NationStates Jolt Archive

Anyway, here are my views on homosexuality: unless a condom is used, homosexual intercourse in highly unsanitary.

Lesbians are inherently unsanitary? Riiiiight.

Lesbians are inherently unsanitary? Riiiiight.

and have you seen how clean the gays are?!

What's so unsanitary about sucking someone's cock?

A penis has many germs upon it, and germs entering into the mouth are unsanitary.

A penis has many germs upon it, and germs entering into the mouth are unsanitary.

The mouth has more germs. The human mouth is, normally, the most germ-ridden part of our bodies.

A penis has many germs upon it,

A mouth has more.

...but entering into the vagina is a-okay!

You clearly have never had homosexual intercourse. Ergo, you have no idea what you're talking about. I respectfully suggest you remedy to that situation before you allow yourself to speak further on the subject. :D

Simple personal hygiene prior to sex makes it highly sanitary.

"Highly"?

Homosexual intercourse is neither more nor less sanitary than heterosexual intercourse.

Putting sensitive parts (i.e. susceptible to disease) of one's body in an excrement center is clearly one of the most unsanitary things which can be done.

Putting a germ-ridden organ into one's mouth is also highly unsanitary.

Albeit heterosexual intercourse is also unsanitary, yet it is to a much lesser degree.

The mouth generally is the best-protected orifice for cocks. You regularly take food into it, and saliva is designed to disinfect it as much as possible. So it's the safest... Except for one thing, other orifices can be assaulted with protective gear, which is further much safer.

And of course that protection isn't meant to take in such heavily germ-infested fluids as feces.

A penis has many germs upon it, and germs entering into the mouth are unsanitary.

And this is precisely why the civilized homosexuals take a shower and brush their teeth before they gambol away in the bedroom to get frisky with each other.

Also, you conveniently forget that fellatio as well as anal intercourse happen to be practiced by heterosexuals on a regular basis.

Homosexual intercourse is no more unsanitary than heterosexual intercourse. In fact, I dare say that there is nothing unsanitary about intercourse, period. What affects the sanitation of sex is the personal hygiene of the participants, not the practices being used.


"Highly"?

High levels of personal hygiene makes it highly sanitary. yes.


Putting sensitive parts (i.e. susceptible to disease) of one's body in an excrement center is clearly one of the most unsanitary things which can be done.

Putting a germ-ridden organ into one's mouth is also highly unsanitary.

Albeit heterosexual intercourse is also unsanitary, yet it is to a much lesser degree.
You clearly have a very feeble grasp on the concept of sanitation. As I posted above, there is nothing inherently unsanitary about intercourse, whether it is anal, oral, homosexual or heterosexual in nature. Personal hygiene is what matters.

Lesbians
Couching sessions.
are inherently unsanitary? Riiiiight.
Yes.

While this does have some religious undertones, to say that parents should have a right in what their children are learning does not have to bee religious in nature. After all if I feel that my son should be learning about fractions and how to do basic calculations using fractions I should be able to lobby the State government to change their cirriculum. but I suppose you don't mind if other people have a right to say what should be taught to children.

As a former teacher, I get sick and tired of parents telling me how to teach their children. I don't really care whether its homosexual marriage or counting, I did four years at university studying pedagogy, epistemiology, child psychology and development, and curriculum studies while still actually studying my subjects. I know what I am doing, I have been trained to do it, and I have the knowledge and expertise to do it. I also know my classroom and my children.

Parents, in the main, don't have this expertise. Therefore, until they do, why should they critique my ability to do my job? I don't go into their businesses and tell them how to do their jobs. Why do they have a right to belittle my expertise?

...but entering into the vagina is a-okay!

I believe there are fewer germs in that location, yes.

This is yet another area of life where we should look to the Bible...lets look at the Gospel of Mathew, Chapter 11:

"And the Lord said, Thomas, why are you consternated?"

"And Thomas, who was ashamed, averted his eyes, and would not answer"

"And the Lord said, 'Seriously, dude, you've been weird all day..."

"And Thomas said, 'Lord...you know that girl, the one we met by the harbor?"

"And the Lord said, 'The Greek looking one?"

"And Thomas said, 'No, the kind of heavy one, but you know, still cute...'"

"And the Lord replied, 'Oh, yeah, sure, sure, I remember'"

"And Thomas said, 'Did she, uh...did she look...clean...to you?"

And Jesus said 'What do you mean?"

And Thomas said "You know...well, after the fishbake that night, we sort of hooked up, and now I'm...itching. A lot."

And Jesus said 'I'm not laying hands on you again, after the "ministering" you did last time we were in Thesalonia, and I had to cast the chlymidia out of you..."

And this is precisely why the civilized homosexuals

What percentage is that?

take a shower and brush their teeth before they gambol away in the bedroom to get frisky with each other.

It is still a fine way to collect germs, but the risk is lessened.

Also, you conveniently forget that fellatio as well as anal intercourse happen to be practiced by heterosexuals on a regular basis.

Yes, and that is just as unsanitary.

Homosexual intercourse is no more unsanitary than heterosexual intercourse. In fact, I dare say that there is nothing unsanitary about intercourse, period. What affects the sanitation of sex is the personal hygiene of the participants, not the practices being used.

No, certain parts of the body produce many germs, and other parts are particularly susceptible to germs.

Also, you conveniently forget that fellatio as well as anal intercourse happen to be practiced by heterosexuals on a regular basis.


Would you mind explaining this to my wife?

"Highly"?



Putting sensitive parts (i.e. susceptible to disease) of one's body in an excrement center is clearly one of the most unsanitary things which can be done.

Putting a germ-ridden organ into one's mouth is also highly unsanitary.

Albeit heterosexual intercourse is also unsanitary, yet it is to a much lesser degree.
Parkus, you are just wrong. Okay?

1) No kind of sex is very sanitary.

2) Homosexual intercourse is not MORE unsanitary than heterosexual sex for two reasons: (A) See (1) above; and (B) homosexuals and heterosexuals can perform the same sex acts.

3) The human mouth is the most germy part of the body. A lot more stuff loaded with germs flows in and out of the mouth than ever goes anywhere near our genitals, all day, every day -- stuff like air and food and anything that gets anywhere near our hands -- not to mention the bacteria that live in our mouths all the time. (Hey, did I ever tell you about the friend of a friend of mine who used Listerine mouthwash but did not rinse her mouth out with water properly, and the disinfectant in the Listerine killed the bacteria that are supposed to live in the mouth, causing mold to grow on her tongue over night? Imagine the shock when she went to brush her teeth in the morning.)

It's factual ignorance like this that makes it hard to root out bigotry like in the OP video. I'm not saying you're bigoted -- obviously you are not -- but you are wrong on the facts in a particular way that feeds into widely accepted bigoted views against gays.

Would you mind explaining this to my wife?

I think LG has already helped you in this regard.

*'helped' being a contentious word here*

In fact, I dare say that there is nothing unsanitary about intercourse, period. What affects the sanitation of sex is the personal hygiene of the participants, not the practices being used.
[...]
High levels of personal hygiene makes it highly sanitary.

What about the 4chan Sex Position? It's when... Oh, I better spare the weak of heart. You don't want to know. I mean, unless you really do.

So, Mur, you wanna go get dirty?

I think LG has already helped you in this regard.

*'helped' being a contentious word here*

That trapeze-assisted cannon-propelled clown sex of his is great on showmanship, low on staying power.

But at least its not as somehow microbially pathogenic as gay sex somehow is, apparently, according to Parkus...

So, Mur, you wanna go get dirty?

Shes still got that tire iron I gave her.

The mouth generally is the best-protected orifice for cocks. You regularly take food into it,

I do not touch my mouth to an apple that had rolled on the street; I would not eat an apple that someone rubbed upon his genitals.

and saliva is designed to disinfect it as much as possible. So it's the safest... Except for one thing, other orifices can be assaulted with protective gear, which is further much safer.

Yes, much.

And of course that protection isn't meant to take in such heavily germ-infested fluids as feces.

Humans require little indulgences to make life bearable, even if risk is involved.

What percentage is that?

Roughly equivalent to the percentage of civilized heterosexuals. Maybe even a bit higher, if I can trust the empirical evidence brought to me by my female friend's testimonies.


It is still a fine way to collect germs, but the risk is lessened.

There is no risk involved with proper hygiene.


Yes, and that is just as unsanitary.

Anal and oral sex are not unsanitary in nature. They can be performed in unsanitary conditions, just like every human activity, but are not inherently so, any more than eating or shitting.


No, certain parts of the body produce many germs, and other parts are particularly susceptible to germs.
Again, washing is a very convenient way to remove your excess of germs and protect those parts more sensible.

Perhaps you're unaware that women need to wash their girl parts too? It gets just as germy as the rest of us otherwise.

You arbitrarily consider some forms of sex unsanitary for no scientific reason whatsoever. You suffer from "Eww, I think that's icky!" syndrome, to be quite blunt. You're all welcome to feel that way about certain sexual practices, and I know many people share that view as well. Just don't go around thinking practicing those is somehow unsanitary or poses health risk; it doesn't.

Would you mind explaining this to my wife?

Only if you'll let me convince you to try out pegging with her as a matter of fairness.

Only if you'll let me convince you to try out pegging with her as a matter of fairness.

She refuses ass play mutually; I've been barking up that tree ever since that chick up at Moonlight Bunny Ranch put a finger up my ass and brought a premature but stellar end to my usual thursday night half and half...

I miss those days...

Shes still got that tire iron I gave her.
I hope Neo Art gets off on watching because I'm getting ready to smack Parkus upside the head with that tire iron. Geez.

Roughly equivalent to the percentage of civilized heterosexuals. Maybe even a bit higher, if I can trust the empirical evidence brought to me by my female friend's testimonies.


There is no risk involved with proper hygiene.


Anal and oral sex are not unsanitary in nature. They can be performed in unsanitary conditions, just like every human activity, but are not inherently so, any more than eating or shitting.


Again, washing is a very convenient way to remove your excess of germs and protect those parts more sensible.

Perhaps you're unaware that women need to wash their girl parts too? It gets just as germy as the rest of us otherwise.

You arbitrarily consider some forms of sex unsanitary for no scientific reason whatsoever. You suffer from "Eww, I think that's icky!" syndrome, to be quite blunt. You're all welcome to feel that way about certain sexual practices, and I know many people share that view as well. Just don't go around thinking practicing those is somehow unsanitary or poses health risk; it doesn't.
When someone goes on and on about how dirty stuff is and ignores the "you can wash it off" point, I start to wonder if he ever learned the "wash your hands" lesson.

Remind me not to eat dinner at Parkus's house.

I hope Neo Art gets off on watching because I'm getting ready to smack Parkus upside the head with that tire iron. Geez.

Just make sure you disinfect it first. :rolleyes:

A penis has many germs upon it, and germs entering into the mouth are unsanitary.

You should quit now. You are just digging yourself into a deeper hole.

Just admit to yourself you don't know what you are talking about and shut up.

Just make sure you disinfect it first. :rolleyes:
I'll use soap AND water. :D

I hope Neo Art gets off on watching because I'm getting ready to smack Parkus upside the head with that tire iron. Geez.

oh baby. Yeah, do it harder, faster.

By the way, "I hope Neo Art gets off" is my new sig, k?

I do not touch my mouth to an apple that had rolled on the street; I would not eat an apple that someone rubbed upon his genitals.

And yet you are willing to kiss someone and share all that juicy germ factory.

A freshly cleaned penis (or vagina, let's not forget some of them heterosexual gentlemen actually bother giving back some of the love lavished upon them by their female partners) has far less germs on it than a mouth that hasn't seen a brush for more than half an hour.

At the risk of repeating myself: you are mistaking your own personal repulsion for actual scientific evidence of unsound sexual health. Get your facts straight, and change your discourse: it's okay not to like oral or anal because it seems gross to you, but don't induce others to think that it's somehow not clean to practice that. There's nothing unclean about sex, as long as you're doing it with a clean person.

Parkus, you are just wrong. Okay?

:$

1) No kind of sex is very sanitary.

Agreed.

2) Homosexual intercourse is not MORE unsanitary than heterosexual sex for two reasons: (A) See (1) above;

Some things are certainly more unsanitary than others.

and (B) homosexuals and heterosexuals can perform the same sex acts.

Which are still unsanitary.

3) The human mouth is the most germy part of the body. A lot more stuff loaded with germs flows in and out of the mouth than ever goes anywhere near our genitals, all day, every day -- stuff like air and food and anything that gets anywhere near our hands -- not to mention the bacteria that live in our mouths all the time.

If I were to put fecal matter in my mouth, do you think there would be anything unsanitary about that?

Hey, did I ever tell you about the friend of a friend of mine who used Listerine mouthwash but did not rinse her mouth out with water properly, and the disinfectant in the Listerine killed the bacteria that are supposed to live in the mouth, causing mold to grow on her tongue over night? Imagine the shock when she went to brush her teeth in the morning.)

Remarkable; that has never happened to me, but I will make sure to rinse thoroughly with water in the future, post Listerine.

It's factual ignorance like this that makes it hard to root out bigotry like in the OP video.

Education is what makes civilization great. I am convinced that if people were better educated, most of society's problems would perish.

I'm not saying you're bigoted -- obviously you are not -- but you are wrong on the facts in a particular way that feeds into widely accepted bigoted views against gays.

I consider drinking unwise and I do not use alcohol, but I do not condemn the practice. We cannot deprive life of all its pleasures simply because they pose hazards; still, such hazards ought to be acknowledged, and any precaution within reason should be considered.

I'm scared of germs too, but I don't let that stop me from giving oral. (However I dont have pics so I guess Im lying.)

You should quit now. You are just digging yourself into a deeper hole.

Just admit to yourself you don't know what you are talking about and shut up.

Cat-Tribe, as usual, you fail to review the pertinent case law.

I draw your attention to Syphils v. Gonorrhea wherein it was ruled that the vast list of sexually transmitted microbial pathogens were somehow more likely to infect you from a gay person, whereas their communicable propensity is negligible if its a man's fluid intermingling with a woman's.

Ask any microbiologist receiving principle funding from Focus on the Family.

You should quit now. You are just digging yourself into a deeper hole.

If I am I am sure I will find out on my own.

Just admit to yourself you don't know what you are talking about and shut up.

That is not any worse than the typical NSG argument; still, it grieves me that best debater here would say such a thing.

You arbitrarily consider some forms of sex unsanitary for no scientific reason whatsoever. You suffer from "Eww, I think that's icky!" syndrome, to be quite blunt. You're all welcome to feel that way about certain sexual practices, and I know many people share that view as well. Just don't go around thinking practicing those is somehow unsanitary or poses health risk; it doesn't.
Well, it seems you really have a need to know about German porn. I'll describe one sexual practice employed there. Now tell me if that is still sanitary "if all is well washed".

Please do not read if you value your peace of mind.


No, you don't want it. But the text's below.

The lower sex partner (further, LSP) puts her legs up and apart, in order to increase her cylinder's diameter. The upper sex partner (further, USP) increases his piston's diameter and length, teasing the LSP's cylinder cover to further open the cylinder. As the cylinder reaches maximum diameter, the USP axially aligns his solid waste exhaust outlet and LSP's cylinder, and performs bowel evacuation. Immediately after that, the USP axially aligns his piston with the LSP's cylinder, and proceeds with axial piston motion of gradually increasing amplitude within the cylinder.

And yet you are willing to kiss someone and share all that juicy germ factory.

No, I am not.


A freshly cleaned penis (or vagina, let's not forget some of them heterosexual gentlemen actually bother giving back some of the love lavished upon them by their female partners) has far less germs on it than a mouth that hasn't seen a brush for more than half an hour.

If you can site this, I concede the argument.

At the risk of repeating myself: you are mistaking your own personal repulsion for actual scientific evidence of unsound sexual health. Get your facts straight, and change your discourse: it's okay not to like oral or anal because it seems gross to you, but don't induce others to think that it's somehow not clean to practice that. There's nothing unclean about sex, as long as you're doing it with a clean person.

I simply said, "use a condom", and now you are calling me a homosexual-phobic.

If I were to put fecal matter in my mouth, do you think there would be anything unsanitary about that?

That is really relevant only to "rimming", if anything, and as Skaladora has been stressing, the issue can be resolved with proper hygiene practices.

The real issue here is not any particular sanitary problem, but the weird way many straight guys view their own body parts.

Cat-Tribe, as usual, you fail to review the pertinent case law.

No, it is not usual, which is why I am grieved.

You should quit now. You are just digging yourself into a deeper hole.

Just admit to yourself you don't know what you are talking about and shut up.
I'm reminded of a scene from "The Producers":

Leo Bloom: Oh my God, I mean, excuse me.
Max Bialystock: You mean, "Oops," don't you. Just say, "Oops," and get out!
Leo Bloom: Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah . . .
Max Bialystock: Not "Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah," "Oops!"

:$
If I were to put fecal matter in my mouth, do you think there would be anything unsanitary about that?

None of the sex practices discussed up to now in this thread involved putting fecal matter in someone's mouth. Scatological practices are another thing entirely.

You have also failed to demonstrate that there is any significant difference between gay sex and/or straight sex, independent of practices.

I simply said, "use a condom", and now you are calling me a homosexual-phobic.

That's all you said? Nothing about gay sex being less clean than straight sex?

I actually have mixed up posters before so I could be wrong, but I really honestly thought you said more than "use a condom", and rather said some things about the comparative cleanliness of gay sex versus straight.

oh baby. Yeah, do it harder, faster.

By the way, "I hope Neo Art gets off" is my new sig, k?

Cherry picking, eh? :tongue:

EDIT: Ah, crap, that's another entendre.

Measure the distance between your penis and your butthole. EWWWWW! its too close!

No, it is not usual, which is why I am grieved.

So...you really think this is him sadly dropping the ball by not checking the legal precedent?

On an issue far more governed by microbiology?

Did you, uh...did you read the citation I accused him of overlooking?

That is really relevant only to "rimming", if anything, and as Skaladora has been stressing, the issue can be resolved with proper hygiene practices.

The point is that the mouth is the porthole to sickness: fecal matter on the arm would not be nearly as harmful.

The real issue here is not any particular sanitary problem, but the weird way many straight guys view their own body parts.

"[M]any straight guys"? I resent that, as I resent statements like: "many gay guys" or "many black guys.

The point is that the mouth is the porthole to sickness: fecal matter on the arm would not be nearly as harmful.


So....gay sex somehow tends to include scat more than straight sex?

Gays go ATM more than others? Or more than straights go bareback?

For a guy calling for citation from others, you might want look into that...

That's all you said? Nothing about gay sex being less clean than straight sex?

Unless a condom is used, in which case it is not any more unsanitary.

I actually have mixed up posters before so I could be wrong, but I really honestly thought you said more than "use a condom", and rather said some things about the comparative cleanliness of gay sex versus straight.

A condom for cleanliness; and yes, I believe unprotected anal or oral sex very unsanitary.

The point is that the mouth is the porthole to sickness: fecal matter on the arm would not be nearly as harmful.
If you get a little poo on your penis and then wash it off you aren't going to get sick from it.

Cherry picking, eh? :tongue:

EDIT: Ah, crap, that's another entendre.

you love it

:$


Agreed.


Some things are certainly more unsanitary than others.



Which are still unsanitary.
Moving your goalposts a bit there, huh? You started out saying that homosexual intercourse was unsanitary. You said nothing about all sex being unsanitary. You singled out gay sex. You were wrong. Now you're trying to pretend like you never did that. You're wrong again. Feel like being right for a change? Then admit your error and correct it.

If I were to put fecal matter in my mouth, do you think there would be anything unsanitary about that?
No more unsanitary than the fecal matter that comes out of your mouth.

Remarkable; that has never happened to me, but I will make sure to rinse thoroughly with water in the future, post Listerine.


Education is what makes civilization great. I am convinced that if people were better educated, most of society's problems would perish.
You should try leading by example.

I consider drinking unwise and I do not use alcohol, but I do not condemn the practice. We cannot deprive life of all its pleasures simply because they pose hazards; still, such hazards ought to be acknowledged, and any precaution within reason should be considered.
How enlightened of you.

Well, it seems you really have a need to know about German porn. I'll describe one sexual practice employed there. Now tell me if that is still sanitary "if all is well washed".

Please do not read if you value your peace of mind.


As I pointed in my previous post, what I have been arguing up to this point has not been meant to include any form of scatological practice. I should probably have been more rigorous in how I was expressing myself.

Anal sex and oral sex, regardless of who performs it on who, remains just as sanitary as vaginal intercourse long as both partners have proper personal hygiene. None of those three practices should be considered inherently unclean or as posing health risks(ex: infections) of any kind.

As for the... particularities of niche german porn, I won't pronounce myself on this, as I have never had the occasion nor the inclination to read scientific studies on their respective health risk (or lack thereof).

So....gay sex somehow tends to include scat more than straight sex?

For the love of Gilfig, no. I never said that. I am not impugning homosexuality, I am simply saying that the acts of expression which it is limited too (and the acts are not "homosexual in nature") are simply not as clean as traditional intercourse.

The point is that the mouth is the porthole to sickness: fecal matter on the arm would not be nearly as harmful.

True, but so what? Does that mean we should put nothing whatsoever into our mouths?

"[M]any straight guys"? I resent that, as I resent statements like: "many gay guys" or "many black guys.

...both of which are perfectly valid, when the statements are true.

Unless a condom is used, in which case it is not any more unsanitary.

So, going bareback with a man is more dangerous than going bareback with a woman...I suppose that might be. Sort of like playing russian roulette with a .38 revolver is less dangerous than playing russian roulette with a .44...so, therefore we should be leary of people who carry .44's, as opposed to just not playing russian roulette...



A condom for cleanliness; and yes, I believe unprotected anal or oral sex very unsanitary.

And naturally, anal or oral is "gay sex"...and having a dude shoot a load into a guys mouth is more dangerous than doing it into a woman's mouth (the straight sex you say is more sanitary)...

The point is that the mouth is the porthole to sickness: fecal matter on the arm would not be nearly as harmful.


I'm sorry, but the above remark is just dumb. Shit is shit, no matter where it is -- or are you under the impression that all those people who were sickened by e. coli on spinach a while back were eating it out of each other's butt cracks?

Seriously, for your sake and the sake of everyone around you, who might ever touch the same doorknob as you, learn something about hygiene.

Edit: What I mean is the shit on your arm is just as dangerous because it's just as likely to end up entering your blood stream via your mouth, mucus, or a cut. You really are making yourself look more ill informed with every post.

For the love of Gilfig, no. I never said that. I am not impugning homosexuality, I am simply saying that the acts of expression which it is limited too (and the acts are not "homosexual in nature") are simply not as clean as traditional intercourse.

Now its "traditional intercourse", rather than "straight sex", that is safer.

If you did not claim that the acts are "homosexual in nature", why did you refer to them as "homosexual sex", using only that modifier to distinguish them?

I'll go back and look again, but I'm pretty sure you used the phrase "homosexual sex" as your descriptive term for these "less sanitary acts".

I think what Parkus is TRYING to say, badly, is that heterosexuals have a whole slew of sexual acts to engage in, whereas homosexuals have one less. Everything a gay couple can do a heterosexual one can, but gay couples can't engage in regular vaginal intercourse.

Now if we assume gay couples have sex about as much as heterosexual couples, they are going to engage in the acts they CAN engage in more frequently, by mere nature of having fewer options. They're not "homosexual activities", they're activities homosexuals engage in MORE OFTEN, by simple mathematics.

if we each do a task 100 times, and you have 5 ways of doing it, and I have 4, I'm probably going to do the four ways we have in common more often, because I don't have any other way of doing it. You do, so you're going to be doing those 4 less often, simply because you have more options

Moving your goalposts a bit there, huh? You started out saying that homosexual intercourse was unsanitary. You said nothing about all sex being unsanitary. You singled out gay sex. You were wrong. Now you're trying to pretend like you never did that. You're wrong again. Feel like being right for a change? Then admit your error and correct it.

I know all sex is unsanitary some way or another; so is breathing. I also believe anal and oral sex are very unsanitary. If that irks you, I apologize. but I am tired of you pouring insults upon me as if I were a Republican president.

No more unsanitary than the fecal matter that comes out of your mouth.

You should have learned the lesson Hagbard Celine did: telling your opponents that they speak fecal matter is ineffective, no matter how wrong they might be.

You should try leading by example.

Any example I put forth is hated.


How enlightened of you.

Ouch.

If you did not claim that the acts are "homosexual in nature", why did you refer to them as "homosexual sex", using only that modifier to distinguish them?

Because I did not wish to list all the stimulations that could be had besides the reproductive one.

I'll go back and look again, but I'm pretty sure you used the phrase "homosexual sex" as your descriptive term for these "less sanitary acts".

Yes.

I know all sex is unsanitary some way or another; so is breathing. I also believe anal and oral sex are very unsanitary. If that irks you, I apologize. but I am tired of you pouring insults upon me as if I were a Republican president.
What irks me is your persistence in your ignorance and your attempt now to act as if you had not singled out gay sex as being more unsanitary.

You should have learned the lesson Hagbard Celine did: telling your opponents that they speak fecal matter is ineffective, no matter how wrong they might be.
It is very effective for expressing my opinion of your argument.

Any example I put forth is hated.
That's because your examples are uneducated. What I meant was that you should set the example by learning something about this matter.

Ouch.
I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that you are hijacking the thread. Your uninformed opinions about gay sex have nothing to do with the topic, which is not about sex.

Edit: What I mean is the shit on your arm is just as dangerous because it's just as likely to end up entering your blood stream via your mouth, mucus, or a cut. You really are making yourself look more ill informed with every post.

Putting excrement on one's epidermis is as likely to cause sickness as putting excrement in one's mouth? If you can source this I will most certainly concede the argument, and I will understand that you are far more educated than I am.

I know all sex is unsanitary some way or another; so is breathing. I also believe anal and oral sex are very unsanitary.

The thing is, though, your belief isn't rational or supported by evidence, and yet you stated it as if it were fact. Why would penis- or vagina-to-mouth contact be more unsanitary than penis-to-vagina contact?

No, I am not.

You should, several studies have shown marked health benefits from kissing, most notably because the exchange of saliva and all the associated germs makes your immune system active and better equipped to deal with its environment.


If you can site this, I concede the argument.

Genitals are covered by skin. Application of soap and warm water effectively kills pretty much all but a handful of the bacteria present on a skin surface. Freshly-washed genitals are just as clean as washed hands, feet, or underarms.


I simply said, "use a condom", and now you are calling me a homosexual-phobic.
I don't remember writing that. Neither do I remember thinking it.

What I've been saying and thinking is that you're confusing two issues, one being your dislike and/or repulsion for specific sexual practices, and the other being the unsanitary (or, as science and the empirical evidence of several years of my own healthy sex life, free of any infections/health risks whatsoever argue, sanitary) nature of said specific sexual practices.

And naturally, anal or oral is "gay sex"...and having a dude shoot a load into a guys mouth is more dangerous than doing it into a woman's mouth (the straight sex you say is more sanitary)...

*sigh* No, oral stimulation is just as unsanitary with any attraction.

Putting excrement on one's epidermis is as likely to cause sickness as putting excrement in one's mouth? If you can source this I will most certainly concede the argument, and I will understand that you are far more educated than I am.

But shit in the mouth is not gay sex or anal sex. Shit on the penis will not make you sick.

The thing is, though, your belief isn't rational or supported by evidence, and yet you stated it as if it were fact. Why would penis- or vagina-to-mouth contact be more unsanitary than penis-to-vagina contact?

Because it is easier to catch a sickness via the mouth--is it not?

Now its "traditional intercourse", rather than "straight sex", that is safer.

If you did not claim that the acts are "homosexual in nature", why did you refer to them as "homosexual sex", using only that modifier to distinguish them?

I'll go back and look again, but I'm pretty sure you used the phrase "homosexual sex" as your descriptive term for these "less sanitary acts".
Here it is, from page 17:
I must compliment the interviewer on his choice of dress.

Anyway, here are my views on homosexuality: unless a condom is used, homosexual intercourse in highly unsanitary.

On homosexual marriage: I think the world has too many people in it as it is, and homosexual couples are good, because they generally adopt children who need homes, rather than create more people needlessly. Besides this, how is making homosexual marriage illegal going to stop homosexual relations? It will not; at the worst, homosexuals will be more promiscuous.

On the morality: homosexuality is not immoral in my eyes, because no one is harmed; whether or not it is "natural" is irrelevant. Murder is natural; monogamy (among primates) is not.

Should others be taught that homosexuality is moral? On the whole, yes, because it will eradicate bigotry and integrate society better. Still, it has to be taken slowly, in order not to upset parents. Schools should be more open day-by-day, but so little that no-one notices.
Note he specifies homosexual sex. He says nothing about heterosexual sex or sex in general.

But shit in the mouth is not gay sex or anal sex. Shit on the penis will not make you sick.

Germs on the organ due present a health hazard.

I think what Parkus is TRYING to say, badly, is that heterosexuals have a whole slew of sexual acts to engage in, whereas homosexuals have one less. Everything a gay couple can do a heterosexual one can, but gay couples can't engage in regular vaginal intercourse.

Now if we assume gay couples have sex about as much as heterosexual couples, they are going to engage in the acts they CAN engage in more frequently, by mere nature of having fewer options. They're not "homosexual activities", they're activities homosexuals engage in MORE OFTEN, by simple mathematics.

if we each do a task 100 times, and you have 5 ways of doing it, and I have 4, I'm probably going to do the four ways we have in common more often, because I don't have any other way of doing it. You do, so you're going to be doing those 4 less often, simply because you have more options
We got that.

He's just wrong on his assumption that sexuality consisting of things other than "traditionnal(read:vaginal) intercourse" is unsanitary.

Putting excrement on one's epidermis is as likely to cause sickness as putting excrement in one's mouth? If you can source this I will most certainly concede the argument, and I will understand that you are far more educated than I am.
I told you precisely in the sentence you quoted how it could infect you. The fact that you NEED to be told this is shocking to me, truly.

Because I did not wish to list all the stimulations that could be had besides the reproductive one.

So instead, you grouped them as a class and defined them as "homosexual sex", then claimed you never said they were homosexual in nature, even though that was the umbrella descriptor you assigned to them.

Neo Art rendered it better, and in such a way as to not make it sound as if gays are somehow dirtier.



Yes.

Yes, you described it as "homosexual sex", then said it wasn't homosexual, even though that was the defining title you gave to the set you were seeking to describe.

You also clearly tried to argue that gays were somehow more likely to get shit in their mouths, as if they all go bareback ATM or engage in scat play.
That's a big assumption on your part.

Germs on the organ due present a health hazard.

Not a hazard. The effects are insignificant.
Especially if it is washed after wards with a little bit of soap and warm water. Just like after you use the toilet.

But shit in the mouth is not gay sex or anal sex. Shit on the penis will not make you sick.

You're technically correct, even though anal sex (gay or straight) does not involve putting shit on your penis.

Anal sex and oral sex, regardless of who performs it on who, remains just as sanitary as vaginal intercourse long as both partners have proper personal hygiene. None of those three practices should be considered inherently unclean or as posing health risks(ex: infections) of any kind.
No, they aren't equally sanitary. Oral sex is safer for both (if both are unprotected), since the mouth has extensive protective mechanisms, and bacteria in the mouth are unlikely to infect the penis (and vice versa).

Anal sex inherently poses very high risk of infection for both partners, since anus: 1) contains a very wide variety of germs, 2) has no protections against STD like vaginal fluids, while being vulnerable to STD.

Just washing the cock or the butt isn't going to help.

*sigh* No, oral stimulation is just as unsanitary with any attraction.

Well, then you've just thoroughly contradicted your main theme, that what you described as "homosexual sex" is less sanitary than "heterosexual sex".

Much as you continue to empasize how dangerous feces in the mouth is, without ever showing that gays get shit in their mouths as part of their typical sex.

Note he specifies homosexual sex. He says nothing about heterosexual sex or sex in general.

Right, because according my profound erudition, same-sex couples cannot engages in P to V intercourse.

Anyway, I am sorry I did not cover my arse when speaking. Sorry: all sex is unsanitary in one way or another. I have said that. Anal and oral are more unsanitary, which happen to be the regular homosexual methods of intercourse, but they are just as unsanitary when employed by people attracted to the opposite sex.

*sigh* No, oral stimulation is just as unsanitary with any attraction.
Oral stimulation is not unsanitary period. Stop trying to pass off your own repulsion and ickyness towards it as scientific evidence that it poses health risk or is generally unsanitary. It's not.

Germs on the organ due present a health hazard.

But you've been the one drawing attention to the fact that on the skin it is far less dangerous than in the mouth. This has been a primary element of your argument.

Now, when we address the premise that gays (assuming they go bareback) get shit somewhere else, the skin is suddenly more dangerous...

Because it is easier to catch a sickness via the mouth--is it not?

I've never seen any evidence to suggest this, and don't know why it would be. Care to provide a source?

I told you precisely in the sentence you quoted how it could infect you. The fact that you NEED to be told this is shocking to me, truly.

Cite it, so that I may share your shock.

Right, because according my profound erudition, same-sex couples cannot engages in P to V intercourse.

Anyway, I am sorry I did not cover my arse when speaking. Sorry: all sex is unsanitary in one way or another. I have said that. Anal and oral are more unsanitary, which happen to be the regular homosexual methods of intercourse, but they are just as unsanitary when employed by people attracted to the opposite sex.
You're still wrong in the exact same way you were before.

And considering how stubbornly unresponsive to people's arguments you are being on this, and how far off topic this is, I am inclined to put you back on ignore. This is just pointless. At least I have learned never to shake your hand, but I think that is all that can be gotten from this discussion.

That is not any worse than the typical NSG argument; still, it grieves me that best debater here would say such a thing.

How about a mod's opinion *?

You don't know what you're talking about. You're digging yourself deeper and deeper into a logical hole. Sex is inherently not particularly sanitary, though alert individuals (of any gender or orientation) can mitigate that with precautions.

Unless you can pull up statistics that indicate a higher prevalence of fecal coliform or similar related diseases amongst gay and lesbian populations, you should drop this argument. Your argument is entirely based on moral outrage, not fact.


* Note that this is in fact opinion and not a moderator ruling

No, they aren't equally sanitary. Oral sex is safer for both (if both are unprotected), since the mouth has extensive protective mechanisms, and bacteria in the mouth are unlikely to infect the penis (and vice versa).

Anal sex inherently poses very high risk of infection for both partners, since anus: 1) contains a very wide variety of germs, 2) has no protections against STD like vaginal fluids, while being vulnerable to STD.

Just washing the cock or the butt isn't going to help.

Are we talking about transmitting STDs or are we talking about getting some thing like a 'cold/flu' from sex with a partner who carries no STDs?

Right, because according my profound erudition, same-sex couples cannot engages in P to V intercourse.

Anyway, I am sorry I did not cover my arse when speaking. Sorry: all sex is unsanitary in one way or another. I have said that. Anal and oral are more unsanitary, which happen to be the regular homosexual methods of intercourse, but they are just as unsanitary when employed by people attracted to the opposite sex.

Oral is more unsanitary?

So, I'm more at risk getting a bareback BJ from an alley girl behind Adelitas in Tijuana then having bareback "traditional" sex with her? And she is more at risk taking some cake batter in the mouth than in the vagina? I'm going to look into that, but only in peer-reviewed literature, not by gathering new data...

Are we talking about transmitting STDs or are we talking about getting some thing like a 'cold/flu' from sex with a partner who carries no STDs?
Transmitting STD. And I know everyone is sure they carry no STD, all until they get late-stage symptoms.

Cite it, so that I may share your shock.
No. Screw you, because I do not believe you don't know how fecal matter can infect a body with bacteria even if it makes a stop along the way from ass to mouth, or even if it finds another way into the body. I just do not believe you. I think you are just being stubborn because you just cannot bring yourself to admit that you said something wrong. You are the only person in this thread who does not understand what I said or is trying to imply it's not true. As far as I'm concerned, you can continue to pretend you think that, if looking ignorant is so important to you.

I'd also really appreciate it if Parkus would explain how exactly strap-on/dildo-to-vagina intercourse is so very unsanitary, given that it comprises a pretty major part of homosexual intercourse.

I've never seen any evidence to suggest this, and don't know why it would be. Care to provide a source?

The mouth, nose and the eyes are all particularly susceptible.

http://www.cdc.gov/germstopper/pdf/work.pdf

No, they aren't equally sanitary. Oral sex is safer for both (if both are unprotected), since the mouth has extensive protective mechanisms, and bacteria in the mouth are unlikely to infect the penis (and vice versa).

Anal sex inherently poses a higher risk when not properly prepared for of infection for both partners, since anus: 1) contains a very wide variety of germs, 2) has no protections against STD like vaginal fluids, while being vulnerable to STD.

Just washing the cock or the butt isn't going to help.
Bold mine, and the underlined part is where you're wrong, although the rest of your post is correct.

Also, there is no such thing as protection from STD in vaginal fluids. The reason anal intercourse offers a greater chance of infection compared to vaginal intercourse is due to the more fragile nature of the human tissues composing them. The uterus is more resilient than the gut, which will suffer from micro lesions more easily, accounting for higher risks of STD. Which has nothing to do with the germs (which is not even the proper term, anyway, we should be talking bacteria here).

And in every case, nothing of this supports in any way claims that homosexual sex is less sanitary than "traditional" intercourse, which probably implies the missionary position on top of being penis-in-vagina sex, with a name like that.

Everything in Parkus' discourse seems to stem from good old prudery, not science and biology findings about potential health hazards of anal and oral sex.

I'd also really appreciate it if Parkus would explain how exactly strap-on/dildo-to-vagina intercourse is so very unsanitary, given that it comprises a pretty major part of homosexual intercourse.

He's backpedaled like Lance Armstrong on Bizarro World on it being "homosexual intercourse". Now, he just meant "oral and anal"...apparently, lesbians just do assfisting and saladtossing...

I'd also really appreciate it if Parkus would explain how exactly strap-on/dildo-to-vagina intercourse is so very unsanitary,

It is not, that I know of.


given that it comprises a pretty major part of homosexual intercourse.

That changes things...I am not sure how, but it does.

The mouth, nose and the eyes are all particularly susceptible.

http://www.cdc.gov/germstopper/pdf/work.pdf

More so than the vagina?

You know what? This whole argument constitutes a major threadjack.

Drop it. Drop it now.

That's a mod ruling, by the way.

Transmitting STD. And I know everyone is sure they carry no STD, all until they get late-stage symptoms.

Of course the difference is probably like buying one lottery ticket vs. buying 10 lottery tickets. Having unprotected sex with an infected partner is a very risky game.

No. Screw you, because I do not believe you don't know how fecal matter can infect a body with bacteria

I know it can, I am simply saying that the risk is not as great.

even if it makes a stop along the way from ass to mouth, or even if it finds another way into the body.

Rubbing dung on a cut could certainly be dangerous.

The mouth, nose and the eyes are all particularly susceptible.

http://www.cdc.gov/germstopper/pdf/work.pdf

Gosh, I can't imagine why the CDC didn't specifically mention covering your vagina while at work in that pamphlet. :rolleyes:

What if you're a stripper, huh?

HUH?

Check MATE.

How about a mod's opinion *?

*looks nervous*

You don't know what you're talking about. You're digging yourself deeper and deeper into a logical hole. Sex is inherently not particularly sanitary, though alert individuals (of any gender or orientation) can mitigate that with precautions.

Unless you can pull up statistics that indicate a higher prevalence of fecal coliform or similar related diseases amongst gay and lesbian populations, you should drop this argument.

I am looking; I fear that the first sites that come-up are Catholic. :p Anyway, thank you for putting it better than "shut-up". :wink:

Your argument is entirely based on moral outrage, not fact.


I may have no factual basis; still, it has little to do with "moral outrage".

* Note that this is in fact opinion and not a moderator ruling

*sigh of relief*

You know what? This whole argument constitutes a major threadjack.

Drop it. Drop it now.

That's a mod ruling, by the way.
This, please, thank you. ^^

And in an attempt to get back on topic, I'll just say this:

1) This episode with PE can serve as an example of the kinds of ignorance about gay life that feeds and gives credence to the kind of bigotry that is at the heart of the OP video.

2) This is why comprehensive sex education is VITAL in our schools.

3) It is also why social normalizing that includes presenting gays as not significantly different from heteros in regular life pursuits is also VITAL in our schools.

They are the best, most readily available ways to correct these kinds of misconceptions.

You know what? This whole argument constitutes a major threadjack.

Drop it. Drop it now.

That's a mod ruling, by the way.

Okay-dokey.

I hereby withdraw this argument.

Can't we all demonstrate our (in some cases serious) misunderstandings of epidemiology and microbiology in some other damn thread? Can we get back to snickering at Tony Perkins? That was funnier.

Heh. Family Research Council. What kind of research do they do, anyway?

So yes. About those outraged parents thing.

I believe a book stating "Look, there are families with two moms or two dads! They exist! Just like families with only one mom, only one dad, and/or families with a mom and a dad (who may or may not be of different skin colors" is perfectly appropriate as school curriculum.

Parents who don't like that can go ahead and shut up, and just live with it. Tough nut, the public system has a responsibility to fight prejudice and bigotry all across the board. That includes racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and all the other forms of arbitrary ass-hattery.

Ya, like Skaladora said, how can parents deny the existance of same sex couples?
Also I think the terms "same sex" and "Homosexual" are what cause these :O reactions from parents because these terms have the S.E.X. word in them. Nevermind the fact that in this context sex means male/female and not sexual intercourse

I believe a book stating "Look, there are families with two moms or two dads! They exist! Just like families with only one mom, only one dad, and/or families with a mom and a dad (who may or may not be of different skin colors" is perfectly appropriate as school curriculum.


Something the Parkus threadjack helped highlight - it is interesting and disturbing to me that many people, including several in this thread, seem to think that this message is somehow sexual. It's not just a matter of "it's not normal" or "it's immoral" but specifically "these kids are too young to be learning about sex." But...who the heck mentioned sex? It makes me wonder about the objectors' sexual orientations when the mere mention of gay people apparently sets their minds ablaze with images of hot man-on-man buttsexing. When they encounter a straight couple, most people don't immediately start thinking about what sort of sex acts they engage in; why on earth would one have that reaction to a gay couple?

Bold mine, and the underlined part is where you're wrong, although the rest of your post is correct.
It's not so - there's no such thing as being prepared to it, apart from wearing protective gear.

Also, there is no such thing as protection from STD in vaginal fluids.

There is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina#Sexual_health_and_hygiene

"The vagina is self-cleansing and therefore usually needs no special treatment. Doctors generally discourage the practice of douching. Since a healthy vagina is colonized by a mutually symbiotic flora of microorganisms that protect its host from disease-causing microbes, any attempt to upset this balance may cause many undesirable outcomes, including but not limited to abnormal discharge and yeast infection. The acidity of a healthy vagina due to lactic acid secreted by symbiotic microorganisms retards the growth of many strains of dangerous microbes."


The reason anal intercourse offers a greater chance of infection compared to vaginal intercourse is due to the more fragile nature of the human tissues composing them. The uterus is more resilient than the gut, which will suffer from micro lesions more easily, accounting for higher risks of STD.
Yes, this is the second reason why anal sex is more dangerous.

Something the Parkus threadjack helped highlight - it is interesting and disturbing to me that many people, including several in this thread, seem to think that this message is somehow sexual. It's not just a matter of "it's not normal" or "it's immoral" but specifically "these kids are too young to be learning about sex." But...who the heck mentioned sex? It makes me wonder about the objectors' sexual orientations when the mere mention of gay people apparently sets their minds ablaze with images of hot man-on-man buttsexing. When they encounter a straight couple, most people don't immediately start thinking about what sort of sex acts they engage in; why on earth would one have that reaction to a gay couple?
Definitely a methinks they doth protest too much situation. The obsession with gay sex lives is so total, they are simply not able to think of gays not having sex, apparently.

Definitely a methinks they doth protest too much situation. The obsession with gay sex lives is so total, they are simply not able to think of gays not having sex, apparently.
These are called asexuals.

These are called asexuals.
I know I'm going to regret this, but...

What?

It makes me wonder about the objectors' sexual orientations when the mere mention of gay people apparently sets their minds ablaze with images of hot man-on-man buttsexing.

The fact that the mere mention of same-gendered couples causes me to immediately fixate, at length, on gay sex, particularly gay male sex, and then pretend I was thinking about lesbians, and black out an entire afternoon of going to gay porn sites does not cast doubt on my hetero-cred.

I imagine men schtupping only to better practice my revulsion against it.


When they encounter a straight couple, most people don't immediately start thinking about what sort of sex acts they engage in; why on earth would one have that reaction to a gay couple?

To be briefly serious, dudes do.

As for gays, what's the point of realizing that they have jobs, friends, families, and immersion in the entire experience of being human? That just humanizes them. Why do that?

Something the Parkus threadjack helped highlight - it is interesting and disturbing to me that many people, including several in this thread, seem to think that this message is somehow sexual. It's not just a matter of "it's not normal" or "it's immoral" but specifically "these kids are too young to be learning about sex." But...who the heck mentioned sex? It makes me wonder about the objectors' sexual orientations when the mere mention of gay people apparently sets their minds ablaze with images of hot man-on-man buttsexing. When they encounter a straight couple, most people don't immediately start thinking about what sort of sex acts they engage in; why on earth would one have that reaction to a gay couple?

This made me lol. Hard.

But yes, many people for some reason are still stuck with age-old clichés from the prudery of Victorian era prejudice or just plain old religious repression towards non-heterosexual orientations(poor bisexuals, always forgotten in their corner).

Fact of the matter is, gay men and lesbian women are not all about sex. They're also about family, and careers, and volunteer work and spirituality and contributing to their community and paying their taxes. Just like every damn other person out there.

Parents who hold prejudiced views on homosexuals do not and should not have the right to try to push their views on their children unchallenged, any more than racist parents should be able to do so. The idea of an "opt-out" right is as ridiculous as letting Ku Klux Klan members get their children to opt out of classes pertaining to racism, or the civil rights movement. Or as sexist parents getting their kids out of classes that deal with gender differences or man/woman equality.

They're still legally free to engage in indoctrination of their children at home (even though the morality and ethical value of such a behavior is disputable). They don't, however, have the option to try and prevent their child from being exposed to another point of view, namely one supporting the basic human rights and recognition granted by their government to all of its citizen regardless of gender, sexual orientation, skin color or religion.

I know I'm going to regret this, but...

What?

People who don't want to have sex are called asexuals. About 2% according to them. According to some of them, it's a sexual, or more precisely asexual orientation in itself, but some others say one can be an asexual with either orientation, and it's rather lack of hedonistic bodily desires.

To be briefly serious, dudes do.
To be briefly honest, so do women. The difference is, apparently, some people are ALSO able to imagine hetero couples doing OTHER things besides sex, whereas, some people apparently can't do that with gays.

As for gays, what's the point of realizing that they have jobs, friends, families, and immersion in the entire experience of being human? That just humanizes them. Why do that?
Pretty much sums it up.

People who don't want to have sex are called asexuals. About 2% according to them. According to some of them, it's a sexual, or more precisely asexual orientation in itself, but some others say one can be an asexual with either orientation, and it's rather lack of hedonistic bodily desires.
I knew I would regret it.

I was not talking about people who don't want to have sex.

I was talking about people who do want to have sex but might not be doing it at a given moment. I.e. "gays not having sex" AT THE MOMENT.

Kindly do not ever waste my time again. Thanks. 'Bye.

:hail:

Thank you?

The fact that the mere mention of same-gendered couples causes me to immediately fixate, at length, on gay sex, particularly gay male sex, and then pretend I was thinking about lesbians, and black out an entire afternoon of going to gay porn sites does not cast doubt on my hetero-cred.

I imagine men schtupping only to better practice my revulsion against it.

Well, sure. Obviously. ;)


To be briefly serious, dudes do.

Really? I just...can't even envision thinking that way. "Oh, there's that nice Mr. and Mrs. Jones, out getting ice cream with their grandkids. I wonder if he sticks it up her pooper."

Really? I just...can't even envision thinking that way. "Oh, there's that nice Mr. and Mrs. Jones, out getting ice cream with their grandkids. I wonder if he sticks it up her pooper."

Don't worry about it, not all of us guys got that memo either, apparently. :)

Ahh Shit, and i haven't felt the urge to murder anyone or anything for days.

Well, i absolutely think that Homosexuals should be allowed to get married in church, and that it should be tought in schools.
But why you would wanna get married in a church that has fucked you over for hundreds of years is beyond me.

I was talking about people who do want to have sex but might not be doing it at a given moment. I.e. "gays not having sex" AT THE MOMENT.


WE CAN STOP HAVING SEX AND STILL BE GAY? :eek2:


Holy shit. God I needed that break.

Ahh Shit, and i haven't felt the urge to murder anyone or anything for days.

Well, i absolutely think that Homosexuals should be allowed to get married in church, and that it should be tought in schools.
But why you would wanna get married in a church that has fucked you over for hundreds of years is beyond me.
Not all churches are headed by homophobic old men. Some unitarian and protestant denominations are actually quite open to performing marriage ceremonies for the gay members of their flock, and have been inclusive of them for several years prior to the gay marriage debates.

what is freedom? free to choose what is right and wrong and tell Christians to shut up and let my maker to decide.

Look at the video; 04:50, made my day.

In any case, i thought the video was just bullshit until the part when the mother says: "Bla Bla Bla...Sin...Bla Bla Bla"
After that, my brain was so corrupted by this evil that my head turned inside out and i exploded in a rage which devastated three countries and was noticeable in China.

Prior to the sin thing, the parents were just stupid in my eyes.
I mean i can understand if you as a parent want to be the one to speak to your children about any form of marriage.
But it still isn't illegal for schools to do this.

And i am getting the feeling that they are afraid that their children are going to turn out gay, yes.
Because most Homosexuals noticed they were gay after they were tought about Same-Sex marriage.
"Dad, i want to be a fudge packer when i grow up!"

I bet the dad does what he feels is best for his kid. And so he feels the jail time- the filthy cell- was was unjust.

But what about the people who face a lot more than just a "jail time" for being homosexual- they face discrimination and sometimes violence, for something they can't help.

So there NEEDS to be schools teaching kids tolerance at an early age.

Those parents are stupid and the father deserved to be arrested.

And i am getting the feeling that they are afraid that their children are going to turn out gay, yes.
Because most Homosexuals noticed they were gay after they were tought about Same-Sex marriage.
"Dad, i want to be a fudge packer when i grow up!"

Hey, fudge-packing is a valuable part of the fudge-making industry and in several more tourist-orientated counties generates a sizable revenue...

Oh, you meant the other type of fudge-packer :p

WE CAN STOP HAVING SEX AND STILL BE GAY? :eek2:


Phew... I had thought after my years of depressing singledom they were going to revoke my lesbian card for failing to engage in the requisite amount of sex.

And i am getting the feeling that they are afraid that their children are going to turn out gay, yes.
Because most Homosexuals noticed they were gay after they were tought about Same-Sex marriage.
"Dad, i want to be a fudge packer when i grow up!"
It is a well-known fact that if you teach school children about something then they will turn into it. Remember how you turned into Ben Franklin after that book report you wrote? And how your entire 3rd grade class turned into the multiplication tables and cursive handwriting?

It is a well-known fact that if you teach school children about something then they will turn into it. Remember how you turned into Ben Franklin after that book report you wrote? And how your entire 3rd grade class turned into the multiplication tables and cursive handwriting?

...this sounds like the bastard lovechild of Kahlo and Dali...

Phew... I had thought after my years of depressing singledom they were going to revoke my lesbian card for failing to engage in the requisite amount of sex.
And what are without our membership cards, I wonder?

Anyhoo, seems like there's a consensus here that everyone thinks those parents should shut up and live with the fact that schools will teach tolerance, acceptance and inclusion, as opposed to their values of rejection and prejudice.

All is well in the realm of Denmark.

Anyhoo, seems like there's a consensus here that everyone thinks those parents should shut up and live with the fact that schools will teach tolerance, acceptance and inclusion, as opposed to their values of rejection and prejudice.


The trouble is, there are many people out there who DO agree with the parents, and who will buy into their rantings.

Unsurprisingly a forum consisting mostly of young, socially liberal (economically is, of course, a different matter) and international respondents thinks their homophobic bullshit is exactly that, a load of bollocks. Shame this is not necessarily the norm.

Okki dokki!.. Why are some people so inept at making video presentations/movies?? I'd rather watch the bunny-carrot evolution movie lol... The--sniffle, sniffle--crying concerned Father was just well.. as laughable and worrying as the keeping of paperback books on oven stoves.

As for the actual argument of parents being able to 'opt-out', I think that public schooling is supposed to provide children with the tools to be able to live in and contribute to the society they happen to be living in. The parental 'right' seems to me to be a way of keeping children ignorant of said society in which they live and that means rejection, discrimination and general retarded behaviour to things they don't (want to) understand.

Therefore no, I don't think parents should be allowed to 'save' their children from the 'horrors' of marriage, love, cultures, academia and life.

The trouble is, there are many people out there who DO agree with the parents, and who will buy into their rantings.

Unsurprisingly a forum consisting mostly of young, socially liberal (economically is, of course, a different matter) and international respondents thinks their homophobic bullshit is exactly that, a load of bollocks. Shame this is not necessarily the norm.

Someone agrees with them enough to make the film and interview them. I'm sure there are others.

Okki dokki!.. Why are some people so inept at making video presentations/movies?? I'd rather watch the bunny-carrot evolution movie lol... The--sniffle, sniffle--crying concerned Father was just well.. as laughable and worrying as the keeping of paperback books on oven stoves.
Hey, that bunny-carrot evolution movie is going to go BOFFO, man. Mega-hit.

As for the actual argument of parents being able to 'opt-out', I think that public schooling is supposed to provide children with the tools to be able to live in and contribute to the society they happen to be living in. The parental 'right' seems to me to be a way of keeping children ignorant of said society in which they live and that means rejection, discrimination and general retarded behaviour to things they don't (want to) understand.

Therefore no, I don't think parents should be allowed to 'save' their children from the 'horrors' of marriage, love, cultures, academia and life.
Seems fairly obvious when you stop to think about it, doesn't it, and yet...

Someone agrees with them enough to make the film and interview them. I'm sure there are others.
Oh, there's a whole voting block of them.

I hope with all my heart that people understand that i was being ironic.

Impossible. One of a schools primary functions is to socialize students. Remember, schools mirror society and all that good stuff. It is impossible to change society and not have it reflected in schools. Gay families now legally exist in the same capacity as heterosexual families in the state of Massachusetts. As such, they can no longer be ignored or marginalized. This isn't a moral lesson. It isn't a value session or judgement call...gay families exist.

It is in the interest of the state to have this concept introduced to all students in the interest of a cohesive society that is tolerant of law abiding citizens.

Meh, they should just use cute animals to talk about families at that age. Gay families existance is irrelevant. Christian fundies exist so these kinda "omg they are trying to make our children gay!" programs are gonna cause a reaction. So a step by step attitude is better, IMO.

Meh, they should just use cute animals to talk about families at that age. Gay families existance is irrelevant. Christian fundies exist so these kinda "omg they are trying to make our children gay!" programs are gonna cause a reaction. So a step by step attitude is better, IMO.

Racists exist, so these kinda "omg them darkies are human" programs are gonna cause a reaction.

Meh, they should just use cute animals to talk about families at that age. Gay families existance is irrelevant. Christian fundies exist so these kinda "omg they are trying to make our children gay!" programs are gonna cause a reaction. So a step by step attitude is better, IMO.

Heavens, we don't want "reaction[s]"!! We may come down with the vapors and swoon!!

People who don't want to have sex are called asexuals. About 2% according to them. According to some of them, it's a sexual, or more precisely asexual orientation in itself, but some others say one can be an asexual with either orientation, and it's rather lack of hedonistic bodily desires.

Umm, isn't that non-sexuals?

Asexual means that you can reproduce with yourself.

Well, i absolutely think that Homosexuals should be allowed to get married in church, and that it should be tought in schools.

Wrong, I have to disagree with you there. The state can allow you to be recognised as married and give you a marriage licence. But any church can decide who or what gets married on their property. Just like I won't allowed anybody to get married on my property.

It is a well-known fact that if you teach school children about something then they will turn into it. Remember how you turned into Ben Franklin after that book report you wrote? And how your entire 3rd grade class turned into the multiplication tables and cursive handwriting?

No, but I remember how the class turned into a bunch of unruly dirty kids after reading Lord of the Flies. No seriously they did, they even killed a goat.

but:

1. is it "normal?" Doesn't that depend on your personal opinion of what is normalcy? Gay marriage is NOT normal if you gauge normalcy by what has been traditionally accepted as being a "legitimate" marriage. ON the other hand, I'll concede that an equal right to marry has not always been accepted as a legitimate right for blacks in the U.S. either. That is not the point though, or is it? Is sexual attraction within the same gender as "normal" as hetrosexual attraction across races?

2. Even if "normal" should a parent be allowed to "opt out" for his child? If not, why shouldn't a parent be allowed to determine when, where and what his child is taught about marriage and the interrelationships of the sexes? If not, why should I trust the government (in the form of our public school system) to teach my child about sex and marriage? What makes the opinion of government officials "more right" on the issue than that of the parents who live with and raise a child each day?

EDIT: just for the record here, I'll state I could care less one way or another. Further, I think a parent should have the right to "opt out" for his/her child in ANY discussion regarding sex/marriage they want. Marriage is cultural matter as much as it is a legal one, but morality is something that cannot be legistated. If a parent thinks homosexuality is immoral, I think he should be allowed to "opt out" his child. Likewise for Heterosexual marriage.

Children are not property. Parents do not own their children, they have merely accepted the responsibility to protect and care for them for a long period of time. I understand how a homophobic parent would be concerned about this, but the assumption that a parent should have the right to control what legitimate information their child gets exposed to as an inherent right is troubling. There's a point where legitimate censorship for the good of the child becomes trying to control the child's worldview, to their detriment.

Umm, isn't that non-sexuals?

Asexual means that you can reproduce with yourself.

The dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/asexual) disagrees with you. Perhaps you're thinking of parthenogenetic? Or monoecious? Both are slightly closer to your definition.

Umm, isn't that non-sexuals?

Asexual means that you can reproduce with yourself.

No, the term is asexual. Not like an amoeba, though.

http://www.asexuality.org/home/

The dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/asexual) disagrees with you. Perhaps you're thinking of parthenogenetic? Or monoecious? Both are slightly closer to your definition.

In biology, asexual organisms are those who reproduce without sex.

No, but I remember how the class turned into a bunch of unruly dirty kids after reading Lord of the Flies. No seriously they did, they even killed a goat.

Are you sure it wasn't just a bunch of unruly dirty kids who found a new theme to be unruly with for a brief period of time? Like how some kids pretend to be saints, angels or elves at Christmas?

The dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/asexual) disagrees with you. Perhaps you're thinking of parthenogenetic? Or monoecious? Both are slightly closer to your definition.

Well it appears I am wrong, which I knew I might be hence the question.

No, the term is asexual. Not like an amoeba, though.

http://www.asexuality.org/home/

Get that site away from my child!!! *Breaks down and cries*

In biology, asexual organisms are those who reproduce without sex.

Ahh that is what I was thinking of.

Are you sure it wasn't just a bunch of unruly dirty kids who found a new theme to be unruly with for a brief period of time? Like how some kids pretend to be saints, angels or elves at Christmas?

Well after reading Christmas stories they wnat to become like that don't they? See, so the point makes sense if the kids start to read about this then they will all become gay and marry other kids of the same sex.

Well after reading Christmas stories they wnat to become like that don't they? See, so the point makes sense if the kids start to read about this then they will all become gay and marry other kids of the same sex.

Y'know, when I was finally told about homosexuality by my mum when I was about 5 (I asked my mum what 'faggot' meant, my reaction was, "Well duh." Maybe I'm abnormal, but it always kinda made sense to me that if Snow White could fall in love with Prince Charming then why couldn't she fall in love with Princess Charming too?

Didn't make me gay.

Reading Heidi didn't turn me into a yodelling, cheese-making, goat-herder either. Little Women didn't develop in me a sudden interest in the piano, or dedication to the poor.

As I said earlier in response to your post, parents shouldn't have the right to interfere in my classroom. In the main, they don't have my training, they don't have my expertise, they don't have my knowledge of pedagogy, curriculum, child development, learning theory and my classroom. They also forget that I teach around 180 kids a day, and I can't make an individualised curriculum for each one of them. So they should stay the hell out of my classroom or home school their kids.

Y'know, when I was finally told about homosexuality by my mum when I was about 5 (I asked my mum what 'faggot' meant, my reaction was, "Well duh." Maybe I'm abnormal, but it always kinda made sense to me that if Snow White could fall in love with Prince Charming then why couldn't she fall in love with Princess Charming too?


Growing up in a very liberal family (with a gay aunt), I really can't remember when I first got exposed to the idea, it was just a fact of life that some people loved people from the opposite gender, some loved them from the same gender. No biggy.

Which made it a lot easier when I started liking girls, because it just wasn't a big deal.

In fact ultimately, I believe this is why school must present to kids that homosexuality exists and is normal. Because those kids might end up being gay, or bi, and if all they've been exposed to is their parent views, that has the potential to lead to years of depression, self-loathing, denial and even suicide.

Growing up in a very liberal family (with a gay aunt), I really can't remember when I first got exposed to the idea, it was just a fact of life that some people loved people from the opposite gender, some loved them from the same gender. No biggy.

Which made it a lot easier when I started liking girls, because it just wasn't a big deal.

In fact ultimately, I believe this is why school must present to kids that homosexuality exists and is normal. Because those kids might end up being gay, or bi, and if all they've been exposed to is their parent views, that has the potential to lead to years of depression, self-loathing, denial and even suicide.

Exactly my point. I was lucky to grow up with a mother who let me make up my own mind about issues, even when I didn't agree with her as a child (I was pro-life as a teenager for instance), and so I became much more well-rounded in terms of my views. But some children aren't that lucky and allowing parents to interfere with the curriculum just makes school an unsafe place for children of say, homosexual parents, or non-religious parents or whatever they are trying to introduce/ban.

In fact ultimately, I believe this is why school must present to kids that homosexuality exists and is normal. Because those kids might end up being gay, or bi, and if all they've been exposed to is their parent views, that has the potential to lead to years of depression, self-loathing, denial and even suicide.

Indeedy, outright denying/ignoring something could only ever have one effect and that effect would be negative - denial/ignorance stifles so much in life and just causes no good. At all.

The first few times I heard about homosexuals weren't exactly positive.
I vaguely recall one time having a bad day when I was eight or nine and homosexuals were brought up and thinking "great, watch me turn out to be gay."

or are you under the impression that all those people who were sickened by e. coli on spinach a while back were eating it out of each other's butt cracks?There's more than one way to have a tossed salad, you know.

So they should stay the hell out of my classroom or home school their kids.

Can't agree with this one. Of course evey parent has the right to know what goes on in school with their children.

Most schools I know of, welcome parents getting involved with their childrens education. Frankly if a teacher told me to get the hell out of my classroom, I'd be looking at getting them the hell out of the very same classroom, and the hell into the dole queue.

Of course evey parent has the right to know what goes on in school with their children.

The OP was asking whether or not parents should have the right to opt-out of certain aspects in a curricullum, so I believe; with regards to the parents interfering with a nationalised curricullum - that they should indeed stay the hell out of the classroom in schools. They can view the curricullum a school is teaching whenever they like and if they really do feel that strongly about something then they can home-teach their kids.

Can't agree with this one. Of course evey parent has the right to know what goes on in school with their children.

Never said they didn't have a right to know what goes on in my classroom. What I said was, that they have no right to tell me how to do my job. I don't tell my accountant how to do his. I don't diagnose myself for my doctor. I trust that those people have the knowledge and the training to do the right thing. Parents should do the same with teachers.

Why should a parent complain about my teaching methods? Do they have the 4 years of training that I had to do what I do? In the main, no.

Most schools I know of, welcome parents getting involved with their childrens education. Frankly if a teacher told me to get the hell out of my classroom, I'd be looking at getting them the hell out of the very same classroom, and the hell into the dole queue.

I welcomed parents who wanted to get involved. I did not welcome parents who told me, "You can't teach that book/poem/tv show to my child, because I don't believe in it." Or the ones who told their kids, "You don't have to listen to her, she's just a woman/intellectual/white middle class bitch who's never had a real job." Or the ones who complained about the way I disciplined their children for little things like screaming out in class, "You make some of the kids in this class really wet, Miss.", or telling the girls in their class "Stop rape, say yes." Or calling me or other students a "fucking ****." because, of course their little darlings don't know such horrible words/it's their religious/cultural background/their child has problems and I am just not respectful of that. Those are the parents who should stay away from my classroom.

Parents who respect the job that I do, and the rights of other students in my classroom are invaluable, and when they have valid concerns, I listen to them. They are the ones who are willing to work with teachers, and appreciate the restraints on our jobs.

I mean, yeah, what do teachers know about teaching anyway?

Surely we're better off letting the ignorant dogmatic religious folks do the job.

I mean, yeah, what do teachers know about teaching anyway?

Surely we're better off letting the ignorant dogmatic religious folks do the job.

Nah. Even better to just let life handle it. Though, Life's tests tend to be killer...

Never said they didn't have a right to know what goes on in my classroom. What I said was, that they have no right to tell me how to do my job. I don't tell my accountant how to do his. I don't diagnose myself for my doctor. I trust that those people have the knowledge and the training to do the right thing. Parents should do the same with teachers.

Why should a parent complain about my teaching methods? Do they have the 4 years of training that I had to do what I do? In the main, no.



I welcomed parents who wanted to get involved. I did not welcome parents who told me, "You can't teach that book/poem/tv show to my child, because I don't believe in it." Or the ones who told their kids, "You don't have to listen to her, she's just a woman/intellectual/white middle class bitch who's never had a real job." Or the ones who complained about the way I disciplined their children for little things like screaming out in class, "You make some of the kids in this class really wet, Miss.", or telling the girls in their class "Stop rape, say yes." Or calling me or other students a "fucking ****." because, of course their little darlings don't know such horrible words/it's their religious/cultural background/their child has problems and I am just not respectful of that. Those are the parents who should stay away from my classroom.

Parents who respect the job that I do, and the rights of other students in my classroom are invaluable, and when they have valid concerns, I listen to them. They are the ones who are willing to work with teachers, and appreciate the restraints on our jobs.

Ahhhahhahahha! I mean ahhhh it seems then that I should say sorry to you. That's what you get for not reading the whole thread. Please accept my applogies.

Nah. Even better to just let life handle it. Though, Life's tests tend to be killer...

Surely you're not suggesting we let our children be exposed to the fact that some of the other children in their classroom might have two moms or two dads?

Think of the children! Why won't anybody think of the poor children!

[/hysterics]

Y'know, when I was finally told about homosexuality by my mum when I was about 5 (I asked my mum what 'faggot' meant, my reaction was, "Well duh." Maybe I'm abnormal, but it always kinda made sense to me that if Snow White could fall in love with Prince Charming then why couldn't she fall in love with Princess Charming too?

Didn't make me gay.

Reading Heidi didn't turn me into a yodelling, cheese-making, goat-herder either. Little Women didn't develop in me a sudden interest in the piano, or dedication to the poor.

OK Jade let me stop you there, that post you quoted was intended as a joke I was not seriously saying that reading about it will make them gay. Though I was serious with the Lords of the Flies thing, but I don't think reading Lord of the Flies was the reason.

As I said earlier in response to your post, parents shouldn't have the right to interfere in my classroom. In the main, they don't have my training, they don't have my expertise, they don't have my knowledge of pedagogy, curriculum, child development, learning theory and my classroom. They also forget that I teach around 180 kids a day, and I can't make an individualised curriculum for each one of them. So they should stay the hell out of my classroom or home school their kids.

Ok so if a teacher starts sprouting rubbish, like the effects of global warming will see this city 60m under water, I don't have a right to get the teacher to stop telling students absolute crap? I call bullshit, I don't mind teachers teaching facts but if a teacher starts to teach their viewpoint as fact on an issue then that my friend is wrong and every parent should be allowed to have a say. And parents should be able to tell the state what should be in the curriculum, if they won't teaching say how to calculate using fractions (a basic need) then I would say that parents should be allowed to lobby the state government to get this included.

Now you might be a very good teacher, but their are a lot of bad teachers out there and there are teachers who have no clue what they are talking about, hell one teacher I had for history I had to correct a lot of his mistakes when he was teaching.

I mean, yeah, what do teachers know about teaching anyway?

Surely we're better off letting the ignorant dogmatic religious folks do the job.

Those who can't do teach, they may know about teaching but do they know what they are teaching?

Those who can't do teach
A witty saying proves nothing
, they may know about teaching but do they know what they are teaching?

Pick some subject you're pretty ignorant about. Medieval literature, genetics, whatever. Now teach me about it.

A witty saying proves nothing.

Why didn't I pay attention to the comeback for that.?

Pick some subject you're pretty ignorant about. Medieval literature, genetics, whatever. Now teach me about it.

I would no how to teach you it not the content but I would know how I should teach you about it and wing the rest. You don't know any better right?

Those who can't do teach, they may know about teaching but do they know what they are teaching?
That saying is probably the most stupid, contemptuous thing I have ever heard.

I don't know how you select, train and promote your teachers, but here where I live we have talented, informed, able and passionate people teaching.

Why didn't I pay attention to the comeback for that.?
You're meant to point out that that is, in itself, a witty saying.

I would no how to teach you it not the content but I would know how I should teach you about it and wing the rest. You don't know any better right?

So you can't teach me what you don't know. Do you really think someone could complete their training to be a teacher without knowing about what they'll be expected to teach? Barring vast amounts of cheating or bribery, of course.

Those who can't do teach,

A witty generalization, but ultimately just that. I'd love to see some real evidence of this.

they may know about teaching but do they know what they are teaching?

Actually, yes. I'm not even sure it would be possible to teach people - to really EXPLAIN to people how and why things work they way they do - if you yourself don't understand how and why they work. Perhaps I misunderstood your statement here, but I just don't see how it would be possible for me to teach my students about developmental psychology, for example, without understanding the principles of developmental psychology to begin with.

That saying is probably the most stupid, contemptuous thing I have ever heard.

I don't know how you select, train and promote your teachers, but here where I live we have talented, informed, able and passionate people teaching.

I am glad you do, unfortunately the school system that I was in and that my son is now in has some poor teachers around the place. Don't get me wrong they I did have teachers that were everything you describe and more but I also had teachers who didn't care, won't good at teaching, didn't know their subject matter all to well and basically bad teachers.

Our teachers are selected on their Yr12 result, and since they want more teachers and their is a bit of a shortage they have a low entrance mark, so quite a lot of people can get in. I have a few friends who are teachers and our training as teachers at the moment, some of them are quite bright and will be/are very good teachers some of them have no clue, hell one of them tried to tell me that Norwegians come from the country of Norwegia.

I am glad you do, unfortunately the school system that I was in and that my son is now in has some poor teachers around the place. Don't get me wrong they I did have teachers that were everything you describe and more but I also had teachers who didn't care, won't good at teaching, didn't know their subject matter all to well and basically bad teachers.

Our teachers are selected on their Yr12 result, and since they want more teachers and their is a bit of a shortage they have a low entrance mark, so quite a lot of people can get in. I have a few friends who are teachers and our training as teachers at the moment, some of them are quite bright and will be/are very good teachers some of them have no clue, hell one of them tried to tell me that Norwegians come from the country of Norwegia.

Your experience with some bad teachers doesn't justify making generalisations about the whole profession.

You're meant to point out that that is, in itself, a witty saying.

Well I know that but isn't there some famous quote that does that?

So you can't teach me what you don't know. Do you really think someone could complete their training to be a teacher without knowing about what they'll be expected to teach? Barring vast amounts of cheating or bribery, of course.

Well, they may know some basics, on what they are supposed to teach enough to get past but when I have a teacher teaching me history and they are getting things wrong and having to look out of the textbook all the time, alarm bells should be ringing. He was a good teacher in other things, English lit, PE and Home economics but not history or at the very least WWI and WWII.

Well I know that but isn't there some famous quote that does that?
Not that I know of.

Well, they may know some basics, on what they are supposed to teach enough to get past but when I have a teacher teaching me history and they are getting things wrong and having to look out of the textbook all the time, alarm bells should be ringing. He was a good teacher in other things, English lit, PE and Home economics but not history or at the very least WWI and WWII.

Teachers are still human(well, except Kat) and they're far from perfect. Don't make generalisations about them all because you knew one that was a bit further from perfect than most.

Your experience with some bad teachers doesn't justify making generalisations about the whole profession.

No it doesn't but people can't say that all teachers are good and know what they are doing.

Not that I know of.

Oh ok.

Teachers are still human(well, except Kat) and they're far from perfect. Don't make generalisations about them all because you knew one that was a bit further from perfect than most.

Well there is more than one but see my above post.

I am glad you do, unfortunately the school system that I was in and that my son is now in has some poor teachers around the place. Don't get me wrong they I did have teachers that were everything you describe and more but I also had teachers who didn't care, won't good at teaching, didn't know their subject matter all to well and basically bad teachers.

Our teachers are selected on their Yr12 result, and since they want more teachers and their is a bit of a shortage they have a low entrance mark, so quite a lot of people can get in. I have a few friends who are teachers and our training as teachers at the moment, some of them are quite bright and will be/are very good teachers some of them have no clue, hell one of them tried to tell me that Norwegians come from the country of Norwegia.

Lack pf proper qualifications is a job to be managed by the school administration.

If you genuinely believe a teacher is not doing a good job, then parents are of course welcome to take it up to the school principal, or whoever else is in charge of recruiting the teachers.

But all of this is besides the point, because a teacher alone does not choose the curriculum seen in his class. Teachers choose how to present the curriculum, but it's actually large groupings of teachers, administrators, functionaries, education specialists, and a whole host of qualified people who decide what ought to be seen in class.

Parents who thinks they should pick and choose what their children learn about are basically saying they're more qualified than those people to decide what's right for their children to learn. And, to be fair, in pretty much every case those parents have no pedagogical qualifications whatsoever, and thus fucking clue about what they're doing.

I'd rather let peer-approved/reviewed experts in the field in question determine what's to be learned, And then let competent teachers use their discretion in how it should be seen. Rather than, you know, letting just any country hick ignore all notions of pedagogy and science decide to teach children about creationism and deny basic facts of life, such as the existence of gay families, racism, and the likes.

A bad teacher here and there doesn't change my opinion.

A witty generalization, but ultimately just that. I'd love to see some real evidence of this.

Well how much? One example? A comprehensive study? But it hardly matters because that is all it is a witty statement, though one I tend to agree with to an extent because I have had teachers who should never have become teachers and I feel honoured for them to have taught me, but I have had others who would fit in with this statement, and that would include myself, I am not that great a soccer player yet I can teach it to juniors which I have done fairly well.

Well, they may know some basics, on what they are supposed to teach enough to get past but when I have a teacher teaching me history and they are getting things wrong and having to look out of the textbook all the time, alarm bells should be ringing. He was a good teacher in other things, English lit, PE and Home economics but not history or at the very least WWI and WWII.

You've clearly had some bad teachers, and that understandably colors your perspective here. As was pointed out above, though, it makes no sense to extrapolate your experiences to the profession as a whole.

Your experience with some bad teachers doesn't justify making generalisations about the whole profession.

Precisely. Logically, if a couple of bad teachers allows him to discredit the profession as a whole, then we are also allowed to generalize a few cases of bad parenting to discredit parents as a whole.

Bad Teacher > Bad Parent.
Good Teacher > Good Parent.

*In terms of pedagogy, of course.

Gotta compare apples with apples, and oranges with oranges. Can't mix the two.

Lack pf proper qualifications is a job to be managed by the school administration.

If you genuinely believe a teacher is not doing a good job, then parents are of course welcome to take it up to the school principal, or whoever else is in charge of recruiting the teachers.

But all of this is besides the point, because a teacher alone does not choose the curriculum seen in his class. Teachers choose how to present the curriculum, but it's actually large groupings of teachers, administrators, functionaries, education specialists, and a whole host of qualified people who decide what ought to be seen in class.

Parents who thinks they should pick and choose what their children learn about are basically saying they're more qualified than those people to decide what's right for their children to learn. And, to be fair, in pretty much every case those parents have no pedagogical qualifications whatsoever, and thus fucking clue about what they're doing.

I'd rather let peer-approved/reviewed experts in the field in question determine what's to be learned, And then let competent teachers use their discretion in how it should be seen. Rather than, you know, letting just any country hick ignore all notions of pedagogy and science decide to teach children about creationism and deny basic facts of life, such as the existence of gay families, racism, and the likes.

A bad teacher here and there doesn't change my opinion.

I would agree with you, but if a teacher is not teaching things right then parents should be allowed to go in and get something done about it. Parents should also be allowed to make submissions to the state government on what should be taught, as I said if basic arithmetic was not in a curriculum then why shouldn't parents be allowed to ask the people who set the curriculum why it isn't in there and ask for it to be included?

Well how much? One example? A comprehensive study? But it hardly matters because that is all it is a witty statement, though one I tend to agree with to an extent because I have had teachers who should never have become teachers and I feel honoured for them to have taught me, but I have had others who would fit in with this statement, and that would include myself, I am not that great a soccer player yet I can teach it to juniors which I have done fairly well.

By evidence, I was thinking of research, yes. But of course, there is no study showing that teachers are, as a group, intellectually bankrupt and unable to practice in their chosen fields.

Also, your example doesn't work well. You can still play soccer. For the example to work it would have to be, "I am physically incapable of playing soccer (and have probably never played in your life as a result) yet I can teach it to juniors which I have done fairly well." It's simply not analogous.

Gotta compare apples with apples, and oranges with oranges. Can't mix the two.

Aww, but I like a fruit salad. :p

By evidence, I was thinking of research, yes. But of course, there is no study showing that teachers are, as a group, intellectually bankrupt and unable to practice in their chosen fields.

Also, your example doesn't work well. You can still play soccer. For the example to work it would have to be, "I am physically incapable of playing soccer (and have probably never played in your life as a result) yet I can teach it to juniors which I have done fairly well." It's simply not analogous.

Well no there isn't and I am not saying that teachers are as a group intellectually bankrupt and unable to practice in their chosen fields it was a bit of a throw away comment. Though people can't say that all teachers are great and know what they are talking about and know how to teach.

I would agree with you, but if a teacher is not teaching things right then parents should be allowed to go in and get something done about it. Parents should also be allowed to make submissions to the state government on what should be taught, as I said if basic arithmetic was not in a curriculum then why shouldn't parents be allowed to ask the people who set the curriculum why it isn't in there and ask for it to be included?

I'm sure parents are free to contact the relevant government department and complain if they have a problem with the curriculum. I'm sure people do quite a bit, especially people like the parents featured in the OP. Fortunately, the government is not required to tailor to the whims of dumbasses and bigots.

And if basic arithmetic isn't on the curriculum then they people who made it are idiots and should not have any say in what anyone is taught ever.

I'm sure parents are free to contact the relevant government department and complain if they have a problem with the curriculum. I'm sure people do quite a bit, especially people like the parents featured in the OP. Fortunately, the government is not required to tailor to the whims of dumbasses and bigots.

And if basic arithmetic isn't on the curriculum then they people who made it are idiots and should not have any say in what anyone is taught ever.

I am not saying the government is required to do it, and you use the term bigots simply because of the thread topic but what if it is something else or anything, I am talking generally here it could be on anything, maybe some parents want the curriculum to include the holocaust when talking about WWII, should they not be allowed to demand this even if they haven't had proper training?

You say they are idiots but if they have had the training then they are the only ones who should be allowed to write up the curriculum.

Well no there isn't and I am not saying that teachers are as a group intellectually bankrupt and unable to practice in their chosen fields it was a bit of a throw away comment. Though people can't say that all teachers are great and know what they are talking about and know how to teach.

Absolutely, not all teachers are great or even "know what they are talking about". No one claimed that, either. I'm sure it's frustrating for many parents when they feel like they know more than the teacher does. I'm also sure that many times they just think they know more, but actually don't. Both sides are heavily invested in these disputes when they arise, and it has to be handled carefully.

I would agree with you, but if a teacher is not teaching things right then parents should be allowed to go in and get something done about it. Parents should also be allowed to make submissions to the state government on what should be taught, as I said if basic arithmetic was not in a curriculum then why shouldn't parents be allowed to ask the people who set the curriculum why it isn't in there and ask for it to be included?

I don't disagree with anything you write here, but it's rather tangential to the present thread. Bad teachers should be replaced with good teachers. Everybody agrees on that.

What we have in this thread is an example of parents being stupid, and trying to opt out their kids out of something that has been included in the curriculum by fully educated professionals and experts for a very good reason.

And while parents should (and do, through their vote) have a certain influence on what is included or excluded from a school curriculum, the fact of the matter is that present boards of teachers, educators, and pedagogues is doing a much better job of choosing what is a good idea to teach than any group of (pedagogically unqualified) parents ever could.

It is stupid, reckless, and backwards to include stuff like creationism in a science class curriculum just because religious parents associations with no scholarly background want it done. Just as it would be stupid, reckless and backwards to remove a diversity book like the one referred to in the OP because of homophobic, racist, or sexist parents wanted to.

So yeah, parents can lobby. But the final decision should always be left to the professionals of the proper field.

I'm a computer scientist. I wouldn't let a technologically challenged person tell me how to do my job. I'm mechanically inept; I would not presume to tell a mechanic how to fix my car, and I take his word for granted about what might be wrong with it. So I expect that we shouldn't let pedagogically challenged parents tell education professionals how to do their job, or what the children should be learning at school.

I'm sure parents are free to contact the relevant government department and complain if they have a problem with the curriculum.

In the business world, we have a feedback mechanism called "Voice of the Customer". Complaining to the relevant government department is often two or three steps removed from the actual problem, which is often what incites the controversy. It's difficult to take specific complaints back to the School Board or Department of Education, filter that back through the department to the school administrators, who then filter it back to the teachers, who then present to the students, who then report to the parents. That's a lot of filtering steps, and important data often gets lost along the way.

Another complication in business terms is that the 'customer' is the parent [or more accurately, the aggregate total of parents in a given scholastic environment], but the 'client' is the child. It's very difficult for the customer to assure that he's getting what he ordered when his feedback mechanism (the child) is inherently incapable of presenting an accurate picture of the concerns.

Business has the capability to address concerns much more directly by bringing the 'customer' and the 'client' together in the same discussion stream. Obviously, the customer and the client are often the same person or group, so your feedback is direct and instantaneous. Schools don't have that luxury, as even if the parent attends occasional classes and sits in the back of the room, he's going to have a different experience from the daily exposure the child receives.

There's a disconnect there that really needs to be addressed in better ways than saying "I'm trained for this, so butt out." That's not an acceptable feedback mechanism in any other business, so why should we accept it in education?

I am not saying the government is required to do it,
I know
and you use the term bigots simply because of the thread topic
Yes, it seemed a handy example to refer to.
but what if it is something else or anything, I am talking generally here it could be on anything, maybe some parents want the curriculum to include the holocaust when talking about WWII, should they not be allowed to demand this even if they haven't had proper training?
They can demand it, but hopefully the curriculum is the way it is for a very good reason. Parents making demands about the curriculum is much like them making demands about the design of the school. Unless they're civil engineers or architects then chances are they don't fully understand why the school was built the way it was.

You say they are idiots but if they have had the training then they are the only ones who should be allowed to write up the curriculum.

If they would leave out basic arithmetic from a curriculum then I see only three possibilities for what has happened.
1. The students are expected to know it. A college level course will not teach you how to multiply.
2. The students don't need to know it. Knowing how addition works isn't really necessary in a history class.
3. The people who made the curriculum have done an insanely bad job and need to be replaced by people who know what they're doing.

In the business world, we have a feedback mechanism called "Voice of the Customer". Complaining to the relevant government department is often two or three steps removed from the actual problem, which is often what incites the controversy. It's difficult to take specific complaints back to the School Board or Department of Education, filter that back through the department to the school administrators, who then filter it back to the teachers, who then present to the students, who then report to the parents. That's a lot of filtering steps, and important data often gets lost along the way.

Another complication in business terms is that the 'customer' is the parent [or more accurately, the aggregate total of parents in a given scholastic environment], but the 'client' is the child. It's very difficult for the customer to assure that he's getting what he ordered when his feedback mechanism (the child) is inherently incapable of presenting an accurate picture of the concerns.

Business has the capability to address concerns much more directly by bringing the 'customer' and the 'client' together in the same discussion stream. Obviously, the customer and the client are often the same person or group, so your feedback is direct and instantaneous. Schools don't have that luxury, as even if the parent attends occasional classes and sits in the back of the room, he's going to have a different experience from the daily exposure the child receives.

There's a disconnect there that really needs to be addressed in better ways than saying "I'm trained for this, so butt out." That's not an acceptable feedback mechanism in any other business, so why should we accept it in education?
When I was a mini-me, customer and client were brought together via teacher meetings. Some meetings were parent and teacher only, others included the student as well.

These meetings gave the customer (the parent) the chance to compare the reports of the client (the child) with the reports of the service provider (the teacher). My mother reported to me that she found my accounts to be surprisingly accurate, considering my biased point of view -- it turned out that, in her judgment, if I said I didn't like a teacher, that meant little, but if I said a teacher was bad or had it in for me, that turned out to be accurate upon her meeting the teacher in person.

Of course, I had a parent who believed in public education as an absolutely essential requirement for a free society, and who was secular in her world view, and who did not have serious issues with our state's curriculum -- at least nothing she felt could not be corrected by parental input on an incident by incident basis.

In this thread, we are talking about parents who do not have that attitude, but in fact, are dishonestly making false complaints against a curriculum in order to promote a social/political agenda. No amount of bringing client/customer and business together is going to resolve the "problems" of such people.

Parents like mine are motivated to make the system work. Parents like the ones in the OP are motivated to manipulate or even break the system because they don't like it.

While every parent has the right to know what is being taught to their child (the first step toward involvement, right? Being able to follow your child's academic development...), they as parents should realise that in a public system that every student is different and that the approach taken is the middle road, the one designed with the interest of everyone in mind. Even if one or two parents don't agree.

By demanding your child be able to be removed from certain parts of the school or board's curriculum, the parent is in effect saying that they don't want to expand their child's mind. That they want their child to have an undeveloped mind and not be exposed to views that may be different than what the parents know and believe.

If parents don't like it... send your child to a private school or home school them yourself, just don't expect the system to bend over backward because you don't want your child to grow up knowing that homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality. Or expect the school to make children ignorant in regards to safe sexual practices just because you think that a condom will somehow eternally damn their soul - it's just some damn latex!

This isn't about math - we all know parents don't object to straightforward subjects where there is only practical theory involved with questions and one answer. The parents are happy with things like this because it isn't open to debate. Children will always be taught fractions because there is no "controversy" around fractions...

The bottom line is... if your child is in a public school, there is a certain desire to teach these children the importance of tolerance and diversity because they will be exposed to people from all walks of life. Even if these children aren't exposed at home, they will be in the school, and maybe later on in life. There is no sense in leaving them unprepared.

I remember having this discussion with my husband. I went to public school all my life. He only went to a public school starting in grade 9, before then he went to a private Jewish school. He admitted that while he may have had a better academic experience than me, that I had a better life experience in school because I was exposed to people of different walks of life. I had the advantage of being able to freely interact with people from different backgrounds; he only knew other Jews.

You see, public schools are public for a reason - these are schools for everyone. If you don't like that, there are private schools that cater to your needs.

That being said... I laughed my ass off at the idiots in the video. The man's tears were so goddamn phoney and that woman was so plastic. They had zero personality. How dry and straight cut. I pity their children. For their children to grow up in such an environment... it's a shame really. The world may be an ugly place but beneath it all, there is something wonderful. When we realise that it's the small differences that don't matter then we're better off.

What's more important... the fact that gays may get married or the fact that children are living in poverty due to government policy? Stop and think about what really hurts us and not what you only imagine what hurts us.

I don't think any of the posts so far have addressed one of the more disturbing details of that video: why are the Parkers storing paperback books on the stove? Sure, they try to hide it and make the family seem normal, but you can clearly see in the video (at about 1:55 in) that the father pulls out the book they're discussing from its storage spot -- on the stove's front burner.

Now I know it's not PC to criticize the many pro-arson families out there, but I'm going to put my foot down on this one: that kind of attitude toward fire safety is immoral. Those parents shouldn't be allowed to have their kids opt out of learning about the dangers of fire (which is what they clearly want, they're just using the whole gay-marriage issue as a smokescreen,) and they should be ashamed of themselves for duping poor Tony Perkins into becoming an unwitting mouthpiece for the radical Burnist agenda.

This is quite possibly the funniest thing I've ever read.

Sometimes the ads are so perfect.
On this thread, I'm getting "Extreme MMORPG: the world is in dire danger from the forces of darkness!"

Sometimes the ads are so perfect.
On this thread, I'm getting "Extreme MMORPG: the world is in dire danger from the forces of darkness!"

I got a blank, white bar.
The ad software seems to have a sense of humour...

At the end of the day this is about pushing one's views on others, and apparently it's perfectly alright for the left to push its views on the right.

Where are all these arguments about being exposed to diversity and middle road approaches when someone talks about including things like Intelligent Design or setting aside time for private prayer? Dries up quick, doesn't it?

So no, peddle the diversity argument elsewhere. If this were REALLY about mutual understanding and diversity then we'd see some balance. As it it, it's just another agenda being pushed through the public propaganda - oops, I mean public school system.

At the end of the day this is about pushing one's views on others, and apparently it's perfectly alright for the left to push its views on the right.

Where are all these arguments about being exposed to diversity and middle road approaches when someone talks about including things like Intelligent Design or setting aside time for private prayer? Dries up quick, doesn't it?

So no, peddle the diversity argument elsewhere. If this were REALLY about mutual understanding and diversity then we'd see some balance. As it it, it's just another agenda being pushed through the public propaganda - oops, I mean public school system.
Bullshit.

It is the couple in the video who are trying to push their views onto others. There is nothing at all to stop them from teaching their values to their children. There is nothing to stop them homeschooling their children if they don't want them to even know that other views exist. They don't get to force the public schools to give what amounts to private classes individually tailored to every student. Period. They want to dictate what their kids learn, the state will not stop them from being their kids' teachers, but they don't get to force their views onto other teachers and the schools.

At the end of the day this is about pushing one's views on others, and apparently it's perfectly alright for the left to push its views on the right.

The view pressed upon people here is that gay marriage is a reality in several countries. While some people might wish this wasn't so, that does not change reality.

Where are all these arguments about being exposed to diversity and middle road approaches when someone talks about including things like Intelligent Design or setting aside time for private prayer? Dries up quick, doesn't it?

Private prayer would be a fine topic for a discussion.
ID otoh is a bunch of lies thought up by people that wish to insult both believers and scientists. Why grant it even that ?

At the end of the day this is about pushing one's views on others, and apparently it's perfectly alright for the left to push its views on the right.

Where are all these arguments about being exposed to diversity and middle road approaches when someone talks about including things like Intelligent Design or setting aside time for private prayer? Dries up quick, doesn't it?

So no, peddle the diversity argument elsewhere. If this were REALLY about mutual understanding and diversity then we'd see some balance. As it it, it's just another agenda being pushed through the public propaganda - oops, I mean public school system.

Nice try.

But your examples of "diversity" are both violations of this little thing we call the U.S. Constitution--unless by "private prayer" you mean the ability to pray that already exists in our schools.

On the other hand, the concept that everyone is created equal and are entitled to equal protection under the laws not only perfectly consistent with our Constituion, but are founding ideas of our Republic.

Poor, poor right-wingers forced to live in a country that actually values freedom, justice, and equality. How dare we force those values on children!!!

At the end of the day this is about pushing one's views on others, and apparently it's perfectly alright for the left to push its views on the right.

Like the view that blacks and whites are equal? Or is it just gay people who are inferior?

Where are all these arguments about being exposed to diversity and middle road approaches when someone talks about including things like Intelligent Design or setting aside time for private prayer? Dries up quick, doesn't it?

Actually, last I knew if your religion requires you to pray at certain times time IS set aside for you (and a room). Most religions DON'T require prayer at certain times and thus the students do not need special prayer time because they can pray on their own time (including free time at school as long as they do so in a non-disruptive manner). As for ID it has no place in science classes as it has nothing to do with science so it's something of a red herring here.

NeoB, in my school I was "exposed" to several kids who always said grace (quietly) before digging into lunch.

For Neo B's benefit I refer back once more to this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14074488&postcount=199) detailing exactly what the parents found offensive.

How dare we force those values on children!!!

I like it how you use this in a sarcastic tone because those values referred to are in line with your own. Were they different I am sure you would be saying this with a bit of anger behind it.

I like it how you use this in a sarcastic tone because those values referred to are in line with your own. Were they different I am sure you would be saying this with a bit of anger behind it.

Um. Yeah, I believe in the values of freedom, justice, and equality.

I support teaching those values.

I oppose teaching the opposite of those values and teaching oppression, injustice, and inequality would anger me.

I'm not going to apologize for that. Why should I?

:rolleyes:

Um. Yeah, I believe in the values of freedom, justice, and equality.

I support teaching those values.

I oppose teaching the opposite of those values and teaching oppression, injustice, and inequality would anger me.

I'm not going to apologize for that. Why should I?

:rolleyes:

Heh just so long as you see this. I'm getting tired I had to wait for you to say something else, I jumped the gun, of course it doesn't have to be the exact opposite it could be any other value.

Neo Bretonnia and Blouman Empire, please tell if you disagree with any of the following quote and why:

The role and purpose of the American public school system were well described by two historians, who stated: "[Public] education must prepare pupils for citizenship in the Republic. . . . It must inculcate the habits and manners of civility as values in themselves conducive to happiness and as indispensable to the practice of self-government in the community and the nation."

These fundamental values of "habits and manners of civility" essential to a democratic society must, of course, include tolerance of divergent political and religious views, even when the views expressed may be unpopular. But these "fundamental values" must also take into account consideration of the sensibilities of others, and, in the case of a school, the sensibilities of fellow students. The undoubted freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against the society's countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Even the most heated political discourse in a democratic society requires consideration for the personal sensibilities of the other participants and audiences.

...

Surely it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse. Indeed, the "fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system" disfavor the use of terms of debate highly offensive or highly threatening to others. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions. The inculcation of these values is truly the "work of the schools." The determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board.

The process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order. Consciously or otherwise, teachers -- and indeed the older students -- demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class. Inescapably, like parents, they are role models.

FYI, the quote is from the majority opinion in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=478&invol=675), 478 U.S. 675 (1986), written by Chief Justice Burger and joined by Justices White, Powell, Rehnquist and O'Connor. Concurrences by Justices Brennan and Blackmun.

Bullshit.

It is the couple in the video who are trying to push their views onto others. There is nothing at all to stop them from teaching their values to their children. There is nothing to stop them homeschooling their children if they don't want them to even know that other views exist. They don't get to force the public schools to give what amounts to private classes individually tailored to every student. Period. They want to dictate what their kids learn, the state will not stop them from being their kids' teachers, but they don't get to force their views onto other teachers and the schools.

I call bullshit back.

First of all, to just flippantly reply with "Well they can always just home school!" is ridiculous. A lot of families can afford to do that. Many cannot. So there IS something stopping them from homeschooling. In my own household there's no way we could manage on the income of just my job or my wife's. How would we home school?

Second, this isn't about not letting their kids know that other views exist. It's about indoctrination. It's one thing to say to a kid "While we believe that certain lifestyles are sinful, there are others who believe differently, which is their right." And quite another to say "These beliefs may not be the same as yours, but they're just as good and normal as anything else!" The former, frankly, I find to me more tolerant because it explicitly points out the value of every person's rights. The latter clearly suggests some views are superior to others.

Third, I fail to see how what they want forces their beliefs on teachers or the school. Nobody is demanding that the teachers change their personal views or that the school teach Christian morals 101. They're demanding parental notification, which is perfectly reasonable, and the right to have their kids not participate in that lesson. This is also reasonable considering we already have a system where kids need parental consent to go to sex ed classes.

What they want isn't the boogeyman you're making it out to be.

The view pressed upon people here is that gay marriage is a reality in several countries. While some people might wish this wasn't so, that does not change reality.

I call BS again. The lessons being taught in those schools have nothing to do what goes on in other countries. It's about indoctrinating children into a specific point of view.


Private prayer would be a fine topic for a discussion.
ID otoh is a bunch of lies thought up by people that wish to insult both believers and scientists. Why grant it even that ?

In your humble opinion. Why is your opinion better than someone else's and how does that make you any better than the people you want to criticize?

Nice try.

But your examples of "diversity" are both violations of this little thing we call the U.S. Constitution--unless by "private prayer" you mean the ability to pray that already exists in our schools.

Not in my school district. And which examples violate the Constitution? Much as you might wish it did, the ID studies do not espouse a religion. Only that life and the universe come from an intelligent direction. if you wanted do, you could attribute it to space aliens. Religion is the red herring people use to pee their pants over the issue.


On the other hand, the concept that everyone is created equal and are entitled to equal protection under the laws not only perfectly consistent with our Constituion, but are founding ideas of our Republic.


Unless their beliefs hold them to a higher moral standard, right? Then they just have to suck it up and tow the party line...

Or maybe just get them thrown in jail for protesting.


Poor, poor right-wingers forced to live in a country that actually values freedom, justice, and equality. How dare we force those values on children!!!

Ohh meaningless hyperbole. Nice.

Like the view that blacks and whites are equal? Or is it just gay people who are inferior?


Sweet, another strawman for the stack. When you can show where racism came into this, or that somebody is evaluating homosexuals as inferior, I'll eat my hat.


Actually, last I knew if your religion requires you to pray at certain times time IS set aside for you (and a room). Most religions DON'T require prayer at certain times and thus the students do not need special prayer time because they can pray on their own time (including free time at school as long as they do so in a non-disruptive manner). As for ID it has no place in science classes as it has nothing to do with science so it's something of a red herring here.

First, not in my school district and second, see above.

NeoB, in my school I was "exposed" to several kids who always said grace (quietly) before digging into lunch.

For Neo B's benefit I refer back once more to this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14074488&postcount=199) detailing exactly what the parents found offensive.

Nice, irrelevant link.

Look, I know how much you guys hate any point of view that conflicts with yours to be treated as valid, let alone equal, but at the very least I wish you wouldn't get up on your high horse and pretend to be on the side of freedom when you're prepared to mock people over wanting to have a say in their own children's education, especially when that education is being funded by their tax dollars.

Equality my ass. Keep drinkin' the Kool-Aid, fellas.

Neo Bretonnia and Blouman Empire, please tell if you disagree with any of the following quote and why:
<snip>

Where's the parental involvement?

And in the case we're discussing here, it seems to me there's ONE viewpoint being taught to these kids. How, exactly, do you find it consistent with the material you quoted?

In your humble opinion. Why is your opinion better than someone else's and how does that make you any better than the people you want to criticize?

There is no "opinion" in the statement that ID is based on deceit and lies. I however concede that there is one in the claim that it is insulting to the named groups. It is after all perfectly possible that for instance some believers do not mind whatsoever if their beliefs are mocked by pretending supporting evidence exists where it does not.

Then again, for some strange and mystical reason, I suspect that many would prefer honesty over made-up evidence. Even if that made-up stuff supports their own beliefs.

Or at least I hope they would.

-snip-

What has this got to do with any of the arguments I have made on here? I never said I disagreed with your original post just the manner in which you act. Plus what NeoB said.

Second, this isn't about not letting their kids know that other views exist. It's about indoctrination. It's one thing to say to a kid "While we believe that certain lifestyles are sinful, there are others who believe differently, which is their right." And quite another to say "These beliefs may not be the same as yours, but they're just as good and normal as anything else!" The former, frankly, I find to me more tolerant because it explicitly points out the value of every person's rights. The latter clearly suggests some views are superior to others.

Your answers suggest you haven't really paid attention to what the video was about or to what exactly the parents were objecting.

In a state where same-sex marriage is legal, we are talking about a picture book that included a picture of a family with two dads and a kid.

Regardless, I like how saying "we believe certain lifestyles are sinful," but others have the right to disagree is MORE TOLERANT than saying different people have different lifestyles, period.

Third, I fail to see how what they want forces their beliefs on teachers or the school. Nobody is demanding that the teachers change their personal views or that the school teach Christian morals 101. They're demanding parental notification, which is perfectly reasonable, and the right to have their kids not participate in that lesson. This is also reasonable considering we already have a system where kids need parental consent to go to sex ed classes.

What they want isn't the boogeyman you're making it out to be.

As you actually admit, they want more than parental notification. They want veto power over everything their kids might be exposed to that the parents don't like. That isn't "perfectly reasonable."

Nor are we talking about graphic sex talk here.

Not in my school district.

Really? If a student tries to pray privately in your school district, what happens? Are the arrested?

I call bullshit.

In fact:

Thirty-four states either require or permit prayer, moments of silence, meditation, reflection at the start of or during class. Thirteen states require all schools to participate, 10 states allow the students/teachers the option to participate, seven states give discretion to the local district board to make the decision and four states allow voluntary participation by students/teachers but also authorize local districts to require participation.

link (pdf) (http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/77/89/7789.pdf)

Note, this is despite the fact that Supreme Court held a "moment of silence" law was unconsitutional in Wallace v. Jaffree (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html), 472 U.S. 38 (1985).

And which examples violate the Constitution? Much as you might wish it did, the ID studies do not espouse a religion. Only that life and the universe come from an intelligent direction. if you wanted do, you could attribute it to space aliens. Religion is the red herring people use to pee their pants over the issue.

Um. Organized school prayer would violate the Constitution, as does some "moment of silence"-type laws to encourage prayer. Teaching ID as science most certainly violates the separation of Church and State. But keep holding your breath and wishing it weren't so!


Unless their beliefs hold them to a higher moral standard, right? Then they just have to suck it up and tow the party line...

Um. If your beliefs conflict with the basic principles of our country, like equal protection under the law, then yes, you have to "suck it up and tow the party line." It's why we have a Constitution.

Or maybe just get them thrown in jail for protesting.

Nice try. Already debunked. Yes, a parent might just get thrown in jail if he refuses to leave school grounds unless he is arrested. There are laws against tresspassing.

Ohh meaningless hyperbole. Nice.

In the context of this discussion, nothing meaningless about the values of freedom, justice, and equality -- or these particular parents opposition to those values.

Again, these tears and protests are over pictures of diverse, legal, wholesome families in a picture book!!!!

Where's the parental involvement?

Um. Teaching their kids things when those kids aren't in school. Voting and participating in the political process. Etc, etc, etc.

The point is schools have a role in teaching basic values of our Republic to our future citizens. Parents don't get an automatic veto over that. That isn't in the best interests of our children or our Republic.

And in the case we're discussing here, it seems to me there's ONE viewpoint being taught to these kids.

Actually, you've said that actual details of the case we're discussing are "irrelevant." Regardless, all that was being taught to these kids was pictures of different kinds of families. Even that slight amount of tolerance is apparently too much for some people--and those are the people you are defending.

How, exactly, do you find it consistent with the material you quoted?

The relevant part of the material I quoted was that schools are not simply extensions of parents, but are extensions of our civil state. And they have a proper role in teaching civic values -- like equality.

What has this got to do with any of the arguments I have made on here? I never said I disagreed with your original post just the manner in which you act. Plus what NeoB said.

The two bolded sentences disagree with each other.

And what exactly about the "manner in which [I] act" is objectionable? My belief in freedom, justice, and equality? My refusal to support teaching the opposite of those values? A little sarcasm? What?

The two bolded sentences disagree with each other.

And what exactly about the "manner in which [I] act" is objectionable? My belief in freedom, justice, and equality? My refusal to support teaching the opposite of those values? A little sarcasm? What?

As I said in an earlier post I jumped the gun with you. You talk about how they have to teach values, but then it is only values that you agree with that they should teach. Now other parents may have different values but you would say "How dare we force those values on children" simply because they are different from your own. Now nothing wrong with that but don't turn around and say it is wrong for someone else to say that simply because they are different from your own values, a bit of consistency would be nice.

There is no "opinion" in the statement that ID is based on deceit and lies.

Actually, that's an opinion. Sorry. No matter how passionately y ou feel about it, that don't make it reality, my friend.

Your answers suggest you haven't really paid attention to what the video was about or to what exactly the parents were objecting.

I happen to be sympathetic to their side. Given that you not only don't see their point of view but have shown a level of hostility toward them and it, I think it's funny that you're suggesting I don't get what they're saying.


In a state where same-sex marriage is legal, we are talking about a picture book that included a picture of a family with two dads and a kid.


...as part of a classroom curriculum. Your point?


Regardless, I like how saying "we believe certain lifestyles are sinful," but others have the right to disagree is MORE TOLERANT than saying different people have different lifestyles, period.


If that's all there was to it, you'd have a point. The problem is that by presenting these other views as the normal baseline, they're naturally projecting them as the 'right' way, pushing aside whatever else the kids were taught.

Put it this way: How would a teacher, in some hypothetical MA classroom, respond to a child raising his/her hand and saying "My mommy said that it's not right for two men to be married like mommy and daddy are." Will the child be corrected? Reprimanded? Charged with hate speech? What's the reaction? I bet it won't be "well your mommy and daddy are right, as far as their beliefs, and that's okay."


As you actually admit, they want more than parental notification. They want veto power over everything their kids might be exposed to that the parents don't like. That isn't "perfectly reasonable."
Nor are we talking about graphic sex talk here.


No, they want the ability to opt out for their kids. How is that unreasonable?

Look, this isn't Math or English here. This is a controversial subject whether you like it or not. Parents have a right to have a say. The only reason for you to rail against it is, from what I can see, an effort to indoctrinate these kids YOUR WAY and prevent the parents from interfering.


Really? If a student tries to pray privately in your school district, what happens? Are the arrested?
I call bullshit.
In fact:
Thirty-four states either require or permit prayer, moments of silence, meditation, reflection at the start of or during class. Thirteen states require all schools to participate, 10 states allow the students/teachers the option to participate, seven states give discretion to the local district board to make the decision and four states allow voluntary participation by students/teachers but also authorize local districts to require participation.

link (pdf) (http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/77/89/7789.pdf)

Note, this is despite the fact that Supreme Court held a "moment of silence" law was unconsitutional in Wallace v. Jaffree (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html), 472 U.S. 38 (1985).


According to your own source, my state MAY allow ONE MINUTE for private prayer/meditation, etc. That means if a kid is praying or reading a Bible at *ANY* other time, (Even during a quiet reading time when the children might be allowed to read Lord of the Rings) they can be subject to action, and this has already happened.

There's a problem when my son, at the age of 6, was afraid to bring in his Scriptures during show and tell when the theme was to be "Things that have a big impact on my life." That's ridiculous.


Um. Organized school prayer would violate the Constitution, as does some "moment of silence"-type laws to encourage prayer. Teaching ID as science most certainly violates the separation of Church and State. But keep holding your breath and wishing it weren't so!


2 Strawmen for the price of one! 1)I'm not advocating organized school prayer. 2)ID isn't a religious doctrine. Creationism is. If you don't know the difference, you better brush up before going any further (And spare me the accusation that it's just different words used to confuse people. That's more argument form ignorance.)


Um. If your beliefs conflict with the basic principles of our country, like equal protection under the law, then yes, you have to "suck it up and tow the party line." It's why we have a Constitution.


Whose legal protections are being violated, in your view?


Nice try. Already debunked. Yes, a parent might just get thrown in jail if he refuses to leave school grounds unless he is arrested. There are laws against tresspassing.


And you find it reasonable that this father felt he was pressed to this extreme?


In the context of this discussion, nothing meaningless about the values of freedom, justice, and equality -- or these particular parents opposition to those values.


How, exactly, do you figure they're against those values?

Because frankly I think they're more for them than you are.


Again, these tears and protests are over pictures of diverse, legal, wholesome families in a picture book!!!!

Wholesome by whose definition? Yours? What makes yours superior?

And you do realize that this picture book was one component of a larger curriculum, right? Or are you buying into your own hyperbolic distortions?

Um. Teaching their kids things when those kids aren't in school. Voting and participating in the political process. Etc, etc, etc.

Teaching their kids when those kids aren't in school... So you're saying they have NO right to be involved in the teaching AT school? And what happens when the parents lesson and the school's lesson contradict? Shall we give the children a failing grade, or encourage them to just regurgitate what they hear for the sake of a grade?

And Voting and participating in the political process? Horseshit. If you believe that simply casting a vote is adequate parental participation in the content of their schools' lessons then I have a bridge to sell you.


The point is schools have a role in teaching basic values of our Republic to our future citizens. Parents don't get an automatic veto over that. That isn't in the best interests of our children or our Republic.


And who gets to decide what those basic values are? Never before have public schools been involved in teaching about moral issues and now suddenly you're pushing that in the name of the Republic?


Actually, you've said that actual details of the case we're discussing are "irrelevant."

Show me where.

Regardless, all that was being taught to these kids was pictures of different kinds of families. Even that slight amount of tolerance is apparently too much for some people--and those are the people you are defending.


Bullshit. I can tell you're a lawyer.

"It's just a harmless little picture book! It can't hurt anybody! See how cute the little pictures are? Look at the little puppy!

Nooo no agenda here. And this book apparently just dropped right out of the ceiling. Not part of any curriculum in school. Noooooooo.


The relevant part of the material I quoted was that schools are not simply extensions of parents, but are extensions of our civil state. And they have a proper role in teaching civic values -- like equality.

But they do NOT have the right to override parental values and rights.

Where are all these arguments about being exposed to diversity and middle road approaches when someone talks about including things like Intelligent Design

In a class on the sorts of things people believe, "Some people believe that life emerged through divine design." Fine with me.

But taught in biology classes as science? When it has absolutely nothing to do with science? Of course not.

or setting aside time for private prayer?

What does this have to do with diversity education? This is about catering to religious students during school time. It sets the public education system up as supporting theism, and is not acceptable.

Now, "Some people like to pray" is fine with me.

If this were REALLY about mutual understanding and diversity then we'd see some balance.

What imaginary world do you live in where it's Christians who need more "mutual understanding" from other people?

Put it this way: How would a teacher, in some hypothetical MA classroom, respond to a child raising his/her hand and saying "My mommy said that it's not right for two men to be married like mommy and daddy are." Will the child be corrected? Reprimanded? Charged with hate speech? What's the reaction? I bet it won't be "well your mommy and daddy are right, as far as their beliefs, and that's okay."

Um, probably "Yes, some people believe that."

Here's a question for you, though: if the class discusses the Civil Rights Movement and a child says, "My mommy said that black people are all stupid and violent", how should the teacher respond?

I happen to be sympathetic to their side. Given that you not only don't see their point of view but have shown a level of hostility toward them and it, I think it's funny that you're suggesting I don't get what they're saying.

When you don't actually defend the views expressed in the video and instead burn strawmen, you either don't understand the point of view you are defending or you are being intellectually dishonest. I guess it could be the latter.

But, are you really going to defend the position that we can't continue to have same-sex marriage in California and Massachusettes because it is possible a kid in a public school might see a picture of a same-sex couple that doesn't label them as evil?

...as part of a classroom curriculum. Your point?

My point is you and these parents seem to be reading an awful lot into a simple picture book.

If that's all there was to it, you'd have a point. The problem is that by presenting these other views as the normal baseline, they're naturally projecting them as the 'right' way, pushing aside whatever else the kids were taught.

I think you are the one that is projecting and, apparently, underestimating the degree of influence that parents, church, and other social contacts outside school impact a child's education.

Put it this way: How would a teacher, in some hypothetical MA classroom, respond to a child raising his/her hand and saying "My mommy said that it's not right for two men to be married like mommy and daddy are." Will the child be corrected? Reprimanded? Charged with hate speech? What's the reaction? I bet it won't be "well your mommy and daddy are right, as far as their beliefs, and that's okay."

Nice fearmongering.

How about "you should discuss that with your mommy"?


No, they want the ability to opt out for their kids. How is that unreasonable?

Look, this isn't Math or English here. This is a controversial subject whether you like it or not. Parents have a right to have a say. The only reason for you to rail against it is, from what I can see, an effort to indoctrinate these kids YOUR WAY and prevent the parents from interfering.

First, what exactly is a "controversial subject"? That same-sex parents exist?

Second, parents have lots of say, they just don't have a complete veto-power over any information they don't want their children exposed to in public schools.


According to your own source, my state MAY allow ONE MINUTE for private prayer/meditation, etc. That means if a kid is praying or reading a Bible at *ANY* other time, (Even during a quiet reading time when the children might be allowed to read Lord of the Rings) they can be subject to action, and this has already happened.

Um. Are you under the impression that the existence of a moment of silence means praying or reading the Bible is otherwise forbidden? 'Cuz that just ain't so.

But if "this has already happened" I'd like some evidence. If your characterization is accurate, I'm just as outraged at such oppression as you are, but I guarantee its an aberration.

There's a problem when my son, at the age of 6, was afraid to bring in his Scriptures during show and tell when the theme was to be "Things that have a big impact on my life." That's ridiculous.

That is ridiculous. Why would your son have that fear? Who taught him that?


2 Strawmen for the price of one! 1)I'm not advocating organized school prayer.

Good. I note you didn't say what your position on an moment of silence intended for prayer was.

If all you advocate is allowing students to pray voluntarily, that is already the legal norm.

2)ID isn't a religious doctrine. Creationism is. If you don't know the difference, you better brush up before going any further (And spare me the accusation that it's just different words used to confuse people. That's more argument form ignorance.)

LOL. I'm arguing from ignorance about ID? Keep kidding yourself.

I agree with those federal courts that have considered the matter and held that ID is teaching religion and/or is motivated by religion.


Whose legal protections are being violated, in your view?

Um. That would be the people who the makers of the video want to deny the right to marry on the basis of gender. That would be the families who don't want "evil" stamped over their pictures in public schools.


And you find it reasonable that this father felt he was pressed to this extreme?

No. I don't find this father's actions reasonable at all. Do you?


How, exactly, do you figure they're against those values?

Because frankly I think they're more for them than you are.

LOL. You are cracking me up with this stuff.

What part of insisting that "gay people are sinful and same-sex families are bad" is promoting freedom, justice, or equality?

Wholesome by whose definition? Yours? What makes yours superior?

Wholesome in that nothing criminal is happening, no one is being harmed, everyone is shown happy and healthy, etc...

Tell me by what criteria the picture in question isn't wholesome and I'll tell you why my criteria are superior.

And you do realize that this picture book was one component of a larger curriculum, right? Or are you buying into your own hyperbolic distortions?

Pray tell, what larger curriculum and how was it objectionable?

In a class on the sorts of things people believe, "Some people believe that life emerged through divine design." Fine with me.

But taught in biology classes as science? When it has absolutely nothing to do with science? Of course not.


In your opinion.


What does this have to do with diversity education? This is about catering to religious students during school time. It sets the public education system up as supporting theism, and is not acceptable.

Now, "Some people like to pray" is fine with me.


How is allowing kids to opt out of controversial curriculum catering to religious standards? These parents aren't even demanding that the school not have the curriculum. They just want to pull their kids out of it.


What imaginary world do you live in where it's Christians who need more "mutual understanding" from other people?

In this case, which group is being compelled to listen to the views of the other?

Um, probably "Yes, some people believe that."

Here's a question for you, though: if the class discusses the Civil Rights Movement and a child says, "My mommy said that black people are all stupid and violent", how should the teacher respond?

That's a false analogy.

Teaching their kids when those kids aren't in school... So you're saying they have NO right to be involved in the teaching AT school?

Excellent use of a false dichotomy to claim I said something I didn't.

And what happens when the parents lesson and the school's lesson contradict? Shall we give the children a failing grade, or encourage them to just regurgitate what they hear for the sake of a grade?

From what part of your anatomy are you pulling these scenarios?

Are you really going to insist that no public school should ever teach something that might possibly disagree with something a parent has told a child?

And Voting and participating in the political process? Horseshit. If you believe that simply casting a vote is adequate parental participation in the content of their schools' lessons then I have a bridge to sell you.

Again, false dichotomy. I was giving examples and "etc" specifically means those examples were not exclusive of other input.

And who gets to decide what those basic values are?

Um. We do -- the citizens of the United States. Consistent with the Consitution, of course.

Do you not understand anything about the country in which we live and how it is supposed to work?

Never before have public schools been involved in teaching about moral issues and now suddenly you're pushing that in the name of the Republic?

The whole point of the quote from set of conservative Justices 23 years ago was that public schools not only have been involved in teaching "moral issues" but should do so.

But apparently in NB land no civic virtues have ever been a part of any curriculum. Nor has been pictures of any families.


Show me where.

Right here:
Nice, irrelevant link.


Bullshit. I can tell you're a lawyer.

Oh, heaven's to betsy, he called me a "lawyer." I think I'm going to die from embarassment. :rolleyes:


"It's just a harmless little picture book! It can't hurt anybody! See how cute the little pictures are? Look at the little puppy!

Nooo no agenda here. And this book apparently just dropped right out of the ceiling. Not part of any curriculum in school. Noooooooo.

You caught on. This is all a brain-washing exercise that teaches children to be gay and commit murder by showing them pictures of same-sex families. The horror, the horror!!


But they do NOT have the right to override parental values and rights.

First, doesn't that depend on the parental values?

Second, you are playing with a false dichotomy again. "Not overriding parental rights" =/= requiring every bit of information given to children in public schools be pre-approved by their parents.

In your opinion.

Maybe in a tautological sense. So? That is not an argument.

How is allowing kids to opt out of controversial curriculum catering to religious standards?

That's a separate subject. Allowing kids to "opt out of controversial curriculum" is bad not because it caters to religious standards, but because (in this case) it caters to bigotry.

In this case, which group is being compelled to listen to the views of the other?

No one is being compelled to listen to anyone else's views. Don't be ridiculous.

That's a false analogy.

What's the difference?

Second, this isn't about not letting their kids know that other views exist. It's about indoctrination. It's one thing to say to a kid "While we believe that certain lifestyles are sinful, there are others who believe differently, which is their right." And quite another to say "These beliefs may not be the same as yours, but they're just as good and normal as anything else!" The former, frankly, I find to me more tolerant because it explicitly points out the value of every person's rights. The latter clearly suggests some views are superior to others.

Well, I'm truly surprised that you're arguing in favor of moral relativism, but that's off-topic. Yes, what the school is trying to do falls under the heading of "indoctrination", if you insist on using pejoratives. All teaching of values has some element of indoctrination, especially any material aimed at young children. The public schools do not expect kindergartners to construct logical critiques of The Golden Rule, and neither, I suspect, do the parents of said kindergartners. Neither, I suspect, do you. Absent such critique, the two options left are the impossible (removing all value-based statements from the classroom) and the status quo ("indoctrination".)

While I see that you've dismissed the actual material the parents were objecting to as "irrelevant", what that material actually consists of is an important part of the argument about it. The book in question explains that children belong to all sorts of different families, and it uses examples of daily activities to imply that while these families may be different, they share many similarities to the reader's own family. The value being indoctrinated is recognition of the common humanity of different types of law-abiding people. This is a value which it is entirely appropriate (see Supreme Court decision quoted above) for public schools to teach, because it is one of the fundamental values of a democratic society. It is inappropriate for these parents to demand the option to not have this value taught, just as it would be for anarchist parents to demand an opt-out from having their children taught to respect the law. Neither set of parents is prohibited from teaching their children that their values are different from those taught in school.

The issue of teaching intelligent design theory in school is separate, though not unrelated. ID proponents usually insist (though you haven't here, your point may be different,) that ID be taught in science classes. This is inappropriate, not because of some question of conflicting moral values, but because ID is unscientific. To teach ID in science classes would be to advocate for "logical relativism" rather than moral relativism -- not the same thing, but equally bad. (I'm editing about 8 sentences out of this paragraph in a quixotic attempt to stay on-topic.)

Unless their beliefs hold them to a higher moral standard, right? Then they just have to suck it up and tow the party line...

Toe the line. Mangling your metaphors weakens your argument. And yes, they do.

Or maybe just get them thrown in jail for protesting.

That's what happens when you say that "you're willing to stay here all night until you get some sort of opt-out" (not an exact quote.) You get arrested for simple trespass after refusing to leave. It's part of civil disobedience. As I said earlier, Rosa Parks wasn't surprised to be arrested -- that was her point.

Look, I know how much you guys hate any point of view that conflicts with yours to be treated as valid, let alone equal, but at the very least I wish you wouldn't get up on your high horse and pretend to be on the side of freedom when you're prepared to mock people over wanting to have a say in their own children's education, especially when that education is being funded by their tax dollars.

Maybe they would phrase it differently, but I think most people arguing against the parents here are aware that they're advocating for one set of values over others. To say that they're not "on the side of freedom" or against "equality" is a bit of a stretch.

When you don't actually defend the views expressed in the video and instead burn strawmen, you either don't understand the point of view you are defending or you are being intellectually dishonest. I guess it could be the latter.


So wait, let me get this straight... You're proposing some set of arguments from the video, I say you're mistaken, and, despite the fact that I'm actually on the side of those people and would have a better insight into their views than you do, your reaction is to call me either ignorant or a liar.

Dude, if you can't defend your accusations you don't have to resort to these measures. Just bow out gracefully.


But, are you really going to defend the position that we can't continue to have same-sex marriage in California and Massachusettes because it is possible a kid in a public school might see a picture of a same-sex couple that doesn't label them as evil?


At what point have I made that statement? (And you accuse ME of burning strawmen? good lawz, man this isn't a courtroom! We're interested in FACTS here!)


My point is you and these parents seem to be reading an awful lot into a simple picture book.


And you're refusing to see why so that you can use it as a basis for ridicule. You know, failing to understand someone else's point of view used to be considered a weakness, not a strength.


I think you are the one that is projecting and, apparently, underestimating the degree of influence that parents, church, and other social contacts outside school impact a child's education.


So that means what? It's okay to indoctrinate kids however you want because the parents can always clean it up later? That's really awesome.


Nice fearmongering.

How about "you should discuss that with your mommy"?


What fearmongering? It's a valid question. (Are you afraid of these questions being asked?) I can only HOPE the teacher would respond in that way.


First, what exactly is a "controversial subject"? That same-sex parents exist?


Seriously? Are you asking to buy yourself some time or because you're actually going to deny that the issue of same sex marriages is controversial?


Second, parents have lots of say, they just don't have a complete veto-power over any information they don't want their children exposed to in public schools.


Not these parents, apparently. "This is not a parental informing issue."


Um. Are you under the impression that the existence of a moment of silence means praying or reading the Bible is otherwise forbidden? 'Cuz that just ain't so.


I wish it weren't.

Also, do you think adding the "Um." to the beginning of your arguments somehow makes them hit harder? Just curious ;)


But if "this has already happened" I'd like some evidence. If your characterization is accurate, I'm just as outraged at such oppression as you are, but I guarantee its an aberration.


I can only hope it is an aberration. Unfortunately these aberrations are becoming more and more common.


That is ridiculous. Why would your son have that fear? Who taught him that?


His teacher, apparently. It sure as hell wasn't me because until that day, I had assumed such a thing wouldn't be a problem. I encouraged him to go ahead and do it. He refused.


Good. I note you didn't say what your position on an moment of silence intended for prayer was.

If all you advocate is allowing students to pray voluntarily, that is already the legal norm.


I wish. Apparently in this state that's at the discretion of the teachers or the principals, and up to a minute at most.


LOL. I'm arguing from ignorance about ID? Keep kidding yourself.

Yeah? Have you studied ID theories? How many books on the subject have you read?


I agree with those federal courts that have considered the matter and held that ID is teaching religion and/or is motivated by religion.


Well if a Federal Court said it, it must be true. Clearly no Federal Judge's decision has ever been overturned.

Right?


Um. That would be the people who the makers of the video want to deny the right to marry on the basis of gender. That would be the families who don't want "evil" stamped over their pictures in public schools.


Who wants to stamp 'evil' on pictures in public schools?

And you accuse ME of fearmongering?

I've missed you, TCT. :tongue:


No. I don't find this father's actions reasonable at all. Do you?


I can see where they may have been. Were you there? Me neither. I guess neither of us knows.


LOL. You are cracking me up with this stuff.

What part of insisting that "gay people are sinful and same-sex families are bad" is promoting freedom, justice, or equality?


How about the freedom to choose what moral lessons are taught to your kids? What about justice in letting parents have a say in what their kids are taught regarding controversial issues? What about the equality of being able to express those views without being accused of hate speech or bigotry?

I guess only certain people get to have that.


Wholesome in that nothing criminal is happening, no one is being harmed, everyone is shown happy and healthy, etc...

Really? So if I put out a picture book for school use, perhaps a history class, showing a typical antebellum household from the South, showing a happy family sitting around a table, all healthy, being waited on by a conspicuously dark skinned servant, who is also healthy looking and smiling, that's wholesome too?

(Yeah, I can use the racism analogy too. How do you like it?)


Tell me by what criteria the picture in question isn't wholesome and I'll tell you why I think my criteria are superior.


Fixed.


Pray tell, what larger curriculum and how was it objectionable?

Was this not a part of a diversity class? And wasn't that class including same sex couples as a way of illustrating the sort of diversity that's been approved by the state? And you can't see the controversy in that?

Really? So if I put out a picture book for school use, perhaps a history class, showing a typical antebellum household from the South, showing a happy family sitting around a table, all healthy, being waited on by a conspicuously dark skinned servant, who is also healthy looking and smiling, that's wholesome too?

Well, if you're going to use fallacious reasoning, what would you say if a book showed a nice happy interracial family, and parents wanted to remove their children from the class because it taught a value (interracial marriage is okay) that they disapproved of? Are you of the mind that all parents should have the right to opt their children out of every lesson they might find objectionable? The possibility for abuse is endless.

Excellent use of a false dichotomy to claim I said something I didn't.


I'm asking you a question. You dodged it.


From what part of your anatomy are you pulling these scenarios?

Are you really going to insist that no public school should ever teach something that might possibly disagree with something a parent has told a child?


Seriously? You can't think of an example? or do you just not want to because it's inconvenient?


Again, false dichotomy. I was giving examples and "etc" specifically means those examples were not exclusive of other input.


And I'm supposed to do what with "etc?" Pretend it means something so profound that I may as well treat it as a valid argument when nothing has even been said? I think it's more likely you couldn't think of anything but wanted to pad the list ;)


Um. We do -- the citizens of the United States. Consistent with the Consitution, of course.

Do you not understand anything about the country in which we live and how it is supposed to work?


Of course not, I'm just an unwashed knuckledragging Conservative, right?

I had this weird idea that everybody's beliefs were to be treated as equal and that no one set of moral values would be permitted to override someone else's. Strange, I know.


The whole point of the quote from set of conservative Justices 23 years ago was that public schools not only have been involved in teaching "moral issues" but should do so.

And you see that as consistent with the Constitution?


But apparently in NB land no civic virtues have ever been a part of any curriculum. Nor has been pictures of any families.


Wow I have to assume you're just squeezing your eyes shut to keep from seeing the point.


Right here:


That link was irrelevant for the conclusions it drew, not for the reasons you're presenting.


Oh, heaven's to betsy, he called me a "lawyer." I think I'm going to die from embarassment. :rolleyes:


Missed that point, too.


You caught on. This is all a brain-washing exercise that teaches children to be gay and commit murder by showing them pictures of same-sex families. The horror, the horror!!


More hyperbole. You always have the best silly hyperbole. Have you ever considered going into stand-up comedy?


First, doesn't that depend on the parental values?

Second, you are playing with a false dichotomy again. "Not overriding parental rights" =/= requiring every bit of information given to children in public schools be pre-approved by their parents.

And you answered with a strawman. When did I say every bit of information had to be pre-approved?

Maybe in a tautological sense. So? That is not an argument.

I'm supposed to argue against an opinion?


That's a separate subject. Allowing kids to "opt out of controversial curriculum" is bad not because it caters to religious standards, but because (in this case) it caters to bigotry.

How so? If a child's parents choose to opt out of a sex ed class where's the bigotry? (You did say "opt out of controversial curriculum" generally)


No one is being compelled to listen to anyone else's views. Don't be ridiculous.


Oh? Children aren't being allowed to opt out of this course and you say they're not being compelled to listen to anyone else's views?


What's the difference?

:rolleyes:

I'm asking you a question. You dodged it.

:rolleyes:

You're embarassing yourself.

I'm supposed to argue against an opinion?

What in particular do you object to arguing against in my statement?

How so? If a child's parents choose to opt out of a sex ed class where's the bigotry? (You did say "opt out of controversial curriculum" generally)

"but because (in this case) it caters to bigotry."

No, I didn't.

Oh? Children aren't being allowed to opt out of this course

I don't think there's a "course" involved. It sounded like it was just a book.

and you say they're not being compelled to listen to anyone else's views?

"Same-sex couples exist" is not a "view." (Well, it is, technically, but it's not one in dispute--everyone across the political spectrum agrees there.)

:rolleyes:

What a sad excuse for an argument.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad42gw.png


http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/circles.gif

*snip*

We may as well shut down NationStates General if the fact that arguments go around in circles means we shouldn't still have said arguments.

*snip*

That's what generally happens when one side is incapable of/unwilling to come up with a productive response.

Sweet, another strawman for the stack. When you can show where racism came into this, or that somebody is evaluating homosexuals as inferior, I'll eat my hat.

It's a comparison of the two positions not an accusation thereof.



First, not in my school district and second, see above.

Bullshit not in your school district. Unless they want a lawsuit they know they're going to loose children in your school district have the right to privately and non-disruptively pray even at school. Give me an example of your school district violating their students rights.

That's why I posted it as commentary and didn't sign it as a mod ruling. I hate those massive multi-quote responses. I'd rather abandon the thread.

We may as well shut down NationStates General if the fact that arguments go around in circles means we shouldn't still have said arguments.

* rubs hands together in glee at the thought *

Your answers suggest you haven't really paid attention to what the video was about or to what exactly the parents were objecting.

In a state where same-sex marriage is legal, we are talking about a picture book that included a picture of a family with two dads and a kid.

And another with two moms and two kids. Why do you keep hating on the lesbians? :-p

* rubs hands together in glee at the thought *

What, and leave the whole of NationStates posting to be Hatarian rape RPs? No thanks.

There is one interesting issue raised, do Parents, or rather, should Parents have the right to be the 'primary directors of a childs upbringing, and moral education'? It does seem at that education is no longer a right, but actually a requirement, but is there any reason this should be a bad thing?

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad42gw.png


http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/circles.gif

That's why I posted it as commentary and didn't sign it as a mod ruling. I hate those massive multi-quote responses. I'd rather abandon the thread.

* rubs hands together in glee at the thought *

Although I'll take your commentary to heart and stop (at least for now) playing ping-poing with NB, I must admit I don't see massive multi-quote responses as being inherently inferior to the surface-level hyperbole that gets tossed around instaed of detailed debate. I think people actually engaging on the issues is a good thing.

(Not that I'm claiming NB and my latest salvos were great examples of detailed debate. :$)

Although I'll take your commentary to heart and stop (at least for now) playing ping-poing with NB, I must admit I don't see massive multi-quote responses as being inherently inferior to the surface-level hyperbole that gets tossed around instaed of detailed debate. I think people actually engaging on the issues is a good thing.

(Not that I'm claiming NB and my latest salvos were great examples of detailed debate. :$)

Seconded :)

(Just to show we can agree on something.)

In my opinion, the larger each multi quoted post becomes, the more pedantic and circular the arguments are becoming. There are only rare exceptions to this, when the topic so extremely broad that you need to write a lot to cover all the aspects.

*snipity snip snip*

I think there is a key point you are missing NB. One cannot compare the ID debate to this whole gay marriage thing.

A judgement on gay marriage is a subjective values judgement. Period. Whether you think it is right or wrong morally, thats all it is, subject with no basis in facts. You can bring various philosophical and relgious arguements to the table, but again, a statement about the morality of it is purely subjective.

However, that it exists and that children adopted by gay couples are just as happy is NOT one open to subjective debate, as there are ample studies that say that they indeed are. Plus, one cannot deny that gay marriage exists.

ID, is like the above, but in the reverse way. Intellegent Design has no hard data going for it. It has subjective personal belief and an old book defending it (and please, we're all smart enough to know that ID IS indeed based on a concept of God. Especially when you consider who came up with the idea). Now, that doesnt necissarialy mean it is wrong, just that it would be wrong to teach it as it has no facts backing it up what so ever.

And honostly, I dont understand the objection (outside of these parents being hateful) to teaching children that gay marriage is out that and that these people arent freaks, and their families can be just as happy.

*snip*

Okay, a few points:

1. The whole point of the video in the OP was that people should stop same-sex marriage in California because otherwise kids might see pictures of same-sex families like the children of the people in the video. I have yet to see an explanation from you as to why a picture of a same-sex family is inherently "controversial" or "indoctrinating." Moreover, you continue to avoid the question of whether you believe that parents should be able to control every bit of information to which their children are exposed in public schools.

2. Regarding prayer in school, I'd love you to actually present some evidence that (1) a moment of silence law forbids any other prayer or reading of scripture and/or (2) it is becoming "more and more common" for kids to be disciplined for voluntary prayer in public schools.

3. As for ID, we could get into a whole other debate here, but to answer your snide question: I have read several books about intelligent design and the intelligent design controversy, including books by proponents like Micheal Behe and William Dembski (sp?). Regardless, I agree with the thoroughly researched opinion of the court in Kiztmiller v. Dover, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) (html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html), pdf (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf)) and disagree with the stated goals (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html) of the Intelligent Design movement, which make clear their religious agenda.

In my opinion, the larger each multi quoted post becomes, the more pedantic and circular the arguments are becoming. There are only rare exceptions to this, when the topic so extremely broad that you need to write a lot to cover all the aspects.

Fair point.

I had this weird idea that everybody's beliefs were to be treated as equal and that no one set of moral values would be permitted to override someone else's. Strange, I know.

Again, we have this thing called a Constitution. Some views or desires aren't consistent with it. Those views shouldn't be taught in public schools. Is that really such a radical concept?

And you see that as consistent with the Constitution?


Yeppity, yep, yep. That would be why I quoted a SCOTUS decision to that effect.

What about the equality of being able to express those views without being accused of hate speech or bigotry?

So, you're understanding of "equality" is that others are not allowed to critique and demonstrate how your views are bigotry when they honestly feel they are?

I've had my splits with Cat, but he is thoroughly and consistently demonstrating far more depth of insight on the Constitution and civil rights in general.

But then, I've heard Cat is black, which in some "moral values" means he was cursed with Black Skin and had to be denied, as a "negro", the priesthood, for centuries, due to "scriptural precedent".

Of course, by your version of "equality", nobody should be able to call that bigotry.

Hm. This should be a separate thread, let me do some research...

I call bullshit back.

First of all, to just flippantly reply with "Well they can always just home school!" is ridiculous. A lot of families can afford to do that. Many cannot. So there IS something stopping them from homeschooling. In my own household there's no way we could manage on the income of just my job or my wife's. How would we home school?
Then tough on you. Send your kids to public school and then make an effort to undo whatever you see as immoral in the teaching there -- things like social tolerance, equality, and the true picture of who their neighbors and classmates are -- on your own time at home.

Or are you also too poor to eat dinner with your kids and take them to your church?

Second, this isn't about not letting their kids know that other views exist. It's about indoctrination. It's one thing to say to a kid "While we believe that certain lifestyles are sinful, there are others who believe differently, which is their right." And quite another to say "These beliefs may not be the same as yours, but they're just as good and normal as anything else!" The former, frankly, I find to me more tolerant because it explicitly points out the value of every person's rights. The latter clearly suggests some views are superior to others.
Same objection as above. What's stopping you from doing that. Precisely nothing. If you are willing to let your kids know that other people in your society disagree with your views, then what possible reason do you have to complain of the school curriculum? None, except that it does not cater specifically to you, as far as I can see.

Third, I fail to see how what they want forces their beliefs on teachers or the school. Nobody is demanding that the teachers change their personal views or that the school teach Christian morals 101. They're demanding parental notification, which is perfectly reasonable, and the right to have their kids not participate in that lesson. This is also reasonable considering we already have a system where kids need parental consent to go to sex ed classes.

What they want isn't the boogeyman you're making it out to be.


They got parental notification. How else do you think they know what the books they're complaining about are? You and they are the ones making up bogeymen.

In all honosty, I think Neo Bret has just had his conservative persecution complex kick in, and to be honost, his I can actually understand, since people on this board (all though no one in this thread) tend to at times be a dick to him for no reason when hes trying to be nice.

If this were REALLY about mutual understanding and diversity then we'd see some balance.

Yeah. Why aren't schools telling our kids that heteroes can get married too?

Actually, that's an opinion. Sorry. No matter how passionately y ou feel about it, that don't make it reality, my friend.

cdesign proponentsists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People#Pandas_and_.22cdesign_proponentsists.22) say that you're wrong.

Originally Posted by The Cat-Tribe
The two bolded sentences disagree with each other.

And what exactly about the "manner in which [i] act" is objectionable? My belief in freedom, justice, and equality? My refusal to support teaching the opposite of those values? A little sarcasm? What?
As I said in an earlier post I jumped the gun with you. You talk about how they have to teach values, but then it is only values that you agree with that they should teach. Now other parents may have different values but you would say "How dare we force those values on children" simply because they are different from your own. Now nothing wrong with that but don't turn around and say it is wrong for someone else to say that simply because they are different from your own values, a bit of consistency would be nice.
So, you are saying that schools should be teaching the against liberty and in favor of injustice and inequality?

Because that is the meaning of your statements when read in the context of TCT's remarks to which you are responding. I just want to get your position clear -- do you or do you not believe that schools should be teaching children that gays are inferior, or that Jews are inferior, or that other races are inferior, if some parents want their kids to learn that, regardless of whether it reflects the general beliefs of the society and its laws? Yes or no, please.

I still want someone to explain to me what the objection is to teaching kids that gays are not freaks and can be just as happy and have normal family lives.

I call bullshit back.

"These beliefs may not be the same as yours, but they're just as good and normal as anything else!"


Did you watch the video? Did you look at the source someone provided that actually says what is in the 'diversity' book?

It doesn't make ANY value judgments - that was the 'PARENTS' in the video. The text just said what exists - it didn't say it was right, wrong, sinful or peachy keen.

If you want to complain about people pushing value judgments, look to the creators and actors of the video, not the school amterial.


I call BS again. The lessons being taught in those schools have nothing to do what goes on in other countries. It's about indoctrinating children into a specific point of view.


How is saying 'this exists' indoctrination?

How is prefacing it with 'some people indulge in a sinful practise...' NOT indoctrination?

I call hypocrisy.

And another with two moms and two kids. Why do you keep hating on the lesbians? :-p

Women never get equal treatment. :tongue:

Women never get equal treatment. :tongue:

They do if they're lesbians...

:o

And another with two moms and two kids. Why do you keep hating on the lesbians? :-p

Bah... we're always getting ignored, we're used to it by now :(

Until it comes to porn of course, then suddenly everyone's a lesbian :rolleyes: