johndylan1
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,932
- Reaction score
- 375
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Ok so you gave your honest assessment, that's all I ask. We just disagree. Peace
Yes absolutely I would advocate for kids if they were Christan and that caused this kind of issue. Of course I would I am Christian myself. If parents tried to shame children fir being Christian I think a program in schools should exist to tell them that it is perfectly okay to be Christian. If Christian kids went through the same things, buddhist kids, handicapped kids, i don't care the aspect that is the focal point of this kind of chastising, the result would be very similar. If the tables were turned and straight kids or religious kids were this beaten down my opinions would not change, kids still need support that may come from a teacher telling them that its okay that there its nothing wrong with them, or other school children supporting them. Children need that no matter if they are gay, crippled, different, religious, non religious, or what ever they are.
I agree parents should be in control of education. But sometimes they suck at it, that is okay we have schools filled with professionals that can teach what parents can't.
All teachers are doing is saying that it is okay that they are gay. I dint see any indoctrination happening there, they aren't programming children to be gay, you can't, it doesn't work that way. If you think it does just go try sleeping with your gender a couple of times, of you like it than i guess you can be turned gay, if the very thought disgusts you them you have proven that people can't be talked into it.
Nothing is going to happen to straight children except they won't think gay people are perverted and mentally messed up.. Now if you want them to think that, that is a problem. We don't live in a nation that is tolerant of that. If you don't want your kids to be gay,.i understand that, but you dint really have any say in that, you can't, unless we understand how homosexuality manifests itself there is no way you can possibly hope to prevent it.
What do you hope to accomplish by continuing the wall of silence to these kids that desperately need anything but silence? Are you just uncomfortable with homosexuality (nit that there is anything wrong with being uncomfortable with it) do you think that they will turn your kids gay? of you find homosexuality immoral, than teach your kids that it is immoral, be careful though if you have a gay kid that might damage them.
I just don't understand what is so wrong about it that all conversation must cease, even at the peril of children who are homosexuals. It isn't your personal morality, because we talk about eating pigs in classes with no consideration of Muslim and Jewish kids, we say that it is okay to consume bacon but.
So your bidirectional statement in that regard is not the same. What is the difference between telling a class made up of kids that some may be Muslim, Jewish, or vegetarian that its okay to eat pork. And telling a class that may have straight kids in it that its okay to be gay.
I Am even okay with teachers explaining that some religions are against homosexuality and that that is okay, those people will simply not practice it. Just like when I was in grade school and teachers taught me why Jews and muslims don't eat pork, they were a different religion and that is okay. Its immoral for Christians not to believe that Jesus is the Messiah but its okay to learn about Jewish and Muslim people, so what us the difference?
So just because someone elses actions are immoral in you're religion didn't mean that your kids need to be sequestered from learning about it. Try your bidirectional arguments on yourself. What if we said the same thing about being Muslim that we say about being gay. its far more immoral in the Christian faith to follow a non Christian prophet and not accept Jesus as Lord than being gay. But its okay to say its okay to be Muslim or Jewish. Same thing with being gay. I don't see a difference.
I completely agree with you on your second paragraph. The rest we'll just have to disagree.You can send them to church *and* public school and just let them come to their own conclusions, since they're certainly going to do that in the end anyway. No school that i know of has "Mock Christians Day." It frankly doesn't matter what they teach re: sexuality because the environment has changed to where the kids are going to talk about and deal with it anyway.
The one thing i do insist on is that bullying and borderline criminal behavior is squashed. See, you can't differentiate between statement of policy and "advocacy." Telling them "Some people are gay and we don't tolerate harassment here" should not be debatable.
Do they mention morality at all in these classes? As far as I know, that's not a part of the discussion.
I think yes, we just disagree
Ok so you gave your honest assessment, that's all I ask. We just disagree. Peace
1. That doesn't allow a parent to psychologically harm a child, regardless of authoritative measures they have over said child. We have child abuse laws for this reason. While homosexuality is less of the population than heterosexuality that doesn't make it abnormal.1. Just silly reasoning. Parents have protective rights over their minor children, there can be no force. Your description of "homosexual children" being forced is not what anyone would accept as truth. Let me restate, just because something happens doesn't make it a societal norm that deserves advocacy. Plenty of people choose to smoke and it was once considered hip, it deserved no public advocacy in our schools, now smoking is seen as a health risk and is not seen as hip and still deserves no advocacy. Homosexuality is abnormal by definition as it is well outside majority sexual preference (this is not a moral statement, it is a statistical statement).
2. see previous answer, no amount of examples can remove human fallibility nor the danger in moral relativism.
3. Any non traditional sexual orientation will do. You seem to want to have an arbitrary line drawn between acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior based on your ever-changing standard of moral relativism. I am simply pointing out that this is inconsistent with the notion that if one is predisposed to any certain sexual orientation that makes it ok, as you argued with regard to homosexuality. In essence you started with one argument ie, predisposition insulates one from moral judgments and then when you draw a line of acceptable sexual behavior its then based on your sense of a moral society. Totally inconsistent, dishonest and smacks of advocacy at any cost.
Its quite normal as it is a normal variance of the human sexual attraction. Green eyes are not a majority either, but that doesn't make them not normal.Nope. Not normal. Normal means usual, or typical.
A handful of percent of the population being homosexual is not normal. It is a small, small minority. Just say'in.
Do they mention morality at all in these classes? As far as I know, that's not a part of the discussion.
So you think gay people should be shunned and told they are deviants?
1. That doesn't allow a parent to psychologically harm a child, regardless of authoritative measures they have over said child. We have child abuse laws for this reason. While homosexuality is less of the population than heterosexuality that doesn't make it abnormal.
2. Then you agree with religion being a control agent and not accurate reflection of moral behaviour.
3. Actually no, not any non-traditional orientation will do. Homosexuality harms no one, literally. There is a line drawn that we as a society have recognized and with advancement in science and mental medical health we agree consent is required. Which is why we have laws against rape, coercion and etc into sexual acts. You disagreeing with it doesn't make it less of a law.
Its quite normal as it is a normal variance of the human sexual attraction. Green eyes are not a majority either, but that doesn't make them not normal.
Some women are gay too though, so that could mean less women for you. :lol:
Soooo, let me understand. So if your male and "attracted" to males, but you have sex only with females who your not attracted to, you are hetero?
no I do not. But that's me, if someone else wants to do the shunning of me or you that's their business, I can't and do not want to control others.
There is a huge difference when you are refused equality and made into a second class citizen over this shunning.
No one has demonstrated it to the point of being a fact, but all current research points to genetic roots for homosexuality.
I disapprove of that.
I think that is the first statement about gays you've posted that I agree with.
The topics about sexuality in relation to gays are so polluted with loyalty to one set of slogans or the other - as simplistic of slogans as people can chant - has made intelligent discussion all but impossible.
Yes, MOST people now agree that humans are no different than fruit flies in establishing their relationships that include sex. I'm not one of those people.
No need to be condescending, you just didn't read my post, obviously. You wouldn't have told me, "good try though" if you saw that I agreed with you.
You ate insulting people to save face, that is an oxymoron. Just own up to your mistake
Wasn't condescending... it was directing you to the OP and CC and stating beyond that I can't assist. In other words meaning I"m out of this thread.
Yea the do. Schools are government agencies, they require sex ed with homosexual studies. By law you must send your kids to school. If you cannot afford private ed, you are in that class.
Another example you might think about would be requiring kids to take Christian religion class in public school. I am not advocating, I'm comparing the Idea of how institutional power has approved one set of moral judgments and removed another.
If you're saying that all "people who are LGBT" are too emotionally involved to discuss this issue rationally;Right, so Long story short people who are LGBT shouldn't discuss it.
This topic has been hashed to death. Please stop making threads about old topics. Thanks.
Providing information on homosexuality is not teaching values any more than teaching information about Christianity is teaching values.
I really am growing weary with this. Advocates for the gay agenda have publicly stated their intentions with regard to the indoctrination and normalization of the gay lifestyle. Hell in California the just put forward a law that allows trans-gendered kids to choose which restroom they feel best fits their self gender identification, despite their actual gender. Text books must by law include historical achievements of homosexual figures described as such. By law text book contents must have information and review from advocacy groups including homosexual advocates, femenist advocates, etc. Now this may be sold as equal treatment, but it is a clear moral agenda that seeks to normalize homosexuality as morally acceptable. Now here's where you have to understand my point of view, I don't want public institutions involved in family business in either direction. And while I would have some sympathy, I damn sure don't want a confused little boy in the restroom with anyone's daughter.
I really am growing weary with this. Advocates for the gay agenda have publicly stated their intentions with regard to the indoctrination and normalization of the gay lifestyle. Hell in California the just put forward a law that allows trans-gendered kids to choose which restroom they feel best fits their self gender identification, despite their actual gender. Text books must by law include historical achievements of homosexual figures described as such. By law text book contents must have information and review from advocacy groups including homosexual advocates, femenist advocates, etc. Now this may be sold as equal treatment, but it is a clear moral agenda that seeks to normalize homosexuality as morally acceptable. Now here's where you have to understand my point of view, I don't want public institutions involved in family business in either direction. And while I would have some sympathy, I damn sure don't want a confused little boy in the restroom with anyone's daughter.
I really am growing weary with this. Advocates for the gay agenda have publicly stated their intentions with regard to the indoctrination and normalization of the gay lifestyle. Hell in California the just put forward a law that allows trans-gendered kids to choose which restroom they feel best fits their self gender identification, despite their actual gender. Text books must by law include historical achievements of homosexual figures described as such. By law text book contents must have information and review from advocacy groups including homosexual advocates, femenist advocates, etc. Now this may be sold as equal treatment, but it is a clear moral agenda that seeks to normalize homosexuality as morally acceptable. Now here's where you have to understand my point of view, I don't want public institutions involved in family business in either direction. And while I would have some sympathy, I damn sure don't want a confused little boy in the restroom with anyone's daughter.
And that is the reason I try to discuss this phenomenon on a scientific level rather than a moral, religious or emotional one_I think that is the first statement about gays you've posted that I agree with.
The topics about sexuality in relation to gays are so polluted with loyalty to one set of slogans or the other - as simplistic of slogans as people can chant - has made intelligent discussion all but impossible.
Yes, MOST people now agree that humans are no different than fruit flies in establishing their relationships that include sex. I'm not one of those people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?