expense. You even used the "n00biest" smiley of them all in your attempt to deny you're a "n00b". Hilarious. Are you doing this on purpose for shits and giggles? Marvellous if you are.

Fass, a n00b, you've got to be kidding me. While I rarely agree with Fass, he is certainly not a n00b, nor has he attacked you in any way.


ARE YOU SERIOUS!!! He just did attack me.:rolleyes:

Is martyrdom all you feign to yourself when you've so clearly inflicted it upon yourself? You're such a victim, you are.



I did advise you to stop for your own sake. For my sake, you can go on all you want - I'm laughing heartily at your expense. You even used the "n00biest" smiley of them all in your attempt to deny you're a "n00b". Hilarious. Are you doing this on purpose for shits and giggles? Marvellous if you are.


With all do respect, fuck off.

So I am assuming you are against the force busing law that is put into practice? And I wasn't thinking that 6 grade is still elementary in other places, at least not here in NYC. The beginning of middle school here is 6th grade, and I wouldn't have problem with teaching 6th grader, who can understand x*x=4, about homosexuality.

That being said, I am very well aware of the injustice involve in hiring a gay teacher in every school, as much as force busing is.

To clarify: I believe that they should be allowed to understand what homosexuality is at an early age, really as soon as they start to become aware of princess and prince stories. Most teachers can teach a simple definition, or use story books to show a household with too mothers. If 8 year olds can understand Harry Potter they should be fine with this.

I just responded with a relavent comment, you failed to respond.

Let's try this again:

No, it will not. However, it will cause ignorance which leads to hatred. Also, for those who are not straight it will help them and lead to less confusion, less self-hate and generally more knowledge about themselves. It can also lead to less stereotyping.


My grandmama was punished for using her left hand, silly attitudes need to be enlightened.

Please, respond to an on-topic post or leave.



Oh yes master, right away master, may I get your coat master?

http://www.tipiloschi.net/nino/ninoland/MartyFeldmanIgor.jpg

Not to me son, you have been attacking me from the jump.

I just responded with a relavent comment, you failed to respond.

Let's try this again:
Just saying not teaching 10 year olds about gays won't make everybody on earth hate them.
No, it will not. However, it will cause ignorance which leads to hatred. Also, for those who are not straight it will help them and lead to less confusion, less self-hate and generally more knowledge about themselves. It can also lead to less stereotyping.

And when did people hate left-handed people?
My grandmama was punished for using her left hand, silly attitudes need to be enlightened.

Please, respond to an on-topic post or leave.

With all do respect, fuck off.

You wish.... ugh, it's like a train wreck. I want to look away, but I can't. So, "don't just stare at it, eat it!"

/points for reference.

You wish.... ugh, it's like a train wreck. I want to look away, but I can't. So, "don't just stare at it, eat it!"

/points for reference.

All you have done here is personally attack me and added nothing of value to this thread, please add some damn intelligence or get the fuck out you ignorant noob! Thats not a flame, just some advice! All you people could have avoided this by staying on topic and not attacking me, but obviously you can't do that.

You wish.... ugh, it's like a train wreck. I want to look away, but I can't. So, "don't just stare at it, eat it!"

/points for reference.

American Psycho.

Tsk, tsk, as I said, you're such a victim of yourself, you are. All these self-inflicted wounds of yours are a mighty sight.



Such a noob you are.:rolleyes: I pity you now.

All you people could have avoided this by staying on topic and not attacking me, but obviously you can't do that.

Ummm, when people were all on topic you started railing on them in mildly offensive ways, simply because you didn't agree with them/ felt they were intruding on your "private" discussion.

You also have failed to acknowledge a majority of the on-topic responses for a while now.

All you have done here is personally attack me and added nothing of value to this thread, please add some damn intelligence or get the fuck out you ignorant noob! Thats not a flame, just some advice! All you people could have avoided this by staying on topic and not attacking me, but obviously you can't do that.

Tsk, tsk, as I said, you're such a victim of yourself, you are. All these self-inflicted wounds of yours are a mighty sight.

You wish.... ugh, it's like a train wreck. I want to look away, but I can't. So, "don't just stare at it, eat it!"

/points for reference.

American Psycho: "Sabrina, don't just stare at it, eat it."

You, have not added anything of value in the past 6 pages.

Adding phantom pages? And fass has nothing nothing other than bait period. He will again, just you see.

All you have done here is personally attack me and added nothing of value to this thread, please add some damn intelligence or get the fuck out you ignorant noob! Thats not a flame, just some advice! All you people could have avoided this by staying on topic and not attacking me, but obviously you can't do that.

You, have not added anything of value in the past 6 pages.

Point awarded. Can be exchanged for a coupon on a free degustation. ;)

Tell me, do you know how to say anything intelligent? Go ahead, try it.

American Psycho: "Sabrina, don't just stare at it, eat it."

Point awarded. Can be exchanged for a coupon on a free degustation. ;)

Locked. I just don't have the patience to deal individually with all the "did/didn't", ''tis/'tisn't" posts, so I'll just congratulate the folk who tried vainly to get back to the original topic.

Cryptic Nightmare, you contributed to this debacle by refusing to accept the advice of other posters. It is not flaming or flamebait to tell another poster that they are off-topic. Further, adding a comment to a conversation between two other posters is acceptable behaviour on an internet forum.

fuck off Ardchoille! It is not advice to flame me as has happened here. It is clear flaming is ok by you people. Tell me, how is grow up not a flame?

fuck off Ardchoille! It is not advice to flame me as has happened here. It is clear flaming is ok by you people. Tell me, how is grow up not a flame?

You do realize your attacking one of the mods now?

The fact that I said I was locking the thread should have been a pointer not to post further, Cryptic Nightmare. Take a day off to think it all over.

I would seriously suggest that you try to develop a thicker epidermis. Telling someone to grow up is to be expected in these circumstances.

Anyone who saw my repetitive post (before I edited it) I hit "submit" instead of "preview" on the first one.