Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't Say Gay BillFollow

#152varusword75, Posted: Apr 26 2011 at 8:47 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Sweety,
#153 Apr 26 2011 at 9:03 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
Almalieque wrote:

Do you have the same emotion towards "I don't support whores or whore mongering?" Do you go off calling people f**ktards because they don't support people being ho's and whores?

Also, what bias? If you saw a man crawling on his knees as opposed to walking on his legs, what would you think? What if you saw a woman eating with her feet instead of her hands, what would you think? What if a man told you he urinates sitting down, what would you think? What if a man says he sleeps with his eyes open standing up? Be honest, don't give me any PC BS.


These comparisons are just awful. It is no wonder you are against homosexuality. It isn't some weird quirk or the result of some horrible accident. Seeing a gay person walking down the street is no different than seeing a straight person. Hell, you probably can't even tell just by looking. If you want to call that pc bs fine.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#154Almalieque, Posted: Apr 26 2011 at 9:16 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're probably making the wrong comparisons. If you're thinking a person walking on his hands is like a homosexual, then you are indeed making the wrong comparison. Am I right?
#155 Apr 26 2011 at 9:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
You really and truly do suck at analogies/examples.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 12:24pm 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

#156 Apr 26 2011 at 9:28 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

Do you have the same emotion towards "I don't support whores or whore mongering?" Do you go off calling people f**ktards because they don't support people being ho's and whores?

Also, what bias? If you saw a man crawling on his knees as opposed to walking on his legs, what would you think? What if you saw a woman eating with her feet instead of her hands, what would you think? What if a man told you he urinates sitting down, what would you think? What if a man says he sleeps with his eyes open standing up? Be honest, don't give me any PC BS.


These comparisons are just awful. It is no wonder you are against homosexuality. It isn't some weird quirk or the result of some horrible accident. Seeing a gay person walking down the street is no different than seeing a straight person. Hell, you probably can't even tell just by looking. If you want to call that pc bs fine.


You're probably making the wrong comparisons. If you're thinking a person walking on his hands is like a homosexual, then you are indeed making the wrong comparison. Am I right?


So you're saying you aren't making these comparisons? What, you just felt liike adding a whole paragraph of nonsense to your otherwise flawless argument?
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#157 Apr 26 2011 at 9:31 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Actually I didn't because that's a stupid, obvious and irrelevant statement. I can equally say that your position on Evolution is due to your belief in Evolution. Really? The point I was making was that I was not favoring any religion over another.
I don't "believe" in Evolution. I accept the fact that is evolution. Even if I were still a practising Catholic I would still accept evolution, as most theologians and Bishops (and higher) do. It is too well documented for it not to be true, I'm sorry your pastor makes you believe otherwise, but don't pretend your advocacy of ID is anywhere near Scientific. There have been no peer reviewed studies or papers that have come to the conclusion that ID is true.

Science looks for the truth, it constantly tries to prove itself false. This is what "Falsification" means. Guess what? In 150 years and counting, evolution has not been shown to be false. Certain aspects of it have been tweaked in order to conform to new information, but nothing has been found to dismiss it out of hand. Intelligent design is impossible to falsify, thus is not true to the scientific method. Therefore it can not be called science.

Almalieque wrote:
Hmmm. given the fact that Comp Sci is a hard science, along with math, I would answer "yes".
First of all Mathematics is a tool, not a science. Incidentally Mathematics is the only thing that can actually "prove" anything. This is why we use the word "Theory" to describe a body of knowledge which supports something taken to be fact. Which you should already know.

Second, whilst computer science is technically described as "hard", it has very little interchange with the natural of physical sciences. This is what I was getting at before.

Almalieque wrote:
True, but you're overlooking the fact that certain religions in ID support that a higher being created animals and not that they Evolved from a singularity. So it still has relevance in Biology when teaching Evolution.
You're using the word "evolved" wrong again. Evolution describes the diversity of life. It does not explain the origins of life. It does not explain how the solar system formed. It does not explain how the Universe started. Do you understand that?

Almalieque wrote:
Mentioning a topic vs teaching a subject is not "equal weight".
I said in a previous post, would it be okay with you if we mentioned it, and also taught why it is dismissed by the majority of scientists. You said

Almalieque wrote:
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.

Yep. Looks like you want ID to be given equal weight.

Almalieque wrote:
I forgot you weren't U.S. Your spelling of "realize" tells me that.. >.> If you're anywhere from Europe, I'm willing to bet that includes your country as well.

The nation's opinion is relevant in that the school is teaching science because it's science and not what they necessarily believe in. You're making a complaint because something that you don't believe is being mentioned next to your belief. If the U.S. behaved the same way, then evolution wouldn't even be taught.

I think those scientist dismiss ID, because they don't believe in ID, the same reason believers dismiss Evolution. What's your point? I know you want to believe that every scientist dismisses religion, but that isn't true.
So what if it is not what they believe in? They can not believe it all they like, it does not stop it from being true! People used to believe the Earth was the centre of the Universe! They even locked up Galileo for the last years of his life because he challenged that dogma. Guess what, he was right, just like Darwin was right. Public opinion should have zero impact on what is taught as truth.

Again, evolution is not a belief. Many Christian scholars and high ranking members of both the Church of Rome and the Church of England accept evolution to be true and find it does not conflict with their belief in a higher power.

Also, the US did behave the same way. Heard of the Scopes trial? How about in Dover, PN when the board of education there tried to get ID taught in schools? Seems like the judge there managed to realise that ID was just creationism re-branded.

The majority of scientists dismiss ID because we know what it is, creationism. Which isn't science. So isn't accepted by scientists. Am I getting through to you?

Almalieque wrote:
Nope. Not at all, nor does it change anything. Animals can be blind as well. Does that change your opinion on blindness?
What?

Almalieque wrote:
Ironically, you're the one acting like an ignorant f**ktard as I never said anything negative towards homosexuality. Just because I don't support it, doesn't justify anyone to scrutinize me. You just have your own personal bias and simply attacking others that don't agree with you. Do you have the same emotion towards "I don't support whores or whore mongering?" Do you go off calling people f**ktards because they don't support people being ho's and whores?
Nice use of the old "I know you are but what am I?" tactic there. My personal bias is against bigotry. Your beliefs about homosexuals are bigoted. You don't treat them the same way as you do straight people.

Not that it matters, but you're black right? Say a large group of white people, like Mormons, started preaching that dark skin is a curse from god. Would you accept this because it was their religious belief? Or would you fight against it because it is bigoted?

Also, what does my opinion of prostitution have to do with my opinion of homosexuality? I'd be interested to know exactly what you have against prostitution though. Personally I don't have anything against regulated prostitution like they have in some US states and in certain European countries. World's oldest profession, it's going to happen whatever my opinion of it is, it may as well be in a safe environment for the girls.

Almalieque wrote:
Also, what bias? If you saw a man crawling on his knees as opposed to walking on his legs, what would you think? What if you saw a woman eating with her feet instead of her hands, what would you think? What if a man told you he urinates sitting down, what would you think? What if a man says he sleeps with his eyes open standing up? Be honest, don't give me any PC BS.
How exactly was any of that relevant?

If I saw a man crawling, I'd wonder why he was crawling. I'd make the assumption that perhaps he couldn't walk for whatever reason. I'd think it was strange, I'd probably turn to a friend and say something along the lines of "WTF is he doing?".

The woman eating with her feet, I'd think it was impressive that she was that dexterous with her feet if I'm honest.

Sometimes I've occasioned to pee while sitting down. Mostly when tired. Why is this relevant again?

Some people do sleep with their eyes open, it's weird but doesn't harm me in any way. I've fallen asleep while standing up before. I was extremely drunk at the time, though. Why is this relevant again?

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 11:33am by Nilatai

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 11:35am by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#158varusword75, Posted: Apr 26 2011 at 9:44 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nilatai,
#159 Apr 26 2011 at 9:45 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
varusword75 wrote:
And just as many scientists dispute the modern conception of evolution as those who support it.

Incorrect. Thanks for playing, though.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#160 Apr 26 2011 at 10:02 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,258 posts
Quote:
There's as much evidence to support ID as there is that humans evolved from primates



And what is this evidence? Noting that the bible is not acceptable as tangible evidence.
____________________________
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.
#161 Apr 26 2011 at 10:02 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Nilatai wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
And just as many scientists dispute the modern conception of evolution as those who support it.

Incorrect. Thanks for playing, though.
No it's true. You just have to understand that he's talking about backwoods and bayou scientists.
____________________________
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

#162 Apr 26 2011 at 10:05 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
And just as many scientists dispute the modern conception of evolution as those who support it.

Incorrect. Thanks for playing, though.
No it's true. You just have to understand that he's talking about backwoods and bayou scientists.
Oh, you mean "scientists" like Alma?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#163 Apr 26 2011 at 10:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
There's as much evidence to support ID as there is that humans evolved from primates.

lulz
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#164 Apr 26 2011 at 10:18 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
There's as much evidence to support ID as there is that humans evolved from primates



And what is this evidence? Noting that the bible is not acceptable as tangible evidence.
Whatever the source is, apparently it says humans are not Primates...
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#165 Apr 26 2011 at 10:18 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,191 posts
It always seems like people that renounce science for pure religion watch The Flintstones like it was a documentary.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#166 Apr 26 2011 at 10:20 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,737 posts
Nilatai wrote:
The woman eating with her feet, I'd think it was impressive that she was that dexterous with her feet if I'm honest.
Yeah but you're probably some sort of foot fetishist so that doesn't count!
____________________________
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.
#167 Apr 26 2011 at 10:22 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
The woman eating with her feet, I'd think it was impressive that she was that dexterous with her feet if I'm honest.
Yeah but you're probably some sort of foot fetishist so that doesn't count!
Nah you're thinking of Sora.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#168 Apr 26 2011 at 10:34 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,737 posts
Nilatai wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
The woman eating with her feet, I'd think it was impressive that she was that dexterous with her feet if I'm honest.
Yeah but you're probably some sort of foot fetishist so that doesn't count!
Nah you're thinking of Sora.
Nah, everybody knows Sora has a foot (and beer) fetish, I'm suspecting that you have a foot fetish as well.
____________________________
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.
#169 Apr 26 2011 at 10:44 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
The woman eating with her feet, I'd think it was impressive that she was that dexterous with her feet if I'm honest.
Yeah but you're probably some sort of foot fetishist so that doesn't count!
Nah you're thinking of Sora.
Nah, everybody knows Sora has a foot (and beer) fetish, I'm suspecting that you have a foot fetish as well.
Hm, nah I don't think so. I can recognise a pretty foot, but it doesn't cause sexual arousal.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#170 Apr 26 2011 at 10:57 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,737 posts
But you're not grossed out by pretty feet right?
____________________________
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.
#171 Apr 26 2011 at 11:13 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
I'm not bothered either way by feet, if I'm honest.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#172 Apr 26 2011 at 11:19 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,737 posts
Then by Alma's logic you have a raging hardon for feet.
____________________________
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.
#173 Apr 26 2011 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Damn, I guess you've got me. Check and mate.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#174 Apr 26 2011 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,135 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Then by Alma's logic you have a raging hardon for feet.


Welcome to the forums Sora Jr.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#175 Apr 26 2011 at 11:27 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,087 posts
...okay. Foot fetish aside, I really don't approve of this bill. There is nothing neutral about removing discussion about one side of an issue.

Quote:
We should leave it to families to decide when it is appropriate to talk with children about sexuality


Quote:
a bill that would bar teachers from discussing homosexuality with elementary and middle school students.


These are two conflicting statements. I swear it's almost like they really do believe being homosexual is some kind of choice. If the kids don't hear about it, they wont decide to try it out. *sigh* In the thousands of years humans have existed, both heterosexual and homosexuals have existed. One could almost say...that it's NORMAL for a small percentage of the population to be born that way.
#176 Apr 26 2011 at 11:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I can equally say that your position on Evolution is due to your belief in Evolution
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Natural Selection is the theory that explains the facts of evolution. You can say that you don't believe it or that you need faith or belief in evolution, but that doesn't change the objective facts - science isn't a democracy and doesn't give a sh*t if you do or don't believe in it, it just is. There is zero belief required to understand and accept either evolution OR the theory of natural selection. If you can come up with research to the contrary, by all means use that to refute natural selection within the scientific community.

I'd bet good money that you can't do that though, because you're not going to be able to do that research because natural selection most likely DOES accurately describe evolution.
____________________________
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.
#177 Apr 26 2011 at 11:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
I can see there are a few of us who are aware of our nasty addiction to smacking our heads against walls. I think we need to support each other in order to overcome this pathetic addiction. That being said, I'm here for you, bsphil.


Remember your sig!
____________________________
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

#178 Apr 26 2011 at 12:02 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Why is it so hard to stop? ;-;
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#179 Apr 26 2011 at 12:08 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
We're all @#%^s who insist on correcting those who are wrong.
____________________________
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

#180 Apr 26 2011 at 12:09 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Oooh. Yeah that sounds right.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#181 Apr 26 2011 at 12:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,737 posts
You can do it, think happy things! Smiley: lol
____________________________
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.
#182 Apr 26 2011 at 12:18 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
You can do it, think happy things! Smiley: lol


I'm seeing it now, thanks for the reminder.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#183 Apr 26 2011 at 12:18 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Hi, my name is Eske. I've been clean of responding to Alma for 2 weeks now.

One step at a time, y'know. Some days are tougher than others. The other day I had the urge to correct a gaping hole in his logic, but instead I took a walk, and made a still-life of some fruit. It felt good, man...it felt good.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#184 Apr 26 2011 at 12:26 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Hi, my name is Eske. I've been clean of responding to Alma for 2 weeks now.

One step at a time, y'know. Some days are tougher than others. The other day I had the urge to correct a gaping hole in his logic, but instead I took a walk, and made a still-life of some fruit. It felt good, man...it felt good.


Can you post the still life so I have something to look at next time I get the shakes?
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#185 Apr 26 2011 at 1:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
snieh wrote:
...okay. Foot fetish aside, I really don't approve of this bill. There is nothing neutral about removing discussion about one side of an issue.


I don't think it's a good bill either, but it's not really correct to say that it's "removing discussion of one side of an issue". If we assume the issue is "pro-gay" versus "anti-gay", it's more correct to say that the issue is simply not discussed at all. Now if they only allowed one of either negative or positive portrayals of gay people, and banned the other, that would be removing one side of the issue.

Quote:
Quote:
We should leave it to families to decide when it is appropriate to talk with children about sexuality


Quote:
a bill that would bar teachers from discussing homosexuality with elementary and middle school students.


These are two conflicting statements.


No. They actually aren't. Not unless you have a really strange definition of "conflicting".


Quote:
I swear it's almost like they really do believe being homosexual is some kind of choice. If the kids don't hear about it, they wont decide to try it out. *sigh* In the thousands of years humans have existed, both heterosexual and homosexuals have existed. One could almost say...that it's NORMAL for a small percentage of the population to be born that way.


Sure. There are lots of behaviors which a percentage of the population engage in. We don't necessarily include them in instruction to kids 8th grade and lower. Even within the category of human sexuality, there are lots of aspects which we can argue are normal (fetishes, oral and anal sex, toys, etc). But should we include them in curriculum for k-8th graders? Or should we perhaps wait until they're a bit more mature and can accept the information more easily? Remember that the primary reason for including sex education in school is to teach kids the biology of procreation. To that we have added contraceptive and STD avoidance instruction for older students who may be or become sexually active. The social aspects of sexual behavior has kinda ridden in on those coat tails.

I don't think it's unreasonable at all to leave discussions of homosexuality to later grade levels. While the law as written is somewhat ham fisted and clearly represents the result of a larger political agenda, it's also fair to say that there is an opposing political agenda which seems hell-bent on including positive education on homosexuality at as early an age as possible. I just think there ought to be some reasonable middle ground here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#186 Apr 26 2011 at 2:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
there is an opposing political agenda which seems hell-bent on including positive education on homosexuality at as early an age as possible

The HORRORS!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#187 Apr 26 2011 at 2:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
there is an opposing political agenda which seems hell-bent on including positive education on homosexuality at as early an age as possible

The HORRORS!!


I'd have the same reaction to an agenda to teach k-8th grade kids about foot fetishes too Joph. That's something that doesn't have to be taught at that grade level, so perhaps we should wait? Why is that unreasonable? Like it or not, many parents don't want their kids exposed to the more social aspects of sexuality at that age. Don't their opinions count?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#188 Apr 26 2011 at 2:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's something that doesn't have to be taught at that grade level

Which isn't to say that there's any harm in it. Or value in making sure to avoid it should, say, a gay married couple perhaps do something historical or noteworthy.
Quote:
Don't their opinions count?

Sure, I never said we needed to occupy Tennessee with peacekeepers or anything, did I? They have their opinion and I have my opinion of their homophobic, bigoted laws and the GOP hacks who can't defend them fast enough.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 3:32pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#189 Apr 26 2011 at 2:34 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
snieh wrote:
...okay. Foot fetish aside, I really don't approve of this bill. There is nothing neutral about removing discussion about one side of an issue.


I don't think it's a good bill either, but it's not really correct to say that it's "removing discussion of one side of an issue". If we assume the issue is "pro-gay" versus "anti-gay", it's more correct to say that the issue is simply not discussed at all. Now if they only allowed one of either negative or positive portrayals of gay people, and banned the other, that would be removing one side of the issue.


Are you Karl Rove? Because you are a master spin doctor. They are banning all talk of anything that is not heterosexual. How can you not see that as anything other than anti-gay?

gbaji wrote:

Sure. There are lots of behaviors which a percentage of the population engage in. We don't necessarily include them in instruction to kids 8th grade and lower. Even within the category of human sexuality, there are lots of aspects which we can argue are normal (fetishes, oral and anal sex, toys, etc). But should we include them in curriculum for k-8th graders?

Fetishes, oral sex, anal sex, and sex toys are sex acts, so of course you wouldn't include them in the curriculum. We are talking about a sexual identity, not sex acts. Please tell me you can see the difference here...you are as bad as Alma with your awful comparisons.

gbaji wrote:

I don't think it's unreasonable at all to leave discussions of homosexuality to later grade levels. While the law as written is somewhat ham fisted and clearly represents the result of a larger political agenda, it's also fair to say that there is an opposing political agenda which seems hell-bent on including positive education on homosexuality at as early an age as possible. I just think there ought to be some reasonable middle ground here.


You almost sound reasonable here, but still are basically saying that heterosexual is ok and homosexual is not. I understand that you feel this way and you are more than welcome to your own opinion, but these are laws that are designed to tell kids who are gay that they are bad.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#190 Apr 26 2011 at 2:48 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Wait, homosexuality is a fetish now? Those kinky bastards.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#191 Apr 26 2011 at 3:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:

Are you Karl Rove? Because you are a master spin doctor. They are banning all talk of anything that is not heterosexual. How can you not see that as anything other than anti-gay?


They're banning all additional topics not related to instructing kids about the biological repercussions of sexual activity. While I'll admit that it's been a long time since I've attended sex ed class, I don't recall anyone actually teaching that heterosexuality was "good" or "normal". They simply instructed us about the biological processes of procreation, and the potential consequences of sexual activity in general (stds and whatnot). There was no discussion at all of what kids "should do" sexually. More of a "this is where babies come from, and if you do <list of things>, here's a <list of things> which may happen", sort of thing.

It's not "anti-gay". It's about not getting into the social aspects of sexuality, because then we have to discuss everything. So let's stick to the biology of the subject and leave the other parts for another later section.

Quote:
Fetishes, oral sex, anal sex, and sex toys are sex acts, so of course you wouldn't include them in the curriculum. We are talking about a sexual identity, not sex acts. Please tell me you can see the difference here...you are as bad as Alma with your awful comparisons.


So a kid wondering why he's so aroused at the sight of feet might not feel just as "left out" if his sexual identity isn't addressed as a topic in sex ed? Aren't you cherry picking things to say make up identity here? Let me remind you, we don't teach heterosexual identity either. We teach (or should teach) just the biological aspects of the subject. You're falling for a persecution complex argument that really doesn't exist.

Quote:
You almost sound reasonable here, but still are basically saying that heterosexual is ok and homosexual is not. I understand that you feel this way and you are more than welcome to your own opinion, but these are laws that are designed to tell kids who are gay that they are bad.


No, they aren't. You're excluding a huge middle there. Failing to single out gay kids and tell them that they are good is not the same as telling them they are bad. IMO, at that grade level, there should be no discussion at all about good or bad. Just the biological facts are needed. Leave the social aspects to a more advanced human sexuality class. Grade and middle school kids don't need to know that stuff. As I said earlier, the problem is that once you start teaching those social aspects you end out doing exactly what you are claiming you're trying to avoid: creating a perception of good/bad based on inclusion or exclusion from the discussion. If you leave out any mention of sexual identity and discuss just the biological aspects, you avoid falling into this trap in the first place.


Your argument only has merit if sex ed classes at that level do include discussions of "normal" sexual behavior from a social perspective. And I'm not aware that they do. And if they do, then the correct direction to go with this is to remove those discussions, not to add more to the list. Because that direction is endless.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#192 Apr 26 2011 at 3:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Wait, homosexuality is a fetish now? Those kinky bastards.


No. But the urges involved in fetishes are just as strong and can be just as confusing to teenagers as attraction to someone of the same sex. If we're including discussion of homosexuality on the grounds that exclusion will be interpreted by gay students as a condemnation of their own feelings, why not include fetishes? Why leave them out?

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 2:04pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#193 Apr 26 2011 at 3:06 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Wait, homosexuality is a fetish now? Those kinky bastards.


No. But the urges involved in fetishes are just as strong and can be just as confusing to teenagers as attraction to someone of the same sex. If we're including discussion of homosexuality on the grounds that exclusion will be interpreted by gay students as a condemnation of their own feelings, why not include fetishes? Why leave them out?

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 2:04pm by gbaji
Because people who make education legislation are prudes?

Also, society at large doesn't condemn fetishes as much as it does homosexuality. I doubt very much it is as traumatic to admit you like, say, leather, than to come to terms with the fact that you are attracted to members of the same sex.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 5:08pm by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#194 Apr 26 2011 at 3:15 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:

Are you Karl Rove? Because you are a master spin doctor. They are banning all talk of anything that is not heterosexual. How can you not see that as anything other than anti-gay?


They're banning all additional topics not related to instructing kids about the biological repercussions of sexual activity. While I'll admit that it's been a long time since I've attended sex ed class, I don't recall anyone actually teaching that heterosexuality was "good" or "normal". They simply instructed us about the biological processes of procreation, and the potential consequences of sexual activity in general (stds and whatnot). There was no discussion at all of what kids "should do" sexually. More of a "this is where babies come from, and if you do <list of things>, here's a <list of things> which may happen", sort of thing.

It's not "anti-gay". It's about not getting into the social aspects of sexuality, because then we have to discuss everything. So let's stick to the biology of the subject and leave the other parts for another later section.

Quote:
Fetishes, oral sex, anal sex, and sex toys are sex acts, so of course you wouldn't include them in the curriculum. We are talking about a sexual identity, not sex acts. Please tell me you can see the difference here...you are as bad as Alma with your awful comparisons.


So a kid wondering why he's so aroused at the sight of feet might not feel just as "left out" if his sexual identity isn't addressed as a topic in sex ed? Aren't you cherry picking things to say make up identity here? Let me remind you, we don't teach heterosexual identity either. We teach (or should teach) just the biological aspects of the subject. You're falling for a persecution complex argument that really doesn't exist.

Quote:
You almost sound reasonable here, but still are basically saying that heterosexual is ok and homosexual is not. I understand that you feel this way and you are more than welcome to your own opinion, but these are laws that are designed to tell kids who are gay that they are bad.


No, they aren't. You're excluding a huge middle there. Failing to single out gay kids and tell them that they are good is not the same as telling them they are bad. IMO, at that grade level, there should be no discussion at all about good or bad. Just the biological facts are needed. Leave the social aspects to a more advanced human sexuality class. Grade and middle school kids don't need to know that stuff. As I said earlier, the problem is that once you start teaching those social aspects you end out doing exactly what you are claiming you're trying to avoid: creating a perception of good/bad based on inclusion or exclusion from the discussion. If you leave out any mention of sexual identity and discuss just the biological aspects, you avoid falling into this trap in the first place.


Your argument only has merit if sex ed classes at that level do include discussions of "normal" sexual behavior from a social perspective. And I'm not aware that they do. And if they do, then the correct direction to go with this is to remove those discussions, not to add more to the list. Because that direction is endless.


Your words are nice, but let me remind you:
Quote:
The legislation, dubbed the "don't say gay" bill, states teachers cannot "provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality."

See? It says that teachers can only provide instruction or material that is heterosexual. Then, they claim it is "neutral". Again, neutral would ban all discussions of sexual orientation at those grade levels. This specifically targets homosexuality. They are sending a clear message here.

gbaji wrote:
So a kid wondering why he's so aroused at the sight of feet might not feel just as "left out" if his sexual identity isn't addressed as a topic in sex ed? Aren't you cherry picking things to say make up identity here? Let me remind you, we don't teach heterosexual identity either. We teach (or should teach) just the biological aspects of the subject. You're falling for a persecution complex argument that really doesn't exist.


I take your point here, I meant sexual orientation, not sexual identity. My apologies.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#195 Apr 26 2011 at 3:19 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Also, society at large doesn't condemn fetishes as much as it does homosexuality.


Then why aren't we teaching about fetishes in k-8th grade sex ed classes right now? If the assumption that exclusion from discussion equals discrimination against said thing, then why are we discriminating against something that's so harmless? Surely, there's no reason to include homosexuality without including fetish discussion, right?

How far do you want to go down this rabbit hole?


Quote:
I doubt very much it is as traumatic to admit you like, say, leather, than to come to terms with the fact that you are attracted to members of the same sex.


Who are you to belittle the challenges faced by teenagers with fetishes? How can you know the hardships they face? The silent minority constantly made to feel like outcasts, afraid to speak up for fear of recrimination. How dare you be such a bigoted person!


See how easy that is? How about we just not include discussion about social aspects at all? Isn't that a better way to do this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#196 Apr 26 2011 at 3:24 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Nilatai above wrote:
Because people who make education legislation are prudes?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#197 Apr 26 2011 at 3:24 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:


Who are you to belittle the challenges faced by teenagers with fetishes? How can you know the hardships they face? The silent minority constantly made to feel like outcasts, afraid to speak up for fear of recrimination. How dare you be such a bigoted person!


See how easy that is? How about we just not include discussion about social aspects at all? Isn't that a better way to do this?


Oh good, you see how poor your argument is :P
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#198 Apr 26 2011 at 3:25 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Ailitardif wrote:


So you're saying you aren't making these comparisons? What, you just felt liike adding a whole paragraph of nonsense to your otherwise flawless argument?


I wasn't at all. The problem in this forum is that people are accustomed to hearing the most ridiculous arguments and when they hear something that might be the same, they automatically assume so without any other thought.

My comparison wasn't on the actual scenarios, but the thought process done in the scenarios. A person walking on their hands is not the same thing as a person eating with their feet, a homosexual, a person who urinates sitting down, etc. I'm focusing on the thinking process that you used to ask yourself "Why are you doing that?". I'm sure that or a similar question arises when you confronted with those situations.

The focus is on why do you ask yourself that? On what grounds do you think that is "weird" or "abnormal"?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#199 Apr 26 2011 at 3:25 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Also, society at large doesn't condemn fetishes as much as it does homosexuality.


Then why aren't we teaching about fetishes in k-8th grade sex ed classes right now? If the assumption that exclusion from discussion equals discrimination against said thing, then why are we discriminating against something that's so harmless? Surely, there's no reason to include homosexuality without including fetish discussion, right?

How far do you want to go down this rabbit hole?


Quote:
I doubt very much it is as traumatic to admit you like, say, leather, than to come to terms with the fact that you are attracted to members of the same sex.


Who are you to belittle the challenges faced by teenagers with fetishes? How can you know the hardships they face? The silent minority constantly made to feel like outcasts, afraid to speak up for fear of recrimination. How dare you be such a bigoted person!


See how easy that is? How about we just not include discussion about social aspects at all? Isn't that a better way to do this?


I don't see how fetishes can be equated to homosexuality. One is a sexual act. The other not need involve it, and can simply be related to attraction. And if you're talking about attraction fetishes, well then hell, why not. I don't see any harm in that.

Not that I see any harm in any of it, really, but meh.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 5:25pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#200 Apr 26 2011 at 3:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
They're banning all additional topics not related to instructing kids about the biological repercussions of sexual activity.

No, they're banning all reference to sexual orientation beyond heterosexuality. So saying that someone is gay is forbidden even in reference to his/her spouse, personal trials or tribulations, portions of their history were being homosexual may have been relevant, discussion of homosexuals in regards to equal rights or discrimination, etc. There is no ban on discussing heterosexual relationships in any of those cases (a man's wife, the fact that he was married to a woman, a woman being beaten by her husband, Prince Charles' wedding, etc)

Yet again, since you missed it the first time I guess, the TN law wrote:
Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.

This isn't just about sex-ed class.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 4:30pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#201 Apr 26 2011 at 3:35 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Your words are nice, but let me remind you:
Quote:
The legislation, dubbed the "don't say gay" bill, states teachers cannot "provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality."

See? It says that teachers can only provide instruction or material that is heterosexual.


The quote is unattributed in the article though. They also put quotes around the nickname "don't say gay", which I'm sure doesn't appear in the actual proposed law, so unlike you, I'm not going to make assumptions either way. If that is the case, then it's a poorly worded law. Of course, according to the article, it's also unnecessary since apparently TN law currently already forbids such discussions anyway.

Quote:
Then, they claim it is "neutral". Again, neutral would ban all discussions of sexual orientation at those grade levels. This specifically targets homosexuality. They are sending a clear message here.


And yet, the quote from the writer of the bill itself says that: "We should leave it to families to decide when it is appropriate to talk with children about sexuality - specifically before the eighth grade,". So it's it about discussing "sexuality" or "homosexuality"? Do you see how someone might interpret a ban on discussion of the social aspects of sexuality (which would include discussion about homosexuality) as a ban on discussion of homosexuality? After all, only when discussing those social aspects would the subject of homosexuality ever come up, right?


I'll point out that the flip side of this issue is relevant and valid: Can't we also say that gay rights groups demanding discussion about social aspects of sexuality (including homosexuality) essentially insisting that discussion of their group be added to curriculum? And doesn't that get us back into the problem of "any group can do this for any aspect of sexuality, not just gay people"? I think it does and I think that the correct response is to not discuss said aspects at all at that grade level.


Realize as well, that I'm fully not discounting the possibility that said law is just a stupid poorly written knee-jerk reaction and contains exactly the sort of targeted language which would make it discriminatory. I'm not defending this law, but pointing out that there are more aspects to this issue than just "everyone must discuss homosexuality in health class or we're discriminating against gays".


Quote:
I take your point here, I meant sexual orientation, not sexual identity. My apologies.


My point isn't about the label used though. My point is that a kid with a strong foot fetish would feel just as left out of a discussion about various social aspects of sexuality if they only included heterosexual and homosexual interactions as a homosexual might feel if said discussion only included heterosexual interactions. I'm asking you where the end point of this logic is. Because if there isn't one, then a slippery slope response is non-fallacious and should be considered. And I could take that slippery slope pretty darn far in this case.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 41 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Rukkuss, Tasera, Anonymous Guests (38)