Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't Say Gay BillFollow

#52varusword75, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 8:42 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#53 Apr 25 2011 at 8:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I disagree. While it's not science, it is one of the more widely held counter views to Evolution and therefore, should be mentioned, if only to make students aware that another view exists. I don't think it should be taught, but a passing mention is important, given we're talking about educating people.

Way back in the day, that's how it was done in high school for me. "There are people who believe life began in other ways but evolution is the most widely held scientific belief and so that's what we're spending the most time on."

Creationism ranked below Lamarckism and probably even below Spontaneous Generation (which at least had some flawed 'cause-and-effect' observation behind it).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#54 Apr 25 2011 at 8:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
And yes I've partied with Campfield.

Man-Seeking-Man "partied" if history has taught us anything about these rabidly homophobic GOP legislators.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#55varusword75, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 8:47 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#56 Apr 25 2011 at 8:49 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
His fantasies, your reality.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#57 Apr 25 2011 at 8:54 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
And yes I've partied with Campfield.

Man-Seeking-Man "partied" if history has taught us anything about these rabidly homophobic GOP legislators.


Congrats, you found a third reason people hate gay people.

1. Religion
2. Ignorance
3. Fear of oneself
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#58 Apr 25 2011 at 8:55 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Nilatai wrote:
So you deny that proponents of Intelligent Design are largely Christian fundementalists?


I was in reference to myself. You were stating that I have a problem with teaching religion based on a Christian agenda and there wasn't.

Nilatai wrote:
The UK manages it just fine. I'm not sure why any US legislature would be against a Religious Studies class. So long as it doesn't promote one religion over another.


I don't disagree.

Nilatai wrote:
However, presenting Intelligent Design which, lets face it, is Creationism repackaged is promoting a specifically Christian mythology over all others. It is not science, thus, does not belong in a science class room. Why can't you understand this?


See my post above.

Nilatai wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean. You're saying that Evolution is some kind of Pseudo-Science? Do you even know what it is you're arguing against? Or do you buy into what people like Ray Comfort or Kent Hovind think evolution is?


As a science person, I view science as being based on facts. When there is this big question mark looming around an explanation and you say "Oh, well we don't know yet, but I'm sure I'm right", it's no longer substantiated by facts, but assumptions, theories, etc. So, while some definitions may still support that as being science, other definitions can be used to counter the lack of solidarity of facts. This is definitely more evident when you have people that support various alterations of the same topic.

Nilatai wrote:
So you don't mind if we present Creationism and ID, and then go on to say why they are incorrect. So long as they're presented, right?


Of course I do, because now you're being biased. The whole purpose of having them there in the first place is to create an "equal" sense of an environment where the school is not promoting one thing over the other. It's really not that hard to grasp.

Nilatai wrote:
Was my sarcasm not an accurate summation of the Christian belief on homosexuals?


No, it wasn't even close. You're making the assumption that the people don't have any problems internally with homosexuality, but only because Jesus Christ says so, then all of the sudden "it's bad". Christians (just as with any religion) do what they want. Many sin just as much as "sinners" do, so what makes you think they are incapable of supporting homosexuality if they support everything else deemed "un-Godly" by the Church? People just use religion as an argument because that way they don't have to explain their feelings. They can just say, "God says it wrong". In reality, they have their own problems with it.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#59 Apr 25 2011 at 9:02 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,908 posts
What post, above? This is page 2, son.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#60 Apr 25 2011 at 9:19 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Kavekk wrote:
What post, above? This is page 2, son.


Obviously people made posts while I was typing. Any way, my previous post before the one you quoted.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#61 Apr 25 2011 at 10:48 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,625 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Yeah, but I live in Tennessee, and I've seen legislation like this happen often, so I understand where it's coming from. Besides, was there an attack made...?


No attack. You just "created this us vs them environment" according to DSD by claiming that there was a Christian agenda when religion was never even mentioned.


Ah, well. I don't really give a sh*t.

Almalieque wrote:
You never answered my question if you believe in treating people with diseases differently or if that was just bad expression that you used?


Because it was a stupid question. My point about treating homosexuality like a disease is to think that it can be "cured." It's not about how you actually treat people.

You, however, never gave me any examples of people disliking homosexuality that weren't religious. Hop on that, could you? I mean, you enjoy blasting people for pages and pages when they ignore one of your questions. I'm sure this was just a mistake, right?

Almalieque wrote:
But what was taught in the Sex Ed class? You can teach a Sex Ed class that orients the children to their bodies without actually talking about sexual intercourse, contraceptives, etc.


Then what would be the point...?

Almalieque wrote:
Again with the accusations.


Meh, if the shoe fits...

Almalieque wrote:
This has nothing to do with "my kid might be gay". I don't want a teacher giving my 11 year old son dating advice or giving my 11 year old daughter fashion tips. You're painting this complete exaggeration as opposition. I'm referencing (just as the bill is referencing) jr. high and below.


As am I. I had my first crush in the fourth grade. My first "boyfriend" (if you can call holding hands in the lunch line a boyfriend, which we did) in the sixth grade. While I may not have gotten past the holding hands part in the sixth grade, plenty of my friends did. One of my friends had a pregnancy scare in the seventh grade.

Oh, and by the way, this bill doesn't keep teachers from talking about sex to your eleven year old. Just gay sex. So if your eleven year old girl fancies boys, her teacher can still give them advice all day long.

Almalieque wrote:
I have nothing against teachers being role models, as I've already said. I do have a problem with them discussing certain topics to children of certain ages. If you can't grasp that concept as being legit, that's a personal problem.


Yeah, gay sex is the issue. Not "certain topics." And you're being willfully ignorant of what I'm saying. Not surprising, but there it is.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#62varusword75, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 11:11 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#63 Apr 25 2011 at 11:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,230 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
The intent of the bill is to impose a Christian view of sexuality


The intent of the bill is to protect children from a lifestyle choice they don't want them exposed to.

You can scream from the roof tops that they're born that way; doesn't make it true.



The reverse is also true, dumbass.
#64varusword75, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 11:17 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#65 Apr 25 2011 at 11:23 AM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
varusword75 wrote:
And most good parents don't want their children exposed to behaviour they think is harmful to their child.
Its good to see you believe ignorance isn't harmful to children.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#66varusword75, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 11:24 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lolgax,
#67 Apr 25 2011 at 11:25 AM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
Its good to see you agree that Ignorance is Bliss.

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 1:25pm 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.
#68 Apr 25 2011 at 11:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Its good to see you agree that Ignorance is Bliss.

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 1:25pm by lolgaxe


My crazy conservative cousin wrote this while trying to convince me that the revolutions in the Middle East and the Wisconsin teacher unions were all connected through a shadowy international, government-sponsored Marxist movement.

She didn't seem to be happy when I said "Well, you must be the world's most blissful person!"

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 1:29pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#69varusword75, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 11:27 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lolgax,
#70 Apr 25 2011 at 11:29 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Which is probably why i'm so p*ssed all the time; about bums like you stealing my money and what not.
By bums you mean the Soldiers you send to other countries to defend your rights because you're too much of a @#%^ to do anything about anything other than whine? Thank you for your money, the last deployment finished off my daughter's college fund.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#71varusword75, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 11:32 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#72varusword75, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 11:34 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lolgax,
#73 Apr 25 2011 at 11:37 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
varusword75 wrote:
By bums I mean people like you who vote in favor of forcing other people to pay a higher percentage of their taxes to the federal govn because you don't think it's "fair" that they have so much more than you.
Considering I didn't vote for Obama.

Edit: I do like the "so much more than you" comment, though. Even though I'm in much better shape than you are in every possible way imaginable. Its hil~ar~ious.

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 1:39pm 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.
#74 Apr 25 2011 at 11:38 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Belkira wrote:
Ah, well. I don't really give a sh*t.


The point was directed to DSD, while in response to you.

Belkira wrote:
Because it was a stupid question. My point about treating homosexuality like a disease is to think that it can be "cured." It's not about how you actually treat people.


That's why I asked the question, because I wasn't sure on your reference.

Belkira wrote:
You, however, never gave me any examples of people disliking homosexuality that weren't religious. Hop on that, could you? I mean, you enjoy blasting people for pages and pages when they ignore one of your questions. I'm sure this was just a mistake, right?


No it wasn't because I don't recall you specifically asking me to provide you with examples.

But, I'll answer your question anyway.

First, I responded earlier to Nali (I don't know which thread now that they have blended) that Christians have their own personal reasons against homosexuality. The one's that say "It's a sin" are simply using religion as a scapegoat for their reasons. That is unless, they are not purposely "sinning" in any other area.

But to answer your question in the least amount of words, "The penis goes in the vagina".


This is just going to open a can of worms of other topics that you'll just be biased against. You'll respond with "love is not defined by sex" and then I'll respond with "Either or, As an adult, I can't date a 16 year old and say 'we're in love with each other, we aren't having sex, so it's ok'". Then you'll respond with "That's against the law and that I'm talking about two consenting adults". I respond with the fact that you don't see the hypocrisy in your statement. You'll respond that you're giving up and that it's a waste of time to argue with me. Pages later, we'll rinse and repeat.

Belkira wrote:


Then what would be the point...?


To orient you to your sex, hence "Sex Ed". In Biology, you're going over the body parts from more of a natural science point of view. In a sex Ed class, you're talking about your body from a more social science point of view. You can discuss the stages of puberty and how the body works. That doesn't mean you have to talk about the difference between and a BJ and a HJ.

Belkira wrote:

Meh, if the shoe fits...


Exactly my point. You're just making up stuff.

Belkira wrote:
As am I. I had my first crush in the fourth grade. My first "boyfriend" (if you can call holding hands in the lunch line a boyfriend, which we did) in the sixth grade. While I may not have gotten past the holding hands part in the sixth grade, plenty of my friends did. One of my friends had a pregnancy scare in the seventh grade.


I'm not denying that stuff happens. My point is at that age, I don't want a teacher giving my child their opinions on sex. I admit that society changes throughout time and we become more and more sexual, but you can't assume that everyone or the majority of the children are having sexual relations before the 8th grade.

So what if they had a full-blown sex class (everything you would want to know)in the 8th grade? What help does that do if your children are having sex in the 7th grade? This is why parents have to be involved. Unless you start teaching students Sex Ed from Pre-k, waiting till your local schools systematically teach your children about sex may be too late.

Belkira wrote:
Oh, and by the way, this bill doesn't keep teachers from talking about sex to your eleven year old. Just gay sex. So if your eleven year old girl fancies boys, her teacher can still give them advice all day long.


Belkira wrote:
Yeah, gay sex is the issue. Not "certain topics." And you're being willfully ignorant of what I'm saying. Not surprising, but there it is.


I've already said that the bill was silly, but I would have to read the whole bill in order to have a fair judgement.

So, if you want to focus purely on the bill, then I think the bill is incomplete and should include all sexuality.



____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#75 Apr 25 2011 at 11:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,

Quote:
that the revolutions in the Middle East and the Wisconsin teacher unions were all connected through a shadowy international, government-sponsored Marxist movement


It's not some shadowy international syndicate doing this; it's the US govn under the lead of Obama. And it's happening in broad daylight.

Obama gave Egypt to the radical muslims. He's assisting the radical muslims in Lybia. He assisted the govn unions in Wisc in their attempt to overthrow the duly elected state govn. I hate to upset your sad little existence but Obama's doing exactly what he means to. He's setting up and supporting as many islamic states as he possibly can. The muslims know this which has directly led to the increased violence in the ME over the last 2yrs.

You mixed up "Muslim" and "Marxist." I know they both start with M, but try to keep up. According to my cousin, the entire thing is run by Lal Khan and Alan Woods.
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#76 Apr 25 2011 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good
****
9,252 posts
Varus, this is off topic, and I'm sincerely curious, but why do you think that everyone aside from you is a bum on welfare? I mean, most of us here work, and if we're working, then we're probably not jobless bums leeching off of the welfare system. I've just always wondered what thought process goes into those statements.


Now, on topic, I don't think that anything past basic sex ed(birth control options, anatomy, etc.) should be discussed in the classroom before 9th grade, and at 9th grade, what is discussed needs to be more about acceptance and anti-bullying than anything else. However, if a student who is unsure of their sexuality, or is sure of their sexuality but is still in the proverbial closet, wants to talk to a teacher for advice after class, then that's fine.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#77 Apr 25 2011 at 11:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
Almalieque wrote:

This is just going to open a can of worms of other topics that you'll just be biased against. You'll respond with "love is not defined by sex" and then I'll respond with "Either or, As an adult, I can't date a 16 year old and say 'we're in love with each other, we aren't having sex, so it's ok'". Then you'll respond with "That's against the law and that I'm talking about two consenting adults". I respond with the fact that you don't see the hypocrisy in your statement. You'll respond that you're giving up and that it's a waste of time to argue with me. Pages later, we'll rinse and repeat.

Sorry to butt in, but if you don't do anything physical, is there a law against "dating" an under-aged person? I don't believe there is. Even kissing them could be illegal, but simply saying "We're dating and in love" isn't against the law. Arranged marriages, for example, still do happen in the US and are very common around the rest of the world. Sometimes children are promised even before birth. These people would be "dating" even if they've never met.

The consent issue, on the other hand, is a perfectly valid point. That you seem not to believe consent matters in these situations (or at least you're writing it off as hypocrisy... which honestly makes no sense... can gays not consent?), is another matter entirely.
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#78 Apr 25 2011 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,

Quote:
that the revolutions in the Middle East and the Wisconsin teacher unions were all connected through a shadowy international, government-sponsored Marxist movement


It's not some shadowy international syndicate doing this; it's the US govn under the lead of Obama. And it's happening in broad daylight.

Obama gave Egypt to the radical muslims. He's assisting the radical muslims in Lybia. He assisted the govn unions in Wisc in their attempt to overthrow the duly elected state govn. I hate to upset your sad little existence but Obama's doing exactly what he means to. He's setting up and supporting as many islamic states as he possibly can. The muslims know this which has directly led to the increased violence in the ME over the last 2yrs.


If this makes sense to you, the terrorist have won.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#79 Apr 25 2011 at 12:12 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
It is not science, thus, does not belong in a science class room. Why can't you understand this?
I disagree. While it's not science, it is one of the more widely held counter views to Evolution and therefore, should be mentioned, if only to make students aware that another view exists. I don't think it should be taught, but a passing mention is important, given we're talking about educating people.
If it is not science it does not even earn mention in passing, not even so much as a "intelligent design is not science, this however is:" disclaimer. NONE.

There are other classes for discussion of religion. Science is not one of them.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#80 Apr 25 2011 at 12:20 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
bsphil wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
It is not science, thus, does not belong in a science class room. Why can't you understand this?
I disagree. While it's not science, it is one of the more widely held counter views to Evolution and therefore, should be mentioned, if only to make students aware that another view exists. I don't think it should be taught, but a passing mention is important, given we're talking about educating people.
If it is not science it does not even earn mention in passing, not even so much as a "intelligent design is not science, this however is:" disclaimer. NONE.

There are other classes for discussion of religion. Science is not one of them.
So long as its a widely used dispute to a theory, it has a valid place being pointed out as so. You can scream and cry about it all you want, doesn't remove the reality that as a widely (and sadly) accepted alternative, it should be mentioned. You want to pull a black and white, go ahead. Doesn't change the fact that the world exists in the grey.

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 3:22pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#81 Apr 25 2011 at 12:25 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
It is not science, thus, does not belong in a science class room. Why can't you understand this?
I disagree. While it's not science, it is one of the more widely held counter views to Evolution and therefore, should be mentioned, if only to make students aware that another view exists. I don't think it should be taught, but a passing mention is important, given we're talking about educating people.
If it is not science it does not even earn mention in passing, not even so much as a "intelligent design is not science, this however is:" disclaimer. NONE.

There are other classes for discussion of religion. Science is not one of them.
So long as its a widely used dispute to a theory, it has a valid place being pointed out as so. You can scream and cry about it all you want, doesn't remove the reality that as a widely (and sadly) accepted alternative, it should be mentioned. You want to pull a black and white, go ahead. Doesn't change the fact that the world exists in the grey.
In an English or history class? Absolutely.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#82 Apr 25 2011 at 12:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Ok, fair enough. I guess I wasn't giving enough weight specifically to "in a science class."
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#83 Apr 25 2011 at 12:34 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
For something to be taught in Science, it should abide by the Scientific Method. I think that's simple enough.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#84 Apr 25 2011 at 12:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
25,561 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
According to my cousin, the entire thing is run by Lal Khan and Alan Woods.
Just how messed up is your cousin? Smiley: confused
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#86 Apr 25 2011 at 12:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,625 posts
Almalieque wrote:
But, I'll answer your question anyway.

First, I responded earlier to Nali (I don't know which thread now that they have blended) that Christians have their own personal reasons against homosexuality. The one's that say "It's a sin" are simply using religion as a scapegoat for their reasons. That is unless, they are not purposely "sinning" in any other area.

But to answer your question in the least amount of words, "The penis goes in the vagina".


So, what you're saying is, you've got nothing? You're going to say that there are reasons other than religion then when asked to back it up, you don't have anything? Because "the penis goes in the vagina" isn't an answer. Men put their penis's into a woman's asshole all the time. There is nothing that a homosexual couple does sexually that a man and a woman can't do. Somethings might require a special adaption, but it's all been done.

The problem is, I can't think of any reason that someone would be against homosexuality that isn't religious in nature. So please provide me with an example.

Almalieque wrote:
To orient you to your sex, hence "Sex Ed". In Biology, you're going over the body parts from more of a natural science point of view. In a sex Ed class, you're talking about your body from a more social science point of view. You can discuss the stages of puberty and how the body works. That doesn't mean you have to talk about the difference between and a BJ and a HJ.


So from one extreme to the other, eh? Social science, as in, who you're attracted to and why your bodies react thus towards those you are attracted to? Yeah, I can't see why sexual orientation wouldn't come up there... /rolleyes

Almalieque wrote:
I'm not denying that stuff happens. My point is at that age, I don't want a teacher giving my child their opinions on sex. I admit that society changes throughout time and we become more and more sexual, but you can't assume that everyone or the majority of the children are having sexual relations before the 8th grade.


I have no idea what that has to do with anything, really.

Almalieque wrote:
So what if they had a full-blown sex class (everything you would want to know)in the 8th grade? What help does that do if your children are having sex in the 7th grade? This is why parents have to be involved. Unless you start teaching students Sex Ed from Pre-k, waiting till your local schools systematically teach your children about sex may be too late.


Who said 8th grade? I believe I said our sex-ed class was in the sixth grade... And when did I say parents shouldn't be involved?

Almalieque wrote:
I've already said that the bill was silly, but I would have to read the whole bill in order to have a fair judgement.

So, if you want to focus purely on the bill, then I think the bill is incomplete and should include all sexuality.


I don't get why people are so terrified of sex. It boggles my mind.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#87 Apr 25 2011 at 12:58 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

This is just going to open a can of worms of other topics that you'll just be biased against. You'll respond with "love is not defined by sex" and then I'll respond with "Either or, As an adult, I can't date a 16 year old and say 'we're in love with each other, we aren't having sex, so it's ok'". Then you'll respond with "That's against the law and that I'm talking about two consenting adults". I respond with the fact that you don't see the hypocrisy in your statement. You'll respond that you're giving up and that it's a waste of time to argue with me. Pages later, we'll rinse and repeat.

Sorry to butt in, but if you don't do anything physical, is there a law against "dating" an under-aged person? I don't believe there is. Even kissing them could be illegal, but simply saying "We're dating and in love" isn't against the law. Arranged marriages, for example, still do happen in the US and are very common around the rest of the world. Sometimes children are promised even before birth. These people would be "dating" even if they've never met.

.


You could be absolutely correct. I'm not sure if it is or it isn't. You would have to define "dating" and what part of that is actually illegal? In any case, I would wager that it would be frowned upon by society regardless.

Locke wrote:
The consent issue, on the other hand, is a perfectly valid point. That you seem not to believe consent matters in these situations (or at least you're writing it off as hypocrisy... which honestly makes no sense... can gays not consent?), is another matter entirely


You lost me there...

The hypocrisy statement was in reference to the hypothetical response in regards to "homosexuality isn't defined by sexual intercourse" to "the penis goes in the vagina" statement. I presented a relationship (an adult and a minor) and my assumption was that she would say that is "against the law". The reason why she would probably say that is because she would make the assumption that they are having sexual relations. That is a fair assumption because that's what couples do. So the hypocrisy would be, why would you assume homosexuals don't do the same, given "homosexuality isn't defined by sexual intercourse"? How is it that you can make the assumption with a minor, but not with the homosexual?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#88 Apr 25 2011 at 1:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
According to my cousin, the entire thing is run by Lal Khan and Alan Woods.
Just how messed up is your cousin? Smiley: confused


On a scale of one to Varus, she's Varus's right-wing cousin as well. Here's part of our conversation:
Cousin wrote:
I tried to explain it to you but you don't seem to understand it the same way. I could explain it again, but I really don't see the point. I could actually give you examples right here on my facebook friend list of people that are working on this all over the world but I really don't win anything with that.

My great uncle used to say "in the business you don't win anything, you'll lose for sure" I posted this as I post everything else I find interesting, like the Marxist School in Morrocco. You don't want to understand it, you seem to prefer to distorted and mock me because of the way I see politics, I really don't care. As a matter of fact you are just proving my point of how close minded and unable to understand other points of view some people are. So keep going, it's working great for my research on how people on the left are so much more inclined to react and "scream" to something they don't agree with. The people on the right just read it, maybe comment and keep going. For some reason you guys can't do that.

Me wrote:
Of course I don't understand it the same way. I think that's obvious? I'm attempting to point out how your thoughts on this seem, for lack of a better term, paranoid. I'm sorry if my ribbing upset you - I'm trying to get you to see how you're appearing to others. Even in your response, you paint over half of the population as "screamers" and the other half as rational... just a sentence after saying how some people are close-minded and unable to understand other points of view.

I understand that you think Marxism is responsible for these revolutions and the Wisconsin teacher unions. I just don't understand how you can, as there seems to be no evidence of it (if anything, I'd think you'd argue it's a fundamentalist Islamic uprising in the ME).

What followed were 5 youtube video links from her with self-avowed Marxists claiming that the working man is rising up all over the world and we'll soon all be brothers in communism. All of them are white, shiny-eyed, kinda grungy, and likely have no idea where the ME revolutions actually happened. Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#89 Apr 25 2011 at 1:03 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,625 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I presented a relationship (an adult and a minor) and my assumption was that she would say that is "against the law". The reason why she would probably say that is because she would make the assumption that they are having sexual relations. That is a fair assumption because that's what couples do.


Actually, the reason it's illegal is because it is feared that the adult would take advantage of the child. Sex is where the law draws the line, because otherwise it's a rather ambiguous law.

Not that any of this matters, because your statement about vanilla sexual relations between a man and a woman did not garner (and would not have garnered) the response you expected.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#90 Apr 25 2011 at 1:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
Almalieque wrote:
So the hypocrisy would be, why would you assume homosexuals don't do the same, given "homosexuality isn't defined by sexual intercourse"? How is it that you can make the assumption with a minor, but not with the homosexual?


Ah, gotcha. I saw "That's against the law and that I'm talking about two consenting adults" and wondered why your issue was with the subject of consent between the two parties. I don't think many people would use "it's against the law," but rather, "a child is not able to give legal consent," hence me assuming your issue was with consent as opposed to a weak argument. My bad.
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#91 Apr 25 2011 at 1:23 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I presented a relationship (an adult and a minor) and my assumption was that she would say that is "against the law". The reason why she would probably say that is because she would make the assumption that they are having sexual relations. That is a fair assumption because that's what couples do.


Actually, the reason it's illegal is because it is feared that the adult would take advantage of the child. Sex is where the law draws the line, because otherwise it's a rather ambiguous law.

Not that any of this matters, because your statement about vanilla sexual relations between a man and a woman did not garner (and would not have garnered) the response you expected.



Alma wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#92Almalieque, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 1:25 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No one is terrified of sex. People are terrified of the outcomes of sex and the responsibility that comes along with it.
#93varusword75, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 1:28 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lolgax,
#94 Apr 25 2011 at 1:30 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
So the hypocrisy would be, why would you assume homosexuals don't do the same, given "homosexuality isn't defined by sexual intercourse"? How is it that you can make the assumption with a minor, but not with the homosexual?


Ah, gotcha. I saw "That's against the law and that I'm talking about two consenting adults" and wondered why your issue was with the subject of consent between the two parties. I don't think many people would use "it's against the law," but rather, "a child is not able to give legal consent," hence me assuming your issue was with consent as opposed to a weak argument. My bad.


Wouldn't not being able to give legal consent be considered illegal if done?

Belkira wrote:
Actually, the reason it's illegal is because it is feared that the adult would take advantage of the child. Sex is where the law draws the line, because otherwise it's a rather ambiguous law.

Not that any of this matters, because your statement about vanilla sexual relations between a man and a woman did not garner (and would not have garnered) the response you expected.


If it's consensual, how is "taking advantage" weighing more in that relationship than in any other relationship? So, the girl just turned 18. Is she really that much different than a year and some days ago?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#95varusword75, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 1:30 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#96 Apr 25 2011 at 1:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Tulip,

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.

Bull sh*t. I've yet to see a McDonald's close down.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#97 Apr 25 2011 at 1:39 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Tulip,

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.

Bull sh*t. I've yet to see a McDonald's close down.


Did you miss the French Fry discussion? McDonalds is now targeting adults.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#98 Apr 25 2011 at 1:40 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Tulip,

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.
Except for the "harmful" part - it's not. Before you even start digging, don't bother posting your link from some conservative and/or christian website detailing with no empirical research how being gay is somehow a health risk. Been down that road before, and like anything else that comes out of your head, it's stupid and factually incorrect.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#99 Apr 25 2011 at 1:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
LockeColeMA wrote:
Cousin wrote:
As a matter of fact you are just proving my point of how close minded and unable to understand other points of view some people are. So keep going, it's working great for my research on how people on the left are so much more inclined to react and "scream" to something they don't agree with.

People try to use that lame shit on Facebook too, huh?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 Apr 25 2011 at 1:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
Jophiel wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Cousin wrote:
As a matter of fact you are just proving my point of how close minded and unable to understand other points of view some people are. So keep going, it's working great for my research on how people on the left are so much more inclined to react and "scream" to something they don't agree with.

People try to use that lame shit on Facebook too, huh?


I thought the exact same thing Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#101 Apr 25 2011 at 1:55 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
25,561 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
According to my cousin, the entire thing is run by Lal Khan and Alan Woods.
Just how messed up is your cousin? Smiley: confused


On a scale of one to Varus, she's Varus's right-wing cousin as well.
Have you tried smacking her round the head with some heavy books? Maybe it'll make her smarter and at the very least it can't make her any dumber.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 52 All times are in CDT