Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Hmm so wait, is it wrong to consider canadians fascists? I thought we had all agreed on that one
Oh yeah, dammit. Forgot. :usa1:
Gay Curriculum Proposal Riles Elementary School Parents
- Thread starter B5150
- Start date
Oh yeah, dammit. Forgot. :usa1:
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Go hit a house, eh.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Actually it was all just a culmination of reading a ton of pages... nothing specifically aimed at yourself. I like Glenn Beck, his logic is actually linear instead of the good old bell curve that we see in todays society... but if you have a beef with something someone says, you don't try to discredit by attacking the person they listen to, attack the viewpoint.. that has not been done here in the least. Again, i wasn't actually aiming anything at anyone, but trying to recant the thread as a whole.
As for public school systems... no it isn't a big deal to state those viewpoints, not debating that... BUT... you say the word Christian in any respect to school and you seem to be lambasted in the media and hung out to dry. Be it right or not, Homosexuality goes against many religions, and having a class, or section about it infringes upon that right to religion in the US. I am not one to care until there is blatant hippocracy. Go right ahead and teach all the sensitivity you want, as long as it's equal opportunity and you teach the rich Jewish and Catholic heritage, and not just the WWII persecution of the Jews since they were the minority.
I am just tired of people trying to tell everyone in the world how it is you should be raising your children. How in the world did humanity get by without all this PC crap we see today?
Adams
EasyEJL
Never enough
So I guess to me here is the crux of it in a lot of ways. Why is it that the school system decides for my child that its okay to be gay? Tolerating homosexuality (or Mormons, or people with facial tattoos/piercings, or excessively obese people) isn't the same as approving of them. Since homosexuality is about sexual preferences why does the school get to say its okay for people to display sexual related behaviors at school?
I don't understand why anyone thinks a school needs to teach values beyond "what is the value of 2+2
I'll agree that many parents do a shitty job of it, however that leans more towards mandated birth control than letting the state manage the children instead, as the state will primarily raise the children to be dependent on the state as that is how it can guarantee its own continued existence.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
No, I certainly see your point here. If you read my posts, I will say something to the effect of, "Glenn Beck is not a credible source..." but then I will also explain why I oppose the viewpoint in-itself. (Similar to the Green Jobs thing.) For the most part, I simply wish people would hear/see things and realize, "This is entertainment, not information" and then validate the information themselves. All-too-often I read a Conservative Blog or see a Conservative television show, and then read several AM'ers regurgitating the exact same information verbatim. That is more or less my point: personally verifying what you hear.
I would disagree only in this sense: teaching a component which may or may not contradict a specific doctrine in a specific religion does not constitute a constitutional infringement; disallowing a Christian child to pray in class would, though. This is also a practicality issue when it comes to tolerance: accommodate subgroups to the extent to which it is beneficial, and then cease when it becomes impractical. To this end, ignoring the homosexual issue due to the oppositions of another subgroup within the population seems to be quite impractical. It is similar to the situation in Canada whereby certain Muslim sects are allowed to carry their ceremonial knives: practicality v., accommodation.
My point is merely this: pushing a pointed moral agenda on an impressionable student is patently immoral; this occurs enough at the secondary and post-secondary levels, that we should avoid indoctrinating them now.
Who knows. I am one of the most tolerant people around, but my line constitutes the line between traits endemic to the individual, and personal choices - that is, an individual being gay is never a circumstance within which my dislike will be bred; however, constantly claiming intolerance or pushing sexuality as the crux of humanity is not acceptable, as a personal choice. My primary concern is letting younger children know that the identity of "gayness" is fine, and that people should be judged according to their personal actions.
SilentBob187
Well-known member
Colonial expansion, slavery, discrimination, genocide. Not starting a fight at all DAdams, but it's never been pretty. During every major time period in history there have been groups of people who have persecuted others. Egyptians, Romans, Vikings, Huns, Royalty (serfdom,) Colonists, Plantation owners, Der Führer, Darfur, etc. etc.
It's never been a walk in the park.
AE14
Board Sponsor
Honestly, I dont know when the last time you were in a high school or middle school for that manner, but sexual behavior is sadly displayed. At least in the school is a controlled environment, which for many of the kids is a safer place than at home.
I don't understand why anyone thinks a school needs to teach values beyond "what is the value of 2+2
Why should the schools? Honestly, the kids talk to their teachers more than their parents. That has changed greatly. I think of the school I teach in and I am amzed at how much "information" I hear from my students, as they dont feel comfortable talking to their parents. At the end of the day, parents have done a downright sh!tty job, and bear in mind I am a parent too
EasyEJL
Never enough
or women being allowed to wear their wraps for a drivers license picture
But see still, for younger children (having them myself
) upon meeting someone they have no knowledge of what that person does while naked in their bedroom with their partner. So if a man is excessively feminine in his actions and dress, and has a horrible lisp (which as a parent you work hard to make sure you children use proper diction) or a woman being excessively masculine in action and dress why is it NOT ok for me and my children to think that is silly and not an acceptable lifestyle choice?
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Stating, "It is okay to be gay", from my perspective, is an issue of tolerance/acceptance, and not necessarily approval. To that end, though, consider for a moment your child coming out. Would you prefer a teacher lambasting them, telling them it is "not okay" and showing active disapproval? The point for me, more or less, rests fundamentally on the acceptance of others, so long as this acceptance is based on the factors we have mentioned. The differences between approval and acceptance are delineated based on the respective position any one person takes relative to another person, attendant to any issue - that is, based on my social position on homosexuality, my definition of "acceptance" may comprise your definition of "approval".
At any rate, in saying "It is okay to be gay", I would not think the teacher is actively promoting homosexuality, but merely actively disapproving of bigotry and so forth.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Definitely agree here. The social dynamic has changed, and we need to consider the role of the school, because - rightfully or wrongfully - it has supplanted the parents in many situations.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
or women being allowed to wear their wraps for a drivers license picture
But see still, for younger children (having them myself
So when do we stop? Let us say your children see a black man with baggy pants and a backward hat: is it acceptable for your children to feel "blackness" is silly, and not an acceptable lifestyle choice? What about the color of his skin? Let us say your children dislike that, will you reinforce that behavior as well? The issue with situations like these, Easy, is that arbitrary lines drawn on the moral sand always produce contentious issues of interpretation - i.e., establishing that type of moral acceptance pattern in your children is a slippery slope, in my opinion. Other than subjective interpretation, what differentiates being gay as "not okay", but then being black as "okay". To a certain extent, the manner of dress and speech a person displays are inherently individual choices, but; to another, they are expressions of the cultural, social and biological heritage of that person, as interpreted by them. So what if the homosexual has a lisp? Are you going to teach your children to hate-crime every kid with a speech impediment, haha?
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
honestly I think we are saying somewhat the same thing, but along different lines. Not really going to preach constitutional infringement, as that really isn't a fight that would go far, but instead trying to reveal the concave mirror that everyone is looking in. There is a an unbalanced view of what is right and what is wrong, and all seems to be driven by Hollywood instead of peoples own rational thinking. For instance, here in missouri a black man was about to be executed and was stayed because Hollywood descended upon our state through the likes of danny glover and what not. But only months ago a white man was executed without any outcry from Hollywood. I am not one to go waving the equality flag.. but why? Guilt is still proven, but his execution was stayed because it got the media attention that the previous man did not.
Okay, actually I think I need to stop for awhile.. I have way to much ECA running through me right now, and thinking completely linear is becoming difficult!
... i shall pick this up later! I agree with your last paragraph though... I feel though the morals should be instilled by the home, an not in the least by a school, beyond the fact that you shouldn't punch jimmy because he is short/fat/black/white/red/yellow/whatever.
Adams
EasyEJL
Never enough
Yeah, I suppose I can see that. But is it bigotry to dislike males who exhibit excessively female characteristics and what is commonly taken as other gay behaviors (lisping, hand motions, etc) ? If I can't tell what someone's sexual preferences are then I can truly not care what they are - but if a person is going out of their way to broadcast I should have that same right to disapprove of it.
AE14
Board Sponsor
It most certainly has. I have been in many situations where students will discuss things and ask questions that when I was younger would have gone to my parents about. However, they dont have the same comfort level, and in fact, think that their parents would be their last resort.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
You are supplanting cultural decisions with racial equalities. Thinking someones baggy pants and backward hat is silly is not on par with racism.
Adams
EasyEJL
Never enough
Well, but the point here is that its not "blackness" that is silly, its dressing like an idiot with your pants hanging down so you have to use 1 hand to hold them up that is silly. The color of the person's skin is immaterial
But again, particularly in the context of tolerance vs approval - a big difference between something a person decides to do to purposefully display what they believe are their personality traits vs something a person is born with like a speech impediment. If a person makes a choice to do something then you can draw a much sharper line between tolerance and approval. If someone has no choice due to genetic makeup or an accident then approval isn't even part of the equation as there is no choice to be approving of. Goes back to obesity, I think an enormous part of why obesity started to become worse and worse is that in the name of teaching manners we taught children to not make fun of fat people. Why shouldn't we be disapproving of people who make bad choices regardless of what those choices are? Yes some SMALL amount of the morbidly obese do have an actual physical issue such as thyroid problems that cause it, however for a majority of them thats not the case. At least not the case when they begin getting obese, of course once you are obese enough you get all those other health issues that make it harder and harder to change.
So should you teach your children to accept that people are fat and that its okay to gorge yourself on food you dont need and to create health problems for yourself? Or should you teach your children that its wrong to do that and thereby the people who are doing that are bad people as they are doing the wrong thing?
B5150
Legend
Baggy pants and backward hats are silly - not the blackenss.
Two penis' or two vaginas as parents is silly - not the homosexual(ity).
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
I see your point, but I am discussing them to the extent to which they are related. I will address this more below.
Well, but the point here is that its not "blackness" that is silly, its dressing like an idiot with your pants hanging down so you have to use 1 hand to hold them up that is silly. The color of the person's skin is immaterial
Inevitably, though, these characteristics are indelible to the "blackness" or "gayness" of that person as a cultural identity, attendant to their biological identity. To a certain extent - and I say 'certain extent', as obviously some of these more aesthetic appearances are due entirely to asinine personal choices - these things such as baggy pants, or outward feminine characteristics are an individual's interpretation of their cultural heritage. Moral disagreement or not, both blacks and homosexuals, for example, identify with a particular set of modern cultural arrangements existent within our greater society. Consider, for example, a Hindu. A turban is a specific expression of a cultural arrangement within Hindu society [it is as much cultural as religious]. Your child may think that is silly. Do you tell them that Hinduism is silly, and an unacceptable 'lifestyle choice'?
I am not preaching the extreme of political correctness, but merely illuminating that cultural characteristics are often intricately linked with that person's biological characteristics; particularly when we are considering the physical mannerisms of a LGBT. I certainly agree with your last statement, Easy.
I was almost kicked out of my undergraduate program for telling the Chair of the Department I was both philosophically and morally opposed to her obesity, particularly in the context of material greed [which she was preaching against]. Preaching to the choir here: I have philosophical, moral, social and biological oppositions to obesity. Not the same, though: obesity is the ultimate expression of executive brain function - i.e., of cognitive choice.
EasyEJL
Never enough
I suppose this is one of those points that always stood out - when a group wants acceptance and approval of the majority, without wanting to actually become a part of and act like the majority. I'm not sure that because an individual chooses to publicly represent their "cultural heritage" that way that it should be accepted.
if wearing the turban is a requirement then I can feel good about telling them I think that is a silly requirement of a religion, as are many of the other requirements of many religions. Kosher judiasm disallows cheeseburgers, Christianity and no meat on fridays or lent, muslims and 5x a day prayer plus ramadan, etc. They all are pretty silly in their own ways
As far as it being an acceptable lifestyle choice, thats up to them. As with homosexuality, my older daughter understands that I don't like it (or strict religions, heck religion in general) and I think its a poor choice to make.See comically, I don't see a huge difference between this and homosexuality. Perhaps because it hasn't been studied as heavily, nobody is sure how much of homosexuality is predisposition vs choice. But the clothing choice, adopting a specific speech pattern, etc (again, the public signs of homosexuality) are no less an expression of making choices than stuffing yourself with ho-hos and cupcakes.
Its definitely difficult and will be interesting to see how your feelings evolve as you eventually become a parent, and your child(ren) age. So much time and effort is spent trying to teach your children to make good choices, and realizing their limited capacity to understand complex issues sometimes you are reduced to it being easier to paint with a wide brush, and yes, the turban is silly then and "would you want to be wearing one of those?"
CDB
Registered User
That's kind of why I'm not touching it anymore. At the last bachelor party we had we all blew our bank accounts on coke, jaeger and black labels. Two guys ended up the hospital, another two just went missing and we still haven't had contact with them though their facebooks have been updated so they are alive, and I ended up four or five towns east of where we started building a nest with dirty laundry in my friend's living room. We all kind of mutually agreed to calm down and cut the partying.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Why does an individual need to be subsumed by the majority? Conformity breeds stupidity and apathy, which ultimately breeds tyranny. Diversity, both biologically and socially/culturally, is necessary for the proper functioning of any population. One can fruitfully contribute to majority action - economic, for example - while still retaining individual characteristics.
if wearing the turban is a requirement then I can feel good about telling them I think that is a silly requirement of a religion, as are many of the other requirements of many religions. Kosher judiasm disallows cheeseburgers, Christianity and no meat on fridays or lent, muslims and 5x a day prayer plus ramadan, etc. They all are pretty silly in their own ways
Yes, but defining your personal-moral decision v., that it is absolutely unacceptable are entirely different things. Remember, we are talking about tolerance, and not just silliness as it is. You linked the two, and I was trying to establish whether or not you carry that link into all subgroups equally; if not, it seems rather arbitrary to apply it to one. (I.e., it is silly that a gay does 'X, Y, Z', and therefore homosexuality is morally unacceptable, but person a does 'X, Y, Z' and this is silly, but totally fine to do.)
I disagree here, for several reasons. At base here, we are discussing sustenance and sexuality, so lets compartmentalize this for a moment to understand it.
Both sex(uality) and seeking sustenance are indelible biological characteristics of any organism sans a pathological state: all organisms seek to eat and procreate, as these are necessary for its survival. Humans, though, are in a peculiar position, as these necessary biological functions are also inherently linked with higher executive functions - memory, mood, reward, satiation - due to our higher brain function; and so, certain cultural issues emerge from the carrying out of these functions in specific manners. Now, to address your point, sex(uality) and eating are the same, insofar as they are both biological imperatives that require a degree of executive function; however, you are overlooking a key variable: scope and magnitude. Obesity is the over-expression of a biological imperative, whereas, as CDB alluded to, homosexuality is the proper functioning of a biological organism, with certain cultural and religious stigma attached to it. Sexual obsession and/or promiscuity is actually the corollary to obesity, if we consider the issue logically; homosexuality and heterosexuality is just like preferring to eat beef over pork: both normal biological imperatives, but the genetic wiring produces different preferences.
It may, who knows. But again: my issue is not whether the turban, or baggy pants, or whatever is "silly", but establishing that underlying belief, or sexuality, or lifestyle is by extension completely silly and unacceptable.
Believe me, the thought of two men plugging each other is not attractive to me in anyway, but neither are Indo-Asian females. However, this does not mean I would preach to my children that Indo-Asian females are unnatural, morally reprehensible and a poor lifestyle choice. Not being attracted to, or to take it further, being repulsed by something, does not necessarily mean you have to propagate a moral opposition to it, nor pass it on to your children.
And finally, with all this being said, I am sure you are a great father and I would never instruct you how to raise your kids. ****, I am still trying to raise myself.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Sounds just about right. The time I was alluding to was about a year ago, and I woke on top of my 265lb friend whom had his shirt off, in the fetal position, and we were sleeping on a lawn about seven houses down from my friend. Apparently, I moved on top of him after a friend woke me up from the back of a car that wasn't ours, nor anybody we knew. Ah, good ol' Jaeg.
EasyEJL
Never enough
Hmm yeah, I can see that.
And I think that is where you get into the issue with attempting to teach a 6 year old. Its difficult enough for them to tie their shoes, much less get an idea like "its silly for that man to be wearing X but its ok since its his personal expression of what he believes is a piece of his cultural identity and even if you find it silly and choose not to associate with him based on not wanting to be seen near someone who looks so silly, you should still be supportive of his right to be a part of whatever cultural group he is a part of"
This is an issue where I don't have quite the same fire as I do over "obama and socialist policies will take us faster into bankruptcy than mccain and conservative policies would have" as this is definitely much more grey area. I don't know or want to know what anyone does in their bedroom, so if they didn't put so much effort into public display of it whether by clothing choices, or whatever i wouldn't know (or care) what their sexual preferences were and it would be a moot issue.
Irish Cannon
Legend
By this argument, you're basically saying that children don't even need parents because they're never around anyways. I know that's not what you're trying to say, but it sure sounds like it.
And about radio talk show hosts, I don't know why you get so upset when my beliefs just so happen to fall in line with their talking points. What's so different from that than someone reading a book and agreeing with the author?
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Definitely valid positions.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
I could see how it reads as such; however, I am more trying to establish the very unfortunate circumstance that, despite their necessity, parents are more-and-more being supplanted by the teacher-as-role-model, as AE14 stated.
Because they are entertainment sources, not news sources. As I said, you are more than entitled to your beliefs, but I get irked when people represent opinion as fact, with no substantive evidence behind it. If somebody said, "X, Y, Z is true because I saw it on Jon Stewart", that would be equally as invalid.
Irish Cannon
Legend
Have you ever listened to Boortz or Savage or Limbaugh?...and I'm not talking just sound bites and clips. There is far more than just opinion being stated.
The entertainment argument is a crock. Everything can be viewed as entertainment. Every book you've ever read is entertainment to a degree. Just because something is entertainment doesn't mean it's not factual.
Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, that's nothing close to conservative radio talk show hosts. All they do is spew out satire and raise eyebrows at the camera.
You make yourself to sound like an intelligent person couldn't possibly listen to the radio, but rather needs to have their face in multiple books at a time as though it's coming from some magical source. You just aren't making any sense.
It's like you're saying I can't share an opinion with someone else.
The best data you can back a statement up with is anecdotal, not empirical, yet it seems like you believe every study has to be done by some guy in a white coat. - Ex. The empirical evidence proving Socialism works is overwhelming, but when you actually implement it, it never wins.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Everything I attempt to say to you, in even the most non-confrontational of tones, you are going to construe as some attack on your values, and subsequently come back with attitude - I am getting sick of it. This is the last time I will reply to you in this thread or otherwise.
At any rate, use the common sense you pride yourself on. The MO of any radio show, Liberal or Conservative, is to retain viewers by entertaining them; that is their stated mission, and that is the stated measurement of their success as a radio program. An academic work, whatever form it comes in, has an entirely different stated mission and measurement of success; in this case, the measurement of success of any particular work is its validity judged by the individuals in that field; its ability to inform; its accessibility; the integrity of it sources and so on. As a result, its entertainment value is secondary to the information it contains, and the opposite is true for a radio program. Comparing the two in terms of factual information is ridiculous.
Even with this being said, you say one true thing here: "Every book you've ever read is entertainment to a degree. Just because something is entertainment doesn't mean it's not factual." You are entirely correct: these shows are not factual because of no other reason aside from them being not factual - that is why I am discrediting them. The discussion re: the Green Jobs is a perfect example. You saw the author of the study on Beck, and took it as so. Did Beck entertain the idea the study employed some pretty porous methodology? Did he mention that the study's author had received millions in funding from Exxon Mobil? No, of course not, and neither did you. Any avenue can contain facts, but the point I have stated probably ten ****ing times is that you verify what they say, as opposed to just assuming it is correct. These shows choose guests who pander to their audience - or polar opposites they can tear apart, to do just the same - in order to entertain. In any field, any context, on any subject, you ALWAYS question the validity of a statement made by an individual or organization with such explicit bias.
In what context or field is this a valid statement? Not everything has to be a study, and you are harping at a false argument here. Validation does not need to come in the form of a "guy in the white coat", and you know that is not what I meant. For a dude that prides himself on common sense, you are sorely lacking in it.
Irish Cannon
Legend
I don't know why you thought that post was confrontational or with attitude. It wasn't meant to sound that way.
As for the discussion itself, I don't feel like continuing it, so I won't. I'm getting bored.
As for the discussion itself, I don't feel like continuing it, so I won't. I'm getting bored.
Irish Cannon
Legend
Here's some more gay stuff to talk about if you feel inclined: Invalid Link Removed
Obama is passing a bill that extends marital benefits for the spouses of federal employees to "partners" of gay and lesbian employees.
Obama is passing a bill that extends marital benefits for the spouses of federal employees to "partners" of gay and lesbian employees.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
I am fine with this one.. this is a middle ground I can deal with. As long as they have Civil Unions, by all means... My problem is the term Marriage... Rooted in religious context, and now just a label for the government. That is bullshit to me, and angers me that agnostic/athiestic homosexual people want to label them selves in a religious manner. (I say the Ag/Ath part because a good percentage of homosexuals do not value the religious system, as it does not promote liberal views upon the homosexual lifestyle).
Adams
Irish Cannon
Legend
There is going to be soooo much fraud in the system because of this. Now every homosexual employee that gets a new boyfriend gets benefits for them? Do you see the problems this is going to cause?
AE14
Board Sponsor
D, I think you might be generalizing a bit. Also, marriage to me is not a relgious union, especially considering you can have it done in a court of law by a justice of the peace. I dont see why a homosexual couple cannot be "married". I am sure their divorce rates will be just as lousy as a heterosexual couple
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Thats why i say civil union.. since it gets the same problems of divorice... not only a boyfriend get it, but have to have legal documents to prove it.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
How so? Like I said, Marriage was bastardized by the gov. when they instituted it into the court system? How is that generalizing it? If you do not support the beliefs that the Sacrament of Marriage carries, then why identify yourself in a religious lime light? What because there are not athiests in a fox hole?
Gain a civil union and be done with it... call it a marriage if you want, but it should not be recognized as such.
Adams
AE14
Board Sponsor
I totally understand but disagree. marriage is not religious to many, and does not need to be.
Not too sure I understand the atheists in a fox hole remark.
AE14
Board Sponsor
Do heterosexual couples respond the same way? All their new boyfriendsd/girlfriends get benefits?
Irish Cannon
Legend
No, hetero couples have to be married to get the benefits.
AE14
Board Sponsor
So in essence, you are saying that homosexual spouses can recevie benefits from civil unions? Not too sure I see the difference, considering most in this thread say that civil unions are marriage
Irish Cannon
Legend
They haven't said anything yet about civil unions being a requirement.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Civil Union is a declaration to the state of unifying your estates. In essence the same thing as a marriage.. BUT... again... the reason the term should not be used in a non-religious manner. You only find it to be a non religious issue because it has been bastardized... principles are a mother ****er.
Adams
AE14
Board Sponsor
I dont think marriage has been bastardized at all, and I am happy you are deciding that for me
In all seriousness, marriage is what it is. The definition you gave above. If someone wants it to be religious, so be it, if not, thats ok to
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
AE14
Board Sponsor
That is a funny comment, and thanks for the clarification. However, I have known many in the armed forces who were atheists
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
I dont think marriage has been bastardized at all, and I am happy you are deciding that for me
In all seriousness, marriage is what it is. The definition you gave above. If someone wants it to be religious, so be it, if not, thats ok to
See, like I said.. principles are a mother ****er... really sucks when someone tries stepping all over yours.
Adams
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Funny... I was in the armed forces, and met a few athiests, till we were in fire fights in Iraq, and they were praying right there with me.
And?
Adams
AE14
Board Sponsor
I am not sure that even makes sense :dunno:
All I made reference to was you making a decision about what I was thinking. Will try to figure out where you were going with this:worried: