Liberals trying to force homosexuality onto children

[Strk]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: zendari

You can pull your child out of ID if it bothers you so much.

You can do the same if homosexuality bothers you so much.

Oh, and one violates the constitution, while the other one doesn't.

Read the original article. The Parkers asked for their kid to be pulled from homosexual content.

Go to a court, they're there for a reason.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: zendari

Homosexuality being "normal" or "acceptable" is a belief.

Wanting them being left alone is one thing, going out of the way to amend the constitution to RESTRICT RIGHTS is forcing a belief.

Gay marraige is not a right, and there would be no right to restrict if the amendment passed. At least 18 states have amendments to their constitutions.

Well maybe it is for the Parkers in Massachusetts.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I suppose it is lost on some of you that liberals are sometimes as bad, if not worse, then conservative groups in "protecting" children from mature content in video games, movies and other forms of media.

Our society has an uncomfortable relationship with sexuality, and both ideologies exploit the knee jerk reaction of sexuality to further their own agendas.

While teaching kids the concept of tolerance is certainly a noble goal, it is not within the mandate of public education...also, the very concept of same-sex couples, inherent to the topic, raises the question of homosexuality. Kindergarten is not the appropriate forum for this debate, as children that age are simply unable to comprehend the concept or moral implications of sexuality.

Public education should be devoid of any moral determinations...just as science classes are not the proper forum for debates on Creationism, kindergarten is not the appropriate forum for teaching kids tolerance towards homosexuality.

There is a time and a place for such discussion...children will make moral determinations on the society around them largely based on what they are taught at home...as they grow and mature, individuals either reject or accept those teachings, or adopt their own beliefs as they explore the world around them.

Teaching tolerance towards homosexual couples in kindergarten is just as much a Trojan Horse as teaching Intelligent Design in a science class...it makes the classroom a battleground for furthering a political agenda.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: zendari

Homosexuality being "normal" or "acceptable" is a belief.

Wanting them being left alone is one thing, going out of the way to amend the constitution to RESTRICT RIGHTS is forcing a belief.

Gay marraige is not a right, and there would be no right to restrict if the amendment passed.

Oh so you still work under the theory that "All men are created equal" did not apply to Indians because they were savages.

Wow the extreme right really is brainwashed from birth.

Marrage is a right, if I want to Marry a doorknob that should be my right.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Oh so you still work under the theory that "All men are created equal" did not apply to Indians because they were savages.

Wow the extreme right really is brainwashed from birth.

Marrage is a right, if I want to Marry a doorknob that should be my right.

Was President Clinton extreme right? He signed DOMA after all.

If I don't want to pay social security that should be my right as well.

 

[Zebo]

Sounds like your typical snake handler who does'nt know the first thing about Christ and preaches hate and intolerance. KKK were all supposed christains too ya know.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: zendari
If I don't want to pay social security that should be my right as well.

I agree completely.

But unlike the Right or Left wings I am into as many rights as possible for humans.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: spunkz

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

There is no evidence that I am aware showing that being offended by homosexuality is genetic. If 95% of the people are bigots all the more reason to change.

Bigotry is an evil and it is the moral duty of every person to eliminate it. This is best done by freeing children from the delusions of the past. But bigots crave company and the company of their children. Bigotry runs very very deep. It is self hate that masks itself as hate for the other. But while there may be benefits from a social stigma against intolerance, bigotry can't be defeated by hate. That is why it is important to remember that the bigot has a disease and is not responsible for it. He can see his bigotry and overcome it best if he is loved, because it is only love that heals self hate. This urge to ban Zendari is one that I don't understand. It's a rare bigot that stands forth and tells you he is proud to be one. The task at hand is to heal, not ban. Zendari has an irrational belief that Gay is evil, but he cannot prove that case without going to an old bigoted text like the Bible. His case is as absurd as the Hindu case against the Untouchable. It is nothing but irrational hate and fear and a form of mental illness. When did we start hating the sick? Hate the evil it does if you have to hate. Hate that Gays die dragged behind the cars of the sickest bigots. It is the same disease evenly more openly expressed. Most good people are ashamed of themselves when they see what their bigotry does to the victims we manufacture in this world. It is only in certainty that men kill. And the thing about bigotry is it's certain. George Wallace later in life asked forgiveness of the girl become woman he tried to keep out of a white school.

Humanity will awake from its Millennia sleep in bigotry and superstition or will kill itself over lies.

who decided that bigotry was evil? where do you get off pushing your morality on him?

First I would like to hear your defense of bigotry. What is the argument that bigotry is good?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: zendari

That's exactly what the left is trying to do: intrude on someone else's rights, beliefs and freedoms. When did Mr. Parker say anything about anyone else's child?

As opposed to telling schools they can't teach evolution and/or must teach creationism or intelligent design?

You can pull your child out of ID if it bothers you so much.

LOL, only you would miss the fact that the right is the one with all the "Beliefs" and "Faith" that is being forced on others.

Homosexuality being "normal" or "acceptable" is a belief.

No it isn't. I have no believe that wearing a hat is normal or acceptable. It never crosses my mind. It's just that you have a mental illness that I recognize. It is the disease of bigotry that calls normal evil exactly as you would think someone insane who wanted to kill people who wear hats. If we had a sick cult that fomented social unrest and wanted hat wearers killed you would find the normal population soon up in arms. They would deal with your stupid ass in whatever way was required to stop you from killing people with hats. You are this person, but what you can see with hats you can't see about homosexuality because you are infected with the disease. Your evil infection sees that evil in the homosexual. It is actually you that you hate and want to proscribe, the part of yourself that used to be well. You cannot heal as long as you fan your hate. You have to die to be reborn and it is this very egotistical opinion you carry that has to die. That is why there are so few who are real Christians and so many who do not see the infection they carry is the devil. You were made to be the devil and now you see him out there. But you have been forgiven because you always were good. You poor dear thing, you hate yourself so and it was always a lie.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Future Shock
I can't answer those two questions - but I DO know that 10% of the human population is "gay" or homosexual. This statistic is invariate across populaitions, educational systems, cultures, religions, and time periods.

I've heard it spans across other species as well, 10% of every type of animal are gay.

/remembers southpark episode "Bad dog, don't be gay, bad dog!"

 

[her209]

Yes, the liberals are trying to turn the poor guy's kids gay.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Oh so you still work under the theory that "All men are created equal" did not apply to Indians because they were savages.

Wow the extreme right really is brainwashed from birth.

Marrage is a right, if I want to Marry a doorknob that should be my right.

Was President Clinton extreme right? He signed DOMA after all.

If I don't want to pay social security that should be my right as well.

Took you a while, but true to form, in comes the Clinton reference. Good job. As for your OP, I don't want to pay for the Iraq war, that should be my right as well then.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: zendari
What exactly did the left say about forcing morality onto others? Hmm.

I guess its time to consider homeschooling where kids can get a solid eduation instead of being recruited for this perverse behavior. Gotta get em while they're young I suppose.

You apparently think that teaching about a group is equivalent to advocating membership in that group.

"Impossibly clueless" doesn't do justice to your mental incapacity.

 

[jackschmittusa]

I just love the OP's logic: if you won't tolorate my intolorance, then you are intolorant and thereby a hypocrite.

Teaching about the makeup of families to gradeschoolers would not involve discussion of sex.

It also seems to be a constant theme that the more fervent the beliver, the more fragile his beliefs appear to be, needing absolute protection from any outside influence or knowlege to the contrary.

Since homosexuality has been around since recorded time, I would guess that it is "normal" for some people. It was quite common in many ancient cultures and not considered a threat to the state, religion, or marraige for that matter. Some religions railed against "wasting your seed" through masturbation or homosexual sex because they figured that if you were going to engage in sex, you might as well be making more members of the group; power and safety in numbers and all, and more future monetary contributions too.

I always love the "recruiting" angle too. How do they sell the "gay lifestyle"? Does "Try it, you'll like it!" work? Always seems to me that is like saying that we are all really "in the closet" and only need a little nudge to move us to the gay side of life.

I personally believe that teaching a kid that not everyone is just like he/she is, and that is perfectly OK, is a good foundation for making happy adults.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I just love the OP's logic: if you won't tolorate my intolorance, then you are intolorant and thereby a hypocrite.

Teaching about the makeup of families to gradeschoolers would not involve discussion of sex.

It also seems to be a constant theme that the more fervent the beliver, the more fragile his beliefs appear to be, needing absolute protection from any outside influence or knowlege to the contrary.

Since homosexuality has been around since recorded time, I would guess that it is "normal" for some people. It was quite common in many ancient cultures and not considered a threat to the state, religion, or marraige for that matter. Some religions railed against "wasting your seed" through masturbation or homosexual sex because they figured that if you were going to engage in sex, you might as well be making more members of the group; power and safety in numbers and all, and more future monetary contributions too.

I always love the "recruiting" angle too. How do they sell the "gay lifestyle"? Does "Try it, you'll like it!" work? Always seems to me that is like saying that we are all really "in the closet" and only need a little nudge to move us to the gay side of life.

I personally believe that teaching a kid that not everyone is just like he/she is, and that is perfectly OK, is a good foundation for making happy adults.

When you realize that nowhere in the bible does it say we're supposed to be happy, at least in this life, you'll start to understand why some fundamentalists don't see any conflict with holding positions that encourage hatred, fear, bigotry, unwanted preganancy, STDs, poverty, and a litany of other wordly evils.

For these people, all of these things are irrelevant next to securing their own salvation (how they think that forcing their beliefs onto society will help their own personal case I'm not sure, as I understand 'good works' cannt get you into heaven, but that's how it is).

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
What exactly did the left say about forcing morality onto others? Hmm.

I guess its time to consider homeschooling where kids can get a solid eduation instead of being recruited for this perverse behavior. Gotta get em while they're young I suppose.

You apparently think that teaching about a group is equivalent to advocating membership in that group.

"Impossibly clueless" doesn't do justice to your mental incapacity.

The force of the Pownage is strong in here :thumbsup: :laugh:

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: zendari

Homosexuality being "normal" or "acceptable" is a belief.

Wanting them being left alone is one thing, going out of the way to amend the constitution to RESTRICT RIGHTS is forcing a belief.

Gay marraige is not a right, and there would be no right to restrict if the amendment passed. At least 18 states have amendments to their constitutions.

Well maybe it is for the Parkers in Massachusetts.

Heterosexual marriage isn't a right either. Please point to the article/amendment that explicitly grants it.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: zendari

Homosexuality being "normal" or "acceptable" is a belief.

Define "normal".

A small fraction of the human population is born with Down syndrome. It occurs in predictable percentages in all human populations, and is as "normal" as any other configuration of the human genome. It causes mental retardation and other physical problems. It is not a condition that anyone would wish upon their children, and I'm sure that most people with Down syndrome wish they were otherwise. But people with Down syndrome deserve respect and understanding. It is in the interests of society to teach its members about Down syndrome and other, similar conditions. It is also in the interest of society to teach its members about what Down-syndrome family life can be like (both the difficulties and the joys).

Do you have any objection to such educational programs? Can you list the advantages of such programs? Do you think the existence of such programs is equivalent to "recruiting" kids into undergoing gene therapy to become Down-syndrome kids? Do you think that marginalizing kids (and adults) with Down syndrome would accomplish anything beneficial?

Now, see if you can extrapolate your answers to educational programs about homosexuality.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: zendari
Well maybe it is for the Parkers in Massachusetts.

Heterosexual marriage isn't a right either. Please point to the article/amendment that explicitly grants it.

I never said it was.

Do you have any objection to such educational programs? Can you list the advantages of such programs? Do you think the existence of such programs is equivalent to "recruiting" kids into undergoing gene therapy to become Down-syndrome kids? Do you think that marginalizing kids (and adults) with Down syndrome would accomplish anything beneficial?

normal
What school district teaches their kids about Down syndrome? Mine didn't.

Seems unnecessary in a regular curriculum, if you want to teach about it in special ed it might be more fitting.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Since homosexuality has been around since recorded time, I would guess that it is "normal" for some people. It was quite common in many ancient cultures and not considered a threat to the state, religion, or marraige for that matter.

Homosexual behavior may have been around since the dawn of time, but how we define and comprehend sexuality has changed significantly. Different cultures have, and continue to, treat homosexuality differently.

1000 years ago it was acceptable for an adult man to marry and/or impregnate a girl under the age of 18...in today's society, that is a crime...the nature of the act has not changed, but society's perception of it has.

Define "normal

The majority opinion of a society defines what is normal for that society.

 

[hardwareguru84]

Really, hasn't there been / isn't there enough intolerance in the world today as it is? What if the parents were upset there were families of say mixed races. Does anyone here honestly think that arguement would get any acknowledgement? Think about that. How is that any different other than the primary excuse for such homosexuality arguements, "God". You don't have to agree with the lifestyle, support the lifestyle, etc. but they have the right to life, liberty, and property just as you and I.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You don't have to agree with the lifestyle, support the lifestyle, etc. but they have the right to life, liberty, and property just as you and I.

Our society has chosen to condemn polygamy, yet it was fairly commonplace for the affluent of ancient times to maintain numerous wives...now we have a society of monogamous relationships, with over 50% of the married population engaging in affairs on the side or simply opting for divorce.

Some have quoted the statistic that 10% of the population is gay...I would imagine that 10% of the population would willingly enter into polygamous relationships...if I find two or more women who are willing to share me as their husband, why does out society prevent me from doing so?

Who gets to decide what is tolerable and intolerable...what is moral and immoral?

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

You don't have to agree with the lifestyle, support the lifestyle, etc. but they have the right to life, liberty, and property just as you and I.

Our society has chosen to condemn polygamy, yet it was fairly commonplace for the affluent of ancient times to maintain numerous wives...now we have a society of monogamous relationships, with over 50% of the married population engaging in affairs on the side or simply opting for divorce.

Some have quoted the statistic that 10% of the population is gay...I would imagine that 10% of the population would willingly enter into polygamous relationships...if I find two or more women who are willing to share me as their husband, why does out society prevent me from doing so?

Who gets to decide what is tolerable and intolerable...what is moral and immoral?

Society is fickle.
Ask someone point blank if they are against polygamous relationships and see what they say.
The reason society condemns it is because most men and women don't what their SO sleeping with someone else.
I personally don't mind if you want to be in a polygamous relationship, but it won't happen with me. I am a 1-1 guy. Not 1-2+.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Society is fickle. Ask someone point blank if they are against polygamous relationships and see what they say. The reason society condemns it is because most men and women don't what their SO sleeping with someone else. I personally don't mind if you want to be in a polygamous relationship, but it won't happen with me. I am a 1-1 guy. Not 1-2+.

Well that's really the whole debate...what society is willing to tolerate.

Taking religion out of the equation, there really is no moral judgment to be made on any manifestation of sexuality, save for cases in which one partner of the sexual act is coerced, forced or otherwise a victim...but what consenting adults choose to do in their own bedroom is their decision.

I think it has something to do with our society's tendency to require labels for everyone and everything...ancient society's did not view homosexuality this way largely because this dynamic was not part of their culture...although to be fair, those cultures were far more homogenous, and perhaps did not have to contend with the inherent challenges to a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society.

That being said, the label of homosexual confuses me...my sexual orientation as a heterosexual does not define who I am...it simply dictates who I choose to have a sexual relationship with...now, during periods of time when I was single, was I still a heterosexual even though I was not actively engaging in a sexually active lifestyle?

I realize that to raise awareness and acceptance, homosexuals adopted the tactic of being visible and "out," but that tactic has also motivated the core base of those who will simply never accept homosexuality.

If there truly is a God, and he does not approve of homosexuality, then I leave it up to God to judge homosexuals at the Pearly Gates. While a rational or reasonable person may question why our society simply cannot tolerate and accept homosexuals, the fact remains that we have to live in a society that simply does not have a comfortable relationship with any form of sexuality, let alone sexuality that may deviate from what is considered "normal."

I don't have an answer to the problem...but I do recognize that making a kindergarden class the battleground for this debate probably isn't the right solution.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Society is fickle. Ask someone point blank if they are against polygamous relationships and see what they say. The reason society condemns it is because most men and women don't what their SO sleeping with someone else. I personally don't mind if you want to be in a polygamous relationship, but it won't happen with me. I am a 1-1 guy. Not 1-2+.

Well that's really the whole debate...what society is willing to tolerate.

Taking religion out of the equation, there really is no moral judgment to be made on any manifestation of sexuality, save for cases in which one partner of the sexual act is coerced, forced or otherwise a victim...but what consenting adults choose to do in their own bedroom is their decision.

I think it has something to do with our society's tendency to require labels for everyone and everything...ancient society's did not view homosexuality this way largely because this dynamic was not part of their culture...although to be fair, those cultures were far more homogenous, and perhaps did not have to contend with the inherent challenges to a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society.

That being said, the label of homosexual confuses me...my sexual orientation as a heterosexual does not define who I am...it simply dictates who I choose to have a sexual relationship with...now, during periods of time when I was single, was I still a heterosexual even though I was not actively engaging in a sexually active lifestyle?

I realize that to raise awareness and acceptance, homosexuals adopted the tactic of being visible and "out," but that tactic has also motivated the core base of those who will simply never accept homosexuality.

If there truly is a God, and he does not approve of homosexuality, then I leave it up to God to judge homosexuals at the Pearly Gates. While a rational or reasonable person may question why our society simply cannot tolerate and accept homosexuals, the fact remains that we have to live in a society that simply does not have a comfortable relationship with any form of sexuality, let alone sexuality that may deviate from what is considered "normal."

I don't have an answer to the problem...but I do recognize that making a kindergarden class the battleground for this debate probably isn't the right solution.

I agree.
I am me, not my sexuality. Unfortunately, my sexuality is a factor when it comes to what I can and cannot do.
Times are changing, and society is changing, like it has thousands of times before no doubt.
I don't want to force you or anyone else to accept my sexuality because it's such a small part of my life. I'm so much more than what I find attractive.
All I ask is that I am afforded that same luxury.