varusword75 wrote:
I could run or swim circles around you.
varusword75 wrote:
Remind me again what being in shape has to do with your property?
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Don't Say Gay Bill
Don't Say Gay BillFollow
Keep telling yourself your once a week ten mile compares to my five days a week four mile and twice weekends 10 miles, sweety. And that's just running.
Well, anyone with an IQ and rational thought processes would have seen the phrase "in better shape in every possible way" to include financial shape as well, but I do realize that you, being from the south, require people to spell things out for you. I understand that. I have a lot of soldiers in my command that are from the south, and I have to use small, short sentences for them to understand, too.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Tulip,
They aren't. People are terrified of having their children exposed to a lifestyle choice that is harmful.
Quote:
I don't get why people are so terrified of sex. It boggles my mind.
They aren't. People are terrified of having their children exposed to a lifestyle choice that is harmful.
Did you miss the French Fry discussion? McDonalds is now targeting adults.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
varusword75 wrote:
Tulip,
They aren't. People are terrified of having their children exposed to a lifestyle choice that is harmful.
Quote:
I don't get why people are so terrified of sex. It boggles my mind.
They aren't. People are terrified of having their children exposed to a lifestyle choice that is harmful.
I think your lifestyle choice is way more harmful. Hatred is a choice, homosexuality isn't.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Tulip,
They aren't. People are terrified of having their children exposed to a lifestyle choice that is harmful.
Quote:
I don't get why people are so terrified of sex. It boggles my mind.
They aren't. People are terrified of having their children exposed to a lifestyle choice that is harmful.
Did you miss the French Fry discussion? McDonalds is now targeting adults.
I didn't deny any expansion. My point is the target audience has changed. The connection between kids and McDonalds today is not the same as it use to be when the target audience was for children.
varusword75 wrote:
Atard,
And you and your liberal buddies hate, and persecute, anything or anyone that contradicts your ideology.
We decide who we're going to have sex with. I get that you've been brainwashed into believing they're "born that way" but it's a lie.
Quote:
I think your lifestyle choice is way more harmful. Hatred is a choice
And you and your liberal buddies hate, and persecute, anything or anyone that contradicts your ideology.
Quote:
homosexuality isn't.
We decide who we're going to have sex with. I get that you've been brainwashed into believing they're "born that way" but it's a lie.
So heterosexuality is a choice as well? It's fun to say things.
Edit: Also, I'm way too busy goose-stepping to have time for persecuting.
Edited, Apr 25th 2011 5:14pm by Ailitardif
But you don't decide who you fall in love with.
Almalieque wrote:
I didn't deny any expansion. My point is the target audience has changed. The connection between kids and McDonalds today is not the same as it use to be when the target audience was for children.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
FFS, read your own ******* signature Douchebag. Stop talking to him and maybe the imbecile will leave.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
At the risk of even attempting to read this thread, I'll observe that the TN law (and laws like it) are in response to equally over-reaching laws in the other direction, like the one that passed the California State Senate last Friday. That law mandates that schools teach positive examples of contributions by homosexuals and bans any negative references to them. They're both crappy laws. I'm just pointing out that this is going on in both directions on this issue. So if the anti-gay ones are being led by ignorant blissful Christian fundamentalists who don't understand logic or reason, then what is the excuse of those passing laws like the one in California?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
then what is the excuse of those passing laws like the one in California?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
gbaji wrote:
I'll observe that the TN law (and laws like it) are in response to...
You're just guessing to shift the blame. There may be "opposite" laws, I'm not wasting my time looking, but people have been getting hysterical about this shit for a lot longer than anyone's been pushing positive perceptions of homosexuals in the schools.
If you think they're both poor laws, just say so without some lame attempt to make it someone else's fault beyond the idiots making these laws.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Can't score points doing that though.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Quote:
Some choices are bad and some choices are good. Our govn tells us some choices are good and some are bad (incest/polygamy). Starting to get the picture?
hey V hows it going! So, quick question. do you believe that the gov is always right?
varusword75 wrote:
Aethia,
Yes you do. Take some personal responsibility.
Atard,
Did you think this up all by your lonesome? Some choices are bad and some choices are good. Our govn tells us some choices are good and some are bad (incest/polygamy). Starting to get the picture?
Quote:
But you don't decide who you fall in love with.
Yes you do. Take some personal responsibility.
Atard,
Quote:
So heterosexuality is a choice as well?
Did you think this up all by your lonesome? Some choices are bad and some choices are good. Our govn tells us some choices are good and some are bad (incest/polygamy). Starting to get the picture?
Damn, your arguments are really starting to open my eyes...goose-stepping is really tiring.
Almalieque wrote:
I gave you a very simple answer and you chose not to accept it. That's your fault. I am strongly against anything going up anyone's **** for any sexual pleasure. I look how a male body is, how a female body is, how they correlate during sex and child reproduction. I look how none of that occurs with two people of the same sex. In my mind, the square block goes inside the square hole. That has nothing to do with religion, God or anything. If I were to lose my faith today in God, my opinion on homosexuality would not change. I don't care if a hidden verse reveals that it's ok to be gay.
You're saying, "People are uncomfortable with it," but you're not telling me why. Why does it make you uncomfortable to think of something going up someone else's ****, when that person is a willing recipient? Who taught you that sex was only for reproduction? Why does it make you uncomfortable? I get that it makes you uncomfortable, but why?
Almalieque wrote:
People like you just throw around religion as opposition because you know it holds no grounds in arguments. You're no better than the people who use religion as an excuse for their actions.
No, really. I can't see a reason why someone would be upset about this except that there has been religious ideology that has taught people from a very, very early age that homosexuals are yukky. I'm willing to keep an open mind here, but you're not really giving me any examples.
Almalieque wrote:
No, social science as comforting students that the changes that they maybe experience through puberty as taught in the class is normal. There is absolutely no reason for sexual orientation to have to come up. Doing so is your own personal agenda.
Sexual attraction is a part of puberty, genius.
Almalieque wrote:
I used 8th grade as an example. Ok, so let's say 6th grade. What good does it do if your kids are having sex in the 5th grade?
Most kids are going through puberty around the sixth grade. That's why that seems appropriate to me.
Almalieque wrote:
I imply that you were against parent involvement.
Then you're wrong.
Almalieque wrote:
You are simply arguing that teachers should have more authority than they should and parents have too much power. I'm arguing the opposite.
Wait. This makes no sense whatsoever. I have never said that parents have "too much power," that's idiotic. And how much authority "should" teachers have? Isn't that rather subjective? And who said anything about authority?? You're acting like I'm suggesting that a teacher should have to tell kids that they have to engage in homosexual behavior to get a good grade.
Shit like this is why people get frustrated with you. You make some crap up in your head then try to argue it when none of that is what we're talking about.
Almalieque wrote:
No one is terrified of sex. People are terrified of the outcomes of sex and the responsibility that comes along with it.
And heaven forbid that we have a sex-ed class that teaches them how to be responsible. Especially since a lot of these kids aren't getting this information at home, even when they should be. You want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that every parent everywhere is talking to their kid about sex and that simply isn't happening.
Edited, Apr 25th 2011 5:42pm by Belkira
gbaji wrote:
So if the anti-gay ones are being led by ignorant blissful Christian fundamentalists who don't understand logic or reason, then what is the excuse of those passing laws like the one in California?
The bill you mention sounds like history related, is the thing. The TN bill is all encompassing. I simply can't agree to any regulation that says a kid can have information about themselves withheld, but the "regular" studies can proceed. Whether they like it or not, there are homosexual kids, and they deserve to get information and counseling that any heterosexual children can get.
Edited, Apr 25th 2011 6:43pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
All things being equal, I see devoting a portion of a class to exploring positive contributions from a group to be less detrimental than declaring a subject to be strictly verboten.
I may not agree that the former is necessary but it concerns me less than the latter.
That aside, even if we agree for the sake of argument that "Studies in Liberace" is a terrible, terrible thing, it doesn't make legislation forbidding the discussion of homosexuality any less asinine. One doesn't "counter" the other, it just compounds the stupidity and if the second guy is doing stupid directly because the first guy did stupid, that just makes the second guy twice as retarded for both efforts and motive.
Edited, Apr 25th 2011 6:06pm by Jophiel
I may not agree that the former is necessary but it concerns me less than the latter.
That aside, even if we agree for the sake of argument that "Studies in Liberace" is a terrible, terrible thing, it doesn't make legislation forbidding the discussion of homosexuality any less asinine. One doesn't "counter" the other, it just compounds the stupidity and if the second guy is doing stupid directly because the first guy did stupid, that just makes the second guy twice as retarded for both efforts and motive.
Edited, Apr 25th 2011 6:06pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll observe that the TN law (and laws like it) are in response to...
You're just guessing to shift the blame. There may be "opposite" laws, I'm not wasting my time looking, but people have been getting hysterical about this shit for a lot longer than anyone's been pushing positive perceptions of homosexuals in the schools.
And yet, while I'm sure we could find the occasional rare outlier, the bulk of attempts to pass laws to block teaching about homosexuality in public schools sure seems to have occurred *after* attempts (and in some cases, successes) at passing laws requiring homosexuality to be included in public school curriculum. I mean, I suppose we could speculate that our nation has just recently become massively more anti-gay than it used to be *or* we might assume that these things are a reaction to a gay rights movement which has gone beyond simple protection of rights between consenting adults and on to using public services as the equivalent of a pro-gay PR campaign.
Quote:
If you think they're both poor laws, just say so without some lame attempt to make it someone else's fault beyond the idiots making these laws.
They are both poor laws. The initial point about one likely being in response to another was a side point at best. Call it a speculation. It in no way changes or affects the second point I made though: That both are equally poor laws, yet we give a big pass to the absurdity of the motivations of those passing the pro-gay ones, while heaping the worst assumptions about ignorance, stupidity, and bigotry on those passing the opposite.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
The initial point about one likely being in response to another was a side point at best.
Good thing you had to make sure to throw it in there though, huh?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll observe that the TN law (and laws like it) are in response to...
You're just guessing to shift the blame. There may be "opposite" laws, I'm not wasting my time looking, but people have been getting hysterical about this shit for a lot longer than anyone's been pushing positive perceptions of homosexuals in the schools.
And yet, while I'm sure we could find the occasional rare outlier, the bulk of attempts to pass laws to block teaching about homosexuality in public schools sure seems to have occurred *after* attempts (and in some cases, successes) at passing laws requiring homosexuality to be included in public school curriculum. I mean, I suppose we could speculate that our nation has just recently become massively more anti-gay than it used to be *or* we might assume that these things are a reaction to a gay rights movement which has gone beyond simple protection of rights between consenting adults and on to using public services as the equivalent of a pro-gay PR campaign.
Quote:
If you think they're both poor laws, just say so without some lame attempt to make it someone else's fault beyond the idiots making these laws.
They are both poor laws. The initial point about one likely being in response to another was a side point at best. Call it a speculation. It in no way changes or affects the second point I made though: That both are equally poor laws, yet we give a big pass to the absurdity of the motivations of those passing the pro-gay ones, while heaping the worst assumptions about ignorance, stupidity, and bigotry on those passing the opposite.
They may both be stupid, but one of them is about spreading fear of a sexual preference and the other is about acceptance of a sexual preference.
#124Almalieque,
Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 5:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nope, that's your ignorance and denial. I keep telling you, there's a time and a place. If a teacher wants to talk about sex to my 16 year old son in high school, fine. I don't want the same teacher talking about sex to my 11 year old son in school.
lolgaxe wrote:
The bill you mention sounds like history related, is the thing. The TN bill is all encompassing.
The negative parts of both bills are though. You skipped over the part where I said it barred negative reflection of homosexuals (or homosexuality in general). There's some speculation about how the wording can or should be interpreted, but as worded, it would restrict teachers from mentioning anything a homosexual ever did in a negative way. So any mention of say Jeffrey Dahmer would be prohibited because since he chopped up the young men he lured to his home, that would make gay people look bad. Basically, no negative act can be presented to students if the person involved is gay. Which would put them into a special protected category which no other group of people enjoy. It's pretty darn absurd.
Obviously, it's unclear if the prohibition would extend that far, but given the wording, most teachers are going to err on the side of not getting sued. It could theoretically mean that it would be illegal to mention any criticism of political decisions made by gay politicians (historical or current), since that would reflect badly on a gay person. It's badly written, and very broad, yet this is a clear example of the "other side" behaving just as irrationally.
Quote:
I simply can't agree to any regulation that says a kid can have information about themselves withheld, but the "regular" studies can proceed. Whether they like it or not, there are homosexual kids, and they deserve to get information and counseling that any heterosexual children can get.
I think some would counter that public schools are not the best place for this either though. And the inevitable question of where the boundary line between eliminating condemnation and creating advocacy is IMO a legitimate one.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Almalieque wrote:
square block goes inside the square hole.
I think something might be wrong with it :P
Recent Visitors: 280
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (280)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Don't Say Gay Bill
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC