• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Forced Tolerance?

FiremanRyan

Active member
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
283
Reaction score
1
Location
Chico, CA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
it seems like every day i hear about a school adding some kind of gay tolerance program or another guy being fired from work because he said some anti-gay things on the internet. i understand an agenda which says that we should be tolerant, but it seems more like its saying we have to be tolerant.

personally, im a strong supporter of the rights reserved to us by our constitution. ive recently changed my view about gay marraige. i may not agree with it morally, but after a lot of reading regarding the constitution and individual rights, i have no argument about them not being able to marry. but i dont think a lot of gays or liberals realize that its a double-edged sword. the same right that allows them to marry allows me to hate them (i dont, im just saying this hypothetically to prove a point). why does their agenda have this goal of forcing everyone to be tolerant of their sexual preference? if Billy Bob passionately hates gays, and thinks its wrong morally and religiously, thats his right. to take this away from Billy Bob would be unconstitutional. i dont think anyone should hate anyone else but this isnt a utopian society and there is a right to hate or not accept.

and should he be forced as a kindergartener to sit through a tolerance camp? how is this any different than a religious camp? if its a childs right to be free from religion, it should be his right to be free from the gay agenda. im kind of going off on a tangent on this. im even starting to sound like a libertarian, which im not. i just think the push for tolerance in this country has crossed the line.
 
Last edited:

Stherngntlmn

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
236
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, Va
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Didn't you know... you only have the right to have your beliefs olerated by others if you're liberal or gay.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
yeah a lot civil rights activism can and have gotten out of hand in various instances. This includes african american civil rights movements and feminist movements.

But I do believe in tolerance up to the point where there is no discrimination that infringes on the rights of others, and such tolerance should be taught to kids. Men can hate and demean women all they want as long as they don't discriminate against them and infringe on their rights. Technically, white people can hate black people all they want as long as they don't discriminate and infringe on their rights. The same goes vice versa or for any race.

But do we want to nurture a society of people like this? This is where the whole freedom of beliefs gets muddled and lost in a bunch of technicalities.

Whether this gay tolerance program should be mandatory would depend on what they are teaching, and considering there is widespread debate about whether homosexuality is genetic or merely behavioural abnormality, I think that such a program should be very limited to what its teaching. There is a fine line between tolerating individuals and loving them, and tolerance is what this program better be teaching.
 

Stherngntlmn

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
236
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, Va
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I'm not even saying people should hate. I'm just saying don't trying to brainwash kids into thinking that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle, and that there's nothing wrong with it... when that's purely a subjective point of view, especially considering not only the moral aspect but also the elevated health consequences and risks that are involved in such behavior.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
i think homosexual tolerance is something that should be taught without going into the sexual behaviour it promotes. That way they promote tolerance without teaching the lifestyle. Whats different in a homosexual's lifestyle apart from their sexual behaviour. No school should go into the sexual behaviours of a homosexual, hell they hardly go into the many sexual behaviours of heterosexuals.
 

Stherngntlmn

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
236
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, Va
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
galenrox said:
So what do you suggest they teach instead of that?
First off, I don't think any public educational institution has any business teaching anything about anyone's sexual activity until at least freshman year of highschool. At that point, they should be emphasized the extreme risks involved with sexual activity in general, to the point where i think maybe a couple single teenage welfare moms should be brought in to describe to the class the hardships in their life, and maybe a person who's been tested positive for HIV should come in and describe whether the pleasure of their sexual experiences outweighed the consequence that now lies before them. After the risks have been assessed, students should be discouraged from any sexual activity until adulthood, told that the safest option is to not have sex until unioned monogamy (whether that be civil union or marriage), then explain how contraceptives work and stress that they be used in any situation which doesn't intend the end result of the sex to be human conception. Then the biology involved in the human reproductive process should be explained in technical detail, and it should be mentioned that some choose to perform sexual acts on partners of the same sex. There should be no morality or "tolerance" mentioned. It is up to the parents to teach their children what activities are acceptable, and what activities they should be "tolerant" of.

In the social studies or government classes of students, they should be taught the legal generalties of discrimination of all types, what discrimination is, and that they shouldn't participate in it.

No group should be singled out in any class and specifically promoted, whether it be by race, sex, religion, or sexual activities.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
When did tolerance start to equate to acceptance? These are two different concepts, folks.
 

FiremanRyan

Active member
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
283
Reaction score
1
Location
Chico, CA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
shuamort said:
When did tolerance start to equate to acceptance? These are two different concepts, folks.
we know, but its not us thats confusing it. typically its these people who are apart of the tolerance campaign. its just my opinion but it seems like to them, if you dont like it, youre intolerant.

thats why i started this thread. it might seem more like a pointless rant than anything but what i was trying to get at is: when does it get to the point when tolerance means acceptance? how long will it be until it is made illegal to hate someone?
 

Datamonkee

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
216
Reaction score
2
Location
Orlando, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So, here's a scenario for you. I played Russian roulette as a soldier and survived. What are the odds that if I continue to play that idiotic game, I don't shoot myself in the head eventually. To take the sex ed talk like you did, Galenrox, was much the same idea. You got lucky once. Why keep pushing your luck? Condoms should never be taught that they stop the passing of STD's and pregnancy. They REDUCE the risk, but they are not full proof at all. Kids should never be told there is a margin for error. They already feel that since they are young, they are invulnerable. Things happen to other people. I think abstinence should be taught and stressed, regardless of marriage or civil union. Monogamy should be stressed. People can live without sex. I did. I didn't lose my virginity until I was 20. (Of course, I made up for lost time with the career choice I made, LoL). Kids should fear sex until they are mature enough to realize the choice they are making with having sex. Our society sells sex, breathes sex, and lives sex all the time. It is trivialized by media, and kids watch the movies and say "that's just a movie, it doesn't really happen", and go out and have sex with everything that moves.
Personally, and I know this is going to **** people off, I think children should have the reversible operations that sterilize them until they have the means to support children. If parents wont take responsibility for teaching their kids the value of life, and kids definitely don't learn it, it should be regulated. Stop these 12, 13 year old kids from having kids. It is ridiculous.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,895
Reaction score
6,014
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Datamonkee said:
Personally, and I know this is going to **** people off, I think children should have the reversible operations that sterilize them until they have the means to support children. If parents wont take responsibility for teaching their kids the value of life, and kids definitely don't learn it, it should be regulated. Stop these 12, 13 year old kids from having kids. It is ridiculous.
I like the concept, but can't stand the idea of govt being that involved.
 

Datamonkee

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
216
Reaction score
2
Location
Orlando, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vauge said:
I like the concept, but can't stand the idea of govt being that involved.
Oh, I agree. But imagine all the money the government is shelling out for abortions, welfare, WIC, social services, and health services. That could be turned around, put into a government sponsored temporary sterility measure, and still have millions left over to funnel back into education.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Datamonkee said:
Personally, and I know this is going to **** people off, I think children should have the reversible operations that sterilize them until they have the means to support children. If parents wont take responsibility for teaching their kids the value of life, and kids definitely don't learn it, it should be regulated. Stop these 12, 13 year old kids from having kids. It is ridiculous.
Well, it wouldn't be the first time it's been done. At the turn of the 20th century, the eugenics movement was gaining hold and in Minnesota, the government actually participated in it. Back in 1925 a law passed to sterilize the insane and mentally retarded. Things moved on from there where it was just these two groups, to races, such as the Native Americans who soon become targeted even by President Roosevelt:
"Some day, we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty, of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world."

I understand the sentiment of people having children (breeding) only when they can support them, but it's the history of what has happened when these ideas are implemented that is scary.
 

Datamonkee

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
216
Reaction score
2
Location
Orlando, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
shuamort said:
Well, it wouldn't be the first time it's been done. At the turn of the 20th century, the eugenics movement was gaining hold and in Minnesota, the government actually participated in it. Back in 1925 a law passed to sterilize the insane and mentally retarded. Things moved on from there where it was just these two groups, to races, such as the Native Americans who soon become targeted even by President Roosevelt:
"Some day, we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty, of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world."

I understand the sentiment of people having children (breeding) only when they can support them, but it's the history of what has happened when these ideas are implemented that is scary.
Although the process could be viewed as a racist maneuver, considering the majority of unwanted pregnancies fall into minorities, I do not mean it that way. My idea was a blanket use of it, regardless of color, race, or sexual orientation. If you do not have the financial means or maturity to rear a child, you should not be allowed to produce one. The lives that are ruined are more than just the child in question. I can see where this would be spun to be a targeted breeding program to eliminate different races. Many other issues would have to be solved first. Racial preference in hiring. The elimination of affirmative action policies, and a basic tolerance (not acceptance) for those different from you.
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Stherngntlmn said:
First off, I don't think any public educational institution has any business teaching anything about anyone's sexual activity until at least freshman year of highschool. At that point, they should be emphasized the extreme risks involved with sexual activity in general, to the point where i think maybe a couple single teenage welfare moms should be brought in to describe to the class the hardships in their life, and maybe a person who's been tested positive for HIV should come in and describe whether the pleasure of their sexual experiences outweighed the consequence that now lies before them. After the risks have been assessed, students should be discouraged from any sexual activity until adulthood, told that the safest option is to not have sex until unioned monogamy (whether that be civil union or marriage), then explain how contraceptives work and stress that they be used in any situation which doesn't intend the end result of the sex to be human conception. Then the biology involved in the human reproductive process should be explained in technical detail, and it should be mentioned that some choose to perform sexual acts on partners of the same sex. There should be no morality or "tolerance" mentioned. It is up to the parents to teach their children what activities are acceptable, and what activities they should be "tolerant" of.

In the social studies or government classes of students, they should be taught the legal generalties of discrimination of all types, what discrimination is, and that they shouldn't participate in it.

No group should be singled out in any class and specifically promoted, whether it be by race, sex, religion, or sexual activities.
I agree wholeheartedly. My daughter, in 5th grade, was going to be taught about AIDS by the school nurse and a local doctor. When I called the nurse and questioned her why a flyer came home on Friday afternoon, and the class was Monday morning, she merely chuckled, and said nothing.

When I then asked her what the curriculum was going to be, she gave the title of some book, and when I asked why I wasn't giving the option of seeing it, she stated that she's been running this particular class in 5th grade since 1994. When I again asked her what the curriculum was going to be, she got a bit huffy and stated the kids would be told what AIDS is, and how it's transmitted.

My next question... and how will the sexual aspect of the topic be addressed? She was silent for a moment and stated that it can be discussed without going into sexual natures? next question... and how is that? her answer, by saying bodily fluids? hmmm saliva doesn't transfer (unless to an open wound) was my next response.. how was the distinguisment going to be made without getting into sexual content with 5th graders? a question she COULD not answer.. and then got offended when I CHOSE to teach my child what AIDS is and how it's transferred. How DARE I criticize the notion? Well how dare THEY decide what and when my child needs to learn, that's not associated with reading, writing and arithmatic.
 

Urethra Franklin

Folle
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
979
Location
European Union
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stherngntlmn said:
I'm not even saying people should hate. I'm just saying don't trying to brainwash kids into thinking that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle, and that there's nothing wrong with it... when that's purely a subjective point of view, especially considering not only the moral aspect but also the elevated health consequences and risks that are involved in such behavior.
You can be homosexual and celibate, or monogamous. You can be heterosexual and have unprotected sex on every street corner. Elevated health risks come with high risk behaviour, not with sexual orientation. You promote a myth about gay peoples' health which is based on no foundation. As for morals, they're personal. Keep yours to yourself, and nobody will try to persuade you that you shouldn't be heterosexual.
I pity your kids for the negative self-image they'll develop from the expectations you place upon them, regardless of their sexual orientation.
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Shame on you, Galen, for trying to introduce a bit of common sense!

I agree absolutely with what you say, but for many people the issue is not about education, but more about foisting their own out-moded opinions on the next generation.
Galen - cuddly AND smart. Swoon.
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Urethra Franklin said:
You can be homosexual and celibate, or monogamous. You can be heterosexual and have unprotected sex on every street corner. Elevated health risks come with high risk behaviour, not with sexual orientation. You promote a myth about gay peoples' health which is based on no foundation. As for morals, they're personal. Keep yours to yourself, and nobody will try to persuade you that you shouldn't be heterosexual.
I pity your kids for the negative self-image they'll develop from the expectations you place upon them, regardless of their sexual orientation.
I pity whatever chldren he may have, too. But for slightly different reasons.

In my professional capacity I have watched literally hundreds of people die. One thing I have observed very frequently is that, when close to death, right-wing Christians often start wondering if they have been "good" Christians, or if they have been too obsessed with their own finances and standards of living, and keeping the dsadvantaged disadvantaged. Then they wonder if their God will look kindly upon them. These people of tyen do not die at peace with themselves.

I pity his children because that may well be their fate.
 

Stherngntlmn

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
236
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, Va
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Urethra Franklin said:
You can be homosexual and celibate, or monogamous. You can be heterosexual and have unprotected sex on every street corner. Elevated health risks come with high risk behaviour, not with sexual orientation. You promote a myth about gay peoples' health which is based on no foundation.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/health/view/130750/1/.html
The disease, a rare form of chlamydia known as lymphogranuloma venereum, or LGV, can cause serious illness, permanent disfigurement and fuel the spread of AIDS, according to New York health officials.

"LGV is a serious condition and its emergence in New York City reflects continuing high levels of unsafe sexual activity among men who have sex with men," said the city's health commissioner Thomas Frieden.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17458
55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland -- known as Chicago's "gay center" -- have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said.
no foundation... :rolleyes:

Urethra Franklin said:
As for morals, they're personal. Keep yours to yourself, and nobody will try to persuade you that you shouldn't be heterosexual.
It's part of parenting to instill proper morals in your children, teach them right from wrong. If I have the personal belief that homosexual activity is a moral wrong, then why would it be wrong to raise my child with the morals taught by my religion?


Urethra Franklin said:
I pity your kids for the negative self-image they'll develop from the expectations you place upon them, regardless of their sexual orientation.
So now expectations are inherently wrong? So it'd be wrong of me to expect my child to grow up to be an honest, law abiding, respected member of their community?
Tell ya what, you raise you're children any way you want and keep your personal beliefs about how children should be raised, out of the public school systems, and legislation, I'll do the same.
 
H

HTColeman

Personally, I think kids should be taught tolerance, not acceptance, in schools. Acceptance is something that should be left up to the parents, as I am not a parent, I will leave that at that. But, tolerance of gays, minorities, etc., must be taught because kids don't have a complete understanding of what they can and cannot do to people. Let's face it, kids can be unusually cruel and violent.
 

Stherngntlmn

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
236
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, Va
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
galenrox said:
What? Neither of those things prove that homosexuals can't be monogamous, and that straight people can't be promiscuous.
The point was not to point out their promiscuesque tendancy, which is quite obvious. The point was that homosexual culture has a much higher rate of disease than heterosexual culture. Regardless of the amount of partners, male-male sex has a higher likelyhood of spreading disease because of the sensitive nature of the anal cavity membrane.

galenrox said:
I mean, I am living proof that a straight guy can be promiscuous, and sure homosexuals may tend to get around more, but then that might be a product of the fact that they can't get married, so when they meet someone, they're not approaching the romantic aspect from the same angle because we're raised from day 1 that we're gonna get married at some point, while homosexuals have been working their hardest to get the right to get married and people who complain about their promescuity won't give them the right to settle down. It seems contradictory to me.
so you're claiming that if the american homosexual community is given the opportunity to create a government recognized contractual union, that the homosexual community's tendancy towards promiscuesque activity will die out?

galenrox said:
You raise an interesting point. Where should the line be drawn between teaching your kids religious morals and teaching them hate, something viewed as immoral by others?
Teaching that homosexual sex is wrong doesn't teach hate. You can believe that someone does things that you would consider wrong, and make a conscious decision not to be associated with those things without hating that person.
galenrox said:
Think of it like this: I know you think smoking weed is immoral. If I was a rhastafarian, and so smoking weed was part of my religion, would you view it as moral or immoral to teach my kids to smoke weed?
I would view it as illegal, and as you would be teaching your children to break the law, yes I would consider that to be immoral.

galenrox said:
It all depends of at what cost. If you're forcing something upon them that really isn't who they are, chances are you not only won't end up with a kid who is any of those things, but the kid will end up the exact opposite of what you want. Kids rebel against things that try to change who they are, and once you start having them you very well may learn that the hard way, or maybe you'll luck out and have kids who are the exact way you want them to be.
It's a thin line between teaching a kid morals and stifling their individuality, and it's a line a lot of parents accidentally cross, or on purpose if it turns out they don't like who their child is, but I'd reccomend being careful about that, I've seen a lot of kids spiral out of control because their parents crossed that line too many times.
My opinion is that when children are raised properly, with love and affection. They can be taught that it is foolish to rebel against the admonishment and teachings of their parents.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Stherngntlmn said:
The point was not to point out their promiscuesque tendancy, which is quite obvious. The point was that homosexual culture has a much higher rate of disease than heterosexual culture.
Wrong.

Stherngntlmn said:
Regardless of the amount of partners, male-male sex has a higher likelyhood of spreading disease because of the sensitive nature of the anal cavity membrane.
Some are, some aren't. Can't put a blanket statement on people. I was in an 11 year relationship that ended when my partner passed away from cancer. We were monogamous and would have been married if we had the legal opportunity.
Stherngntlmn said:
Teaching that homosexual sex is wrong doesn't teach hate. You can believe that someone does things that you would consider wrong, and make a conscious decision not to be associated with those things without hating that person.
That IS teaching hate.
 

Datamonkee

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
216
Reaction score
2
Location
Orlando, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oi, I can't stand that. First of all, it does NOT teach hate to teach your kids not to do things. If you have moral issues with homosexuality that is fine. Teaching your children your personal views is your right. I think taking drugs is wrong. I don't hate people that take them, some of my best friends get high. I think monogamy is wrong, I don't hate married people. I think several religions are wrong, I don't hate those people that follow them. I won't ask them out for a beer, but I don't hate them. When or if I ever have children, I will teach them responsibility and try and instill in them the ability to make their own choices when they are old enough to understand the repercussions of those choices. Teaching morals and ethics does NOT teach hate. Now, if, while teaching your children, you say "See that silly f aggot, Jonny? Yeah, the one that swishes when he walks. See, he's going to catch AIDS because he's an evil sinner, and he's going to die and burn in hell." That would be teaching hate.
I don't hate you if I disagree with you. I might think you are ignorant, but I don't hate.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Datamonkee said:
Oi, I can't stand that. First of all, it does NOT teach hate to teach your kids not to do things. If you have moral issues with homosexuality that is fine.
No, it's ignorant.

Datamonkee said:
Teaching your children your personal views is your right.
It is a right but that doesn't make it "right". Teaching children to hate those different from them (or as it may turn out, the same as they are) is a parent's legal ability to do so. That doesn't make the parent's view right or correct. It just makes it the parent's ability.


Datamonkee said:
I think taking drugs is wrong. I don't hate people that take them, some of my best friends get high. I think monogamy is wrong, I don't hate married people. I think several religions are wrong, I don't hate those people that follow them. I won't ask them out for a beer, but I don't hate them.
And to me, that's a sign of being very close minded. A characteristic that makes me shudder.

Then again, I'm confused about your statements. You've got friends who do things you think are wrong, but then, you "won't ask them out for a beer". So you don't spend time with your friends? Based on these small facets of their lives?
Datamonkee said:
When or if I ever have children, I will teach them responsibility and try and instill in them the ability to make their own choices when they are old enough to understand the repercussions of those choices.
And that's your choice to do.

Datamonkee said:
Teaching morals and ethics does NOT teach hate.
Not in and of itself, no. Of course,that statement is contingent on what one considers moral and ethical. If you think that suppressing minorities and lynching black folk is moral and ethical, then yes, you ARE teaching hate.

Datamonkee said:
Now, if, while teaching your children, you say "See that silly f aggot, Jonny? Yeah, the one that swishes when he walks. See, he's going to catch AIDS because he's an evil sinner, and he's going to die and burn in hell." That would be teaching hate.
Using your example from above, let's say you thought it was moral and ethical to teach that to your children. You see the problem here?
 

Datamonkee

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
216
Reaction score
2
Location
Orlando, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wow, thanks for twisting what I said all to hell and back. Talk about intolerance. Follow the flow of the post.
"I think several religions are wrong, I don't hate those people that follow them. I won't ask them out for a beer, but I don't hate them."
I won't hang around with religious people that I don't agree with, but I don't hate them. I might engage them in debate (like now), but that has NOTHING to do with hate. I don't hang around my friends when they get high. I respect their right to do this, and they respect MY right to not get involved with it. This, again, has nothing to do with hate.
Everything that Southern Gentleman was talking about was done in a very polite and non-hateful manner. He expressed the point that homosexuality was wrong, that is his right. He expressed the point that he would teach his children that it is wrong. That, again, is his right. Not a single time did anything indicate in his post that he was going to teach his children to hate gay people or that he, himself, hates gay people. The only inflammatory comments were made by you, shuamort. It is a serious problem within the gay community to associate disagreement with hatred. Not everyone that disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle picks up a baseball bat and beats the nearest gay person. It is a small group that ruins it for everyone. Just like it is a small group of homosexuals that wish to legalize pedophilia. And yet we are known by the ignorant few, we are judged by the ignorant few.
The last time I checked, you did not attain deific status. You do not know what is absolutely right and wrong. You have your opinions and I have mine. Do you hate heterosexual people? You obviously disagree with them, you obviously have a different set of morale guidelines you live by. No one has yet to accuse you of teaching hate because you feel you are right and he is not.
Him teaching his children to not live the homosexual lifestyle does not oppress you or any other minority. Nor does anyone else teaching against the practices of the homosexual community.
If he teaches his kids morality by using the example I gave, then he is teaching hate. And THAT was my point. I can say "drugs are wrong" and it's not hateful. I can also say "If you take drugs you will turn into a dirt bag, fail at everything in life, and end up with AIDS because you are going to eventually be stupid enough to share needles with some OTHER dirt bag", and that is hateful. It is about how you say things.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Datamonkee said:
Wow, thanks for twisting what I said all to hell and back. Talk about intolerance. Follow the flow of the post.
"I think several religions are wrong, I don't hate those people that follow them. I won't ask them out for a beer, but I don't hate them."
I won't hang around with religious people that I don't agree with, but I don't hate them. I might engage them in debate (like now), but that has NOTHING to do with hate. I don't hang around my friends when they get high. I respect their right to do this, and they respect MY right to not get involved with it. This, again, has nothing to do with hate.
Post hoc drawing of the lines. You lumped in a group of things you didn't agree with and then summed up your paragraph by saying that you wouldn't have beer with these people. If any twisting is around, it's yours or I'll grant an inability for cohesive writing.


Datamonkee said:
Everything that Southern Gentleman was talking about was done in a very polite and non-hateful manner. He expressed the point that homosexuality was wrong, that is his right. He expressed the point that he would teach his children that it is wrong. That, again, is his right. Not a single time did anything indicate in his post that he was going to teach his children to hate gay people or that he, himself, hates gay people.
And as said, he can do what he wants and teach what he wants. He puts those opinions on a public forum and he's opening himself up for critique and criticism. I strongly disagree with the way he would raise his children and told him my opinion. I speak from experience being on the end of "homosexuals are ok, but the sex, that is wrong".

Datamonkee said:
The only inflammatory comments were made by you, shuamort.
Pfft. You haven't seen me be inflammatory.

Datamonkee said:
It is a serious problem within the gay community to associate disagreement with hatred.
It's a GOOD thing I am not the elected leader of the gay community. My opinions are MINE and not to be ascribed to whites/ gays/ left handed/ blue -eyed/ Minnesotans/ or any other group I may have an attribute in common with. To say that Bush represents all republicans or you represent all (insert subgroup here) is asinine and lazy.

Datamonkee said:
Not everyone that disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle picks up a baseball bat and beats the nearest gay person.
Good thing none of my comments came close to saying anything like that.
Datamonkee said:
It is a small group that ruins it for everyone. Just like it is a small group of homosexuals that wish to legalize pedophilia. And yet we are known by the ignorant few, we are judged by the ignorant few.
We agree there.
Datamonkee said:
The last time I checked, you did not attain deific status.
When did you check? ;)
Datamonkee said:
You do not know what is absolutely right and wrong. You have your opinions and I have mine.
Yup, and I learn everyday, and occassionally I'll change my opinion as well.

Datamonkee said:
Do you hate heterosexual people?
No. Is this going to be a strawman? (Disappointedly, it looks like it by the comment below)
Datamonkee said:
You obviously disagree with them, you obviously have a different set of morale guidelines you live by.
Really? Can you show me where I disagree with heterosexuals? Seriously, that's a fine strawman you've got there. So far, I'm just disagreeing with you and Sthrngtlmn. I actually don't know/care what your or his sexuality is. And then there are posters like JustineCredible whose sexuality I share but we've come to loggerheads on other issues. Does that then mean I hate her or her sexuality or does it just mean that I can seperate the wheat from chaff, that I can disagree with one position and not throw the baby out with the bathwater as you're suggesting.

Datamonkee said:
No one has yet to accuse you of teaching hate because you feel you are right and he is not.
Future strawman? Allusive syllogism? Pot hoc ergo propter hoc.

Datamonkee said:
Him teaching his children to not live the homosexual lifestyle does not oppress you or any other minority.
I never said it did. It must be fun debating something else in this thread and ascribing the imaginary debates to me, but it's getting a bit tiresome.


Datamonkee said:
Nor does anyone else teaching against the practices of the homosexual community.
:roll:

Datamonkee said:
If he teaches his kids morality by using the example I gave, then he is teaching hate. And THAT was my point.
And your point has your own ambiguous line. Somewhere in the realm of the hate field. And that's MY opinion.

Datamonkee said:
I can say "drugs are wrong" and it's not hateful.
Yes, drugs aren't people. If you wanna get all Tom Cruise here, that's your business.

Datamonkee said:
I can also say "If you take drugs you will turn into a dirt bag, fail at everything in life, and end up with AIDS because you are going to eventually be stupid enough to share needles with some OTHER dirt bag", and that is hateful.
More hyperbolic than anything.

Datamonkee said:
It is about how you say things.
Well, that AND the matter presented.
 
Top Bottom