• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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?

My paragraph about my dislikes was a bit unclear, but you understood what was meant. You just fell to arguing semantics. That is just a BS way of not addressing an issue, but nitpicking a person's ability to specifically express himself. As with the rest of your post, all those extra words, Latin, and semantics doesn't make you any more intelligent. It just screams "Ahh.. someone has pulled my punk card, and now I need to make him look ignorant."

So basically, what you are saying in all that extraneous crap, is that it's ok for you to disagree, and it doesn't constitute hatred, but if someone disagrees with YOU, it does?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stherngntlmn
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. (shuamort)
 
Datamonkee said:
My paragraph about my dislikes was a bit unclear, but you understood what was meant. You just fell to arguing semantics. That is just a BS way of not addressing an issue, but nitpicking a person's ability to specifically express himself.
Don't kill the messenger if YOUR post were unclear. Also, welcome to the world of debate, this debate is done with words, sentences, paragraphs and thoughts. To convey your point, you'll need those.


Datamonkee said:
As with the rest of your post, all those extra words, Latin, and semantics doesn't make you any more intelligent. It just screams "Ahh.. someone has pulled my punk card, and now I need to make him look ignorant."
Seriously? Once again this is a debate. If you've not learned the basics of debate, here's a good primer: The Logical Fallacies. There you can learn the appropriate terms for debate techniques and how to shoot them down. Your attack here is considered an ad hominem tu quoque. Feel free to take the time, learn the terms, come back educated and then debate the points I made.


Datamonkee said:
So basically, what you are saying in all that extraneous crap, is that it's ok for you to disagree, and it doesn't constitute hatred, but if someone disagrees with YOU, it does?
No, but feel free to read it again with the above link til it makes sense.


Datamonkee said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stherngntlmn
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. (shuamort)
Deja vu.
 
FiremanRyan said:
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.

Wow thats liberal! The definitian of marriage is: "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

A man and a woman if you didn't read it right! This is why it angers people. In a religious way of saying that it is: in the eyes of god a man and a woman joining together in holy matriomony.

But is it right to hate people for who they are? It is wrong morally and ethically! And your kindrgarten statement is horrible it does not help your point that is saying that people who assault people shouldn't go to jail!
 
Last edited:
Shuamort,

You obviously disagree with Christians and others who believe homosexuality is wrong?
Do you hate them?
 
HTColeman said:
You obviously disagree with Christians
I disagree with Christianity and other mythology. To say I disagree with Christians would be a false statement because it doesn't say what I'm disagreeing with them about and it also assumes that all Christians believe the exact same thing. Both false syllogisms.


HTColeman said:
and others who believe homosexuality is wrong?
Yup, I disagree with them.


HTColeman said:
Do you hate them?
Nope, but I don't condemn the person, just the belief. Big difference. Baby and the bathwater.
 
shuamort said:
Nope, but I don't condemn the person, just the belief. Big difference. Baby and the bathwater.

I am ignoring your ridiculous tendency to nitpick over stupid, irrelevant points that don't accomplish anything, so I skipped to this part of your response.

Anyways, in the same way I, and I believe Datamonkee and Southern Gentleman will agree, don't believe that homosexuality is a moral thing to involve oneself in. I don't condemn homosexuals. So, it is NOT teaching your children hate if you teach them that homosexuality is wrong, because you are not teaching them to condemn/hate the homosexual.
 
HTColeman said:
I am ignoring your ridiculous tendency to nitpick over stupid, irrelevant points that don't accomplish anything, so I skipped to this part of your response.
If you can't debate, why play?

HTColeman said:
Anyways, in the same way I, and I believe Datamonkee and Southern Gentleman will agree, don't believe that homosexuality is a moral thing to involve oneself in. I don't condemn homosexuals. So, it is NOT teaching your children hate if you teach them that homosexuality is wrong, because you are not teaching them to condemn/hate the homosexual.
And I think it is hateful to teach them that homosexuality is wrong. And you are condemning homosexuals by saying that they are not moral.
 
shuamort said:
If you can't debate, why play?
I debate well, if I do say so myself, I just choose look at the spirit of argument rather than getting wrapped in the letter of the argument, and muddling the entire conversation. I would have to ask you to improve on your debating skills, realize what the actual debate is about.

And I think it is hateful to teach them that homosexuality is wrong.

I believe that homosexuality is wrong, the same with stealing, murdering, lying, etc. I will teach my children that stealing, murdering, and lying are wrong. Is that hateful against people who steal, murder, or lie?

And you are condemning homosexuals by saying that they are not moral

No one is moral. If I hated everyone that I thought commits immoral acts, I would hate everyone, including myself! Everyone does something that is wrong, and I will teach my children that it is wrong, but that doesn't mean I am teaching them to hate those who do wrong.
 
Homosexuals are trying desperately to recruit and indoctrinate you recruit your llittle kids, and they cleverly disguise it under ruses like "diversity training, "safe schools", and "tolerance". Don't buy it.....try goign to their main scheming/recruitment website, GLSTEN and throw up while looking at their nauseating "curriculum programs" listings.

To try to protect yourself and your children from their agressive offensivness, try this, printed with permission:

STUDENT EXEMPTION To the School Board Members, Superintendent, Principal, teachers and agents of the _______________________________________________________________ School District. This letter will serve as legal notice pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Section 1232(h) and the California Education Code, including, but not limited to, Sections 221.5, 51100, 51101, 51501, 51513, and 51937-51939, that you are not to teach, instruct, advise, counsel, discuss, test, question, examine, survey or in any way provide information, data or images to my child(ren) concerning: • sex education, family life education, health, human sexuality, • pupil’s personal beliefs or practices in sex, family life, morality, and religion, • pupil’s parents’ or guardians’ beliefs and practices in sex, family life, morality, and religion, • sexually transmitted diseases, venereal diseases, HIV/AIDS, • gender identity, sexual orientation, sexual preference, • homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgender or transsexual issues, • or any alternatives to monogamous heterosexual marriage, without my express written permission on an incident-by-incident basis. This restriction shall extend to: • teachers and teacher aides, • administrators, school counselors, • school health personnel, special guests, or presenters, • California Department of Education or other state departments or their agents, • or anyone speaking or acting on behalf of the school or school district, and shall be in force whether said child or children are on school grounds, or are off-campus. This shall pertain to all writings as defined by California Evidence Code Section 250, including, but not limited to: • classroom instruction, presentations, school-approved displays on campus, • reading assignments, class discussions, homework assignments, • books, magazines, newspapers, or other printed or written material, • photographs, movies, films, slides, filmstrips, projector images, DVDs, CDs, video tapes, audio tapes, MP3 files, • CD-ROMs, computer and Internet programs and activities, • field trips, assemblies, theatrical or musical performances, • individual or group-assigned activities, extracurricular activities, • or any other context in which the school or its agents interact with my child(ren). I respectfully request that I be notified in writing at least 15 days in advance of all future instruction, events, or activities, etc. from which my child(ren) may need to be exempted, so that I may work with you in making alternate accommodations for his/her continuing education. This request is made as a direct result of my sincerely-held religious beliefs and personal moral convictions, as well as the individual, emotional, and developmental needs of my child(ren), and the laws cited above. I thank you in advance for respecting my rights as a parent in dealing with these matters. This notice has been prepared with the advice of legal counsel and supersedes any prior authorization you may have on file. My child(ren) and/or ward(s) to whom this notice applies is (are): (name and grade) ___________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ Thank you for respecting my family’s personal moral convictions regarding these matters. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Signed___________________________________________________________________ Date______________________________ Address_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Daytime/Evening Phone_______________________________________________________________________________________ NOTICE TO PARENTS/GUARDIANS: Please retain a signed, dated copy of this letter for your personal records. © CALIFORNIA STUDENT© CALIFORNIA STUDENT© CALIFORNIA STUDENT© CALIFORNIA STUDENT EXEMPTION PROJECT EXEMPTION PROJECT EXEMPTION PROJECT EXEMPTION PROJECT, P.O. BOX 782, SACR, P.O. BOX 782, SACR, P.O. BOX 782, SACR, P.O. BOX 782, SACRAMENTO, CA 95812AMENTO, CA 95812AMENTO, CA 95812AMENTO, CA 95812 Form SE 01-14-04
 
HTColeman said:
I debate well, if I do say so myself, I just choose look at the spirit of argument rather than getting wrapped in the letter of the argument, and muddling the entire conversation. I would have to ask you to improve on your debating skills, realize what the actual debate is about.
Show me where the conversation got muddied? How about where Datamonkee's thoughts were unclear. I called him on it. I also called him on his debating techniques, these techniques he used were fallacies, logical one, ad hominem attacks, and syllogistic errors that he used to arrive at his conclusions. Showing the errors that are used to get to his points are showing errors in his points. Maybe it would behoove you to gander the logical fallacies links too.


HTColeman said:
I believe that homosexuality is wrong, the same with stealing, murdering, lying, etc. I will teach my children that stealing, murdering, and lying are wrong. Is that hateful against people who steal, murder, or lie?
As is stated up above, this is a logical fallacy question. Put it in line with "complex question" part:
Definition:

Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.

Examples:
You should support home education and the God-given right of parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs.
Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?

Have you stopped using illegal sales practises? (This asks two questions: did you use illegal practises, and did you stop?)
Proof:

Identify the two propositions illegitimately conjoined and show that believing one does not mean that you have to believe the other.


Now, since a person's sexuality does not affect another person (unless it's consensual), then it is completely irrelevant to murdering, stealing, etc. In other words, if you can't debate homosexuality as a seperate entity, then your point is worthless. This is debate.


HTColeman said:
No one is moral. If I hated everyone that I thought commits immoral acts, I would hate everyone, including myself! Everyone does something that is wrong, and I will teach my children that it is wrong, but that doesn't mean I am teaching them to hate those who do wrong.
By teaching them that homosexuality is immoral, you are giving them license to hate. What if you said that being black is immoral, or being left-handed, or retarded?
 
GLSEN the homosexuals get caught cruising & deceiving

GLSEN’s Executive Director Kevin Jennings revealed in a speech in 1995
how he used “safety” to delude the Massachusetts legislature into
adopting the pro-homosexual agenda for the schools in their state. The
speech, “Winning the Culture War,” was given at a conference on March 5,
1995. Notice the “safety” Trojan horse:

In Massachusetts, the effective reframing of this issue was the key to
the success of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. We
immediately seized upon the opponent’s calling card – safety – and
explained how homophobia represents a threat to students’ safety by
creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and
suicide are common. Titling our report ‘Making Schools Safe for Gay and
Lesbian Youth,’ we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive
and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their
arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one. 1

Safety? Or Sex?

What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that despite claims to
the contrary, the “safe school” message of these organizations is
nothing more than a deceptive ploy designed to preach safety but
actually encourage sexual activities that are quite unsafe.

Exposure to and experimentation with homosexual behavior carries serious
risks that school officials should be aware of in order to protect
students. There is concern that by allowing access by homosexual
activist organizations, and by establishing policies that have the
effect of normalizing homosexual behavior, schools may have become
responsible for physical and emotional harm to the students entrusted to
their care.

In addition, because homosexual behavior has been proven to contribute
to many harmful consequences for those who engage in it, school
officials should be aware that it is possible that a legal liability
exists for the tort of negligence if it is proven that homosexual
activist organizations were granted access to students under the
school’s responsibility and that students subsequently suffered physical
or mental harm.
 
shuamort said:
If you can't debate, why play?

And I think it is hateful to teach them that homosexuality is wrong. And you are condemning homosexuals by saying that they are not moral.

Because you don't debate. You have steadfastly ignored the points made by several posts in an effort to try and prove that your arguments are above reproach. You nitpick in order to make your arguments sound stronger (and I believe that is your infamous straw man argument). You have repeatedly shown that you believe that someone that disagrees with you, hates you, and yet, it isn't the same with you, because you have a baby and bathwater.
Yes, you have a right to an opinion. Yes, you can spout all kinds of platitudes about teaching tolerance. Until you show some, why should the rest of the world bother listening to your points of view? Why should someone be tolerant of your version of morality, when you cannot show the same respect? Hate (To feel hostility or animosity toward) is an extremely strong word. And whenever you use it, you imply the deepest level of emotion against something. You don't use violence when you dislike something, or find it uncomfortable. Violence is hand in hand with hatred. When you tell someone that they hate something, you tell them that they are violent towards something.
NEXT ISSUE:
The point I tried to make was that Southern Gentleman was not teaching hate to his children if he presented the facts in the same polite way that he was posting. I then gave an example of teaching hate, to which you said "what if that is what someone finds moral or ethical". Then it is teaching hate, but that had nothing to do with Southern Gentleman and your accusation that he was teaching hate.
NEXT ISSUE:
I did not say that you were the leader of the gay community (thank god, or whatever diety you worship or don't that's true). I am gay. I find many of the tolerance debates that the community brings forth spewing intolerance of Christian beliefs. The answer is "well, that's what they've done to us for centuries". They haven't been tolerant of us for decades, why should we be tolerant of them? Forcing someone to change their idea of morality is not teaching tolerance. Dictionary.com gives this definition of tolerance : "The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others"
There is nothing in that definition that requires you to change your own belief. All you have to do is "recognize and respect". You can do that, and still disagree with those beliefs.
 
shuamort said:
And I think it is hateful to teach them that homosexuality is wrong.
I think it's hateful to get angry at others for their personal beliefs, when they in no way affect your life.

shuamort said:
And you are condemning homosexuals by saying that they are not moral.
no... not homosexuals... homosexual acitivity.
 
shuamort said:
As is stated up above, this is a logical fallacy question. Put it in line with "complex question" part:
Definition:

Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.

Examples:
You should support home education and the God-given right of parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs.
Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?

Have you stopped using illegal sales practises? (This asks two questions: did you use illegal practises, and did you stop?)
Proof:

Identify the two propositions illegitimately conjoined and show that believing one does not mean that you have to believe the other.


Now, since a person's sexuality does not affect another person (unless it's consensual), then it is completely irrelevant to murdering, stealing, etc. In other words, if you can't debate homosexuality as a seperate entity, then your point is worthless. This is debate.

However, since both are a question of a persons morals, they are legitimately conjoined. But, for your sake, let's take another comparison, I believe that premarital sex is wrong, and I would teach my children that it is wrong, am I hateful against those who don't see a problem with premarital sex?


By teaching them that homosexuality is immoral, you are giving them license to hate.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa... you are changing the words. "Giving them licence to hate" is completely different than "teaching them to hate", and it is not in the conversation. Futhermore, telling your child "Homosexuality is wrong" is different than "Homosexuality is wrong, and those who engage in it should die".

What if you said that being black is immoral, or being left-handed, or retarded?

Aha... I see what the disconnect is. You believe that people are born homosexual, I believe that it is a choice. Am I correct?
 
HTColeman said:
However, since both are a question of a persons morals, they are legitimately conjoined. But, for your sake, let's take another comparison, I believe that premarital sex is wrong, and I would teach my children that it is wrong, am I hateful against those who don't see a problem with premarital sex?
Ahh, but you believe sexuality is question about morality and I do not.

HTColeman said:
Whoa, Whoa, Whoa... you are changing the words. "Giving them licence to hate" is completely different than "teaching them to hate", and it is not in the conversation. Futhermore, telling your child "Homosexuality is wrong" is different than "Homosexuality is wrong, and those who engage in it should die".
If something is wrong as is with your previous examples such as stealing, murdering, etc, do you just let it be wrong, or should it be punished? Should murderers go free? Should thiefs go free? Should homosexuals go free? Where is the line and why are you drawing it there?

HTColeman said:
Aha... I see what the disconnect is. You believe that people are born homosexual, I believe that it is a choice. Am I correct?
I believe people are born with their sexuality. Yup. As you were, so am I. There's an impasse that I'd rather not bicker about. I think we're probably set in our opinions and while it might not be fruitless, I don't care to journey down that road.
 
HTColeman said:
Aha... I see what the disconnect is. You believe that people are born homosexual, I believe that it is a choice. Am I correct?

And as you appear to be basing your opinion on that belief, I think you should justify it.

Scientific proof, please, that homosexuality is a choice.
 
Naughty Nurse said:
And as you appear to be basing your opinion on that belief, I think you should justify it.

Scientific proof, please, that homosexuality is a choice.
I've never seen a strand of DNA lube up and bend over
 
Stherngntlmn said:
I've never seen a strand of DNA lube up and bend over
And I've never seen a strand of DNA have sex with an opposite sex strand of DNA.
 
shuamort said:
And I've never seen a strand of DNA have sex with an opposite sex strand of DNA.
I believe that's called conception... again... not homosexual
 
In the interest of full disclosure, Shumamort the moderator has previously self idenfitifed himself in other forums here as a homosexual, just so you know what agenda he is coming from.
 
Shuamort, do you advocate that homosexuals in States where homosexuality is illegal to violate the law and engage in unlawful homosexual behavior?

Also, do you advocate tolerance of heroin addicts?
 
Stherngntlmn said:
I believe that's called conception... again... not homosexual
Oh, so DNA has a penis and a vagina? No.
 
HTColeman said:
Scientific proof, please, that homosexuality is not a choice.
You proffered the claim first, pony up.
 
Back
Top Bottom