AussiePam;1263910 wrote: Some of the other stuff was masturbation and bestiality, the advertising industry. The topic being discussed was "Should homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?"
I appreciate that you believe your argument was a formulation of logic.
BUT logic is normally considered to be about making valid inferences from true premises.
You are entitled to your opinion, but it is just that - your opinion.
I've never at any point wished to suggest that anything I've said in this thread wasn't my opinion.
And it's considered an opinion, appropriately enough, when one assumes their true premises are actually true considering it's been proved one has had an opinion to begin with. "Valid inferences" is what follows.
Premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn) "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not play" WordNet Search - 3.0
My right to an opinion renders the premise true and my conclusion from said opinion gives credence to those inferences, from which, upon this logic, makes it very valid by default.
And masturbation and bestiality is brought up to suggest they're relevant, in my mind, because I deem them both to be unnatural, yet some do not see the parallel between a lack of biological response being my primary argument and their hypothetical dislike of the thought anyone would teach children such a vile act
It brings about the definition of "exceptions" based off of this logic and is inaccurate from which defines those said peoples as using the definition of "acceptance" to define "nature"
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1263902 wrote: Interesting hypothesis that!
Here, you test homosexuals(through reports having been handed down and taught to your family of course) being the dominant species in 100,000 and I will test heterosexuals and their potential to being the dominant species in 100,00 years.
On the same line of reasoning, you can argue that dinosaurs are unnatural / unacceptable creatures, because they went extinct.
Here, you test homosexuals(through reports having been handed down and taught to your family of course) being the dominant species in 100,000 and I will test heterosexuals and their potential to being the dominant species in 100,00 years.
On the same line of reasoning, you can argue that dinosaurs are unnatural / unacceptable creatures, because they went extinct.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1263913 wrote: I've never at any point wished to suggest that anything I've said in this thread wasn't my opinion.
And it's considered an opinion, appropriately enough, when one assumes their true premises are actually true considering it's been proved one has had an opinion to begin with. "Valid inferences" is what follows.
Premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn) "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not play" WordNet Search - 3.0
My right to an opinion renders the premise true and my conclusion from said opinion gives credence to those inferences, from which, upon this logic, makes it very valid by default.
And masturbation and bestiality is brought up to suggest they're relevant, in my mind, because I deem them both to be unnatural, yet some do not see the parallel between a lack of biological response being my primary argument and their hypothetical dislike of the thought anyone would teach children such a vile act
It brings about the definition of "exceptions" based off of this logic and is inaccurate from which defines those said peoples as using the definition of "acceptance" to define "nature"
compact oxford english dictionary
opinion
• noun 1 a view or judgement not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. 2 the beliefs or views of people in general: public opinion. 3 an estimation of quality or worth. 4 a formal statement of advice by an expert or professional.
If your basic premise is flawed then so is your logic. You have a right to your opinion and if you choose to ignore all the evidence that suggests homosexuality is a natural phenomenon- that's your choice but just because you have an opinion doesn't make you right and everybody else wrong.
Compact Oxford English Dictionary
prejudice
• noun 1 preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience. 2 unjust behaviour formed on such a basis. 3 chiefly Law harm that may result from some action or judgement.
• verb 1 give rise to prejudice in (someone); make biased. 2 chiefly Law cause harm to (a state of affairs).
You are prejudiced and homophobic. A strongly felt prejudice, no matter how strongly, is still just an unreasoning opinion. You just think everybody should be as prejudiced as you are and because prejudice is unreasoning any responses that are reasonable you will not be prepared to listen to. People like you imo should not be allowed to dictate what other people's children are taught-teach your own if you must but if you are afraid your children will grow up not sharing your prejudices maybe you should home school and cut then off from society.
Prejudice be it racist, misogynistic or homophobic tends to go out the window once you start seeing other people as just that-other people who might be different. It takes a lot of self esteem and self respect to be able to do that though. If you are intelligent enough you should be able to get beyond your prejudices.
I object to bestiality because the animal is hardly a willing party. It's as wrong as cutting off a dog's tails just to make them look better-and no I'm not a vegan. Sex between willing human adults in any shape or form is their own business.
Your attitude to masturbation suggest you have been given a strange complex of sexual hangups somewhere in your upbringing. Would you make it a criminal offence as well if you could? Either that or you are just out to wind everybody up. If this thread hasn't been a wind up you have my sympathy.
And it's considered an opinion, appropriately enough, when one assumes their true premises are actually true considering it's been proved one has had an opinion to begin with. "Valid inferences" is what follows.
Premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn) "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not play" WordNet Search - 3.0
My right to an opinion renders the premise true and my conclusion from said opinion gives credence to those inferences, from which, upon this logic, makes it very valid by default.
And masturbation and bestiality is brought up to suggest they're relevant, in my mind, because I deem them both to be unnatural, yet some do not see the parallel between a lack of biological response being my primary argument and their hypothetical dislike of the thought anyone would teach children such a vile act
It brings about the definition of "exceptions" based off of this logic and is inaccurate from which defines those said peoples as using the definition of "acceptance" to define "nature"
compact oxford english dictionary
opinion
• noun 1 a view or judgement not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. 2 the beliefs or views of people in general: public opinion. 3 an estimation of quality or worth. 4 a formal statement of advice by an expert or professional.
If your basic premise is flawed then so is your logic. You have a right to your opinion and if you choose to ignore all the evidence that suggests homosexuality is a natural phenomenon- that's your choice but just because you have an opinion doesn't make you right and everybody else wrong.
Compact Oxford English Dictionary
prejudice
• noun 1 preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience. 2 unjust behaviour formed on such a basis. 3 chiefly Law harm that may result from some action or judgement.
• verb 1 give rise to prejudice in (someone); make biased. 2 chiefly Law cause harm to (a state of affairs).
You are prejudiced and homophobic. A strongly felt prejudice, no matter how strongly, is still just an unreasoning opinion. You just think everybody should be as prejudiced as you are and because prejudice is unreasoning any responses that are reasonable you will not be prepared to listen to. People like you imo should not be allowed to dictate what other people's children are taught-teach your own if you must but if you are afraid your children will grow up not sharing your prejudices maybe you should home school and cut then off from society.
Prejudice be it racist, misogynistic or homophobic tends to go out the window once you start seeing other people as just that-other people who might be different. It takes a lot of self esteem and self respect to be able to do that though. If you are intelligent enough you should be able to get beyond your prejudices.
I object to bestiality because the animal is hardly a willing party. It's as wrong as cutting off a dog's tails just to make them look better-and no I'm not a vegan. Sex between willing human adults in any shape or form is their own business.
Your attitude to masturbation suggest you have been given a strange complex of sexual hangups somewhere in your upbringing. Would you make it a criminal offence as well if you could? Either that or you are just out to wind everybody up. If this thread hasn't been a wind up you have my sympathy.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1263913 wrote:
My right to an opinion renders the premise true and my conclusion from said opinion gives credence to those inferences, from which, upon this logic, makes it very valid by default.
The world is flat. It is my opinion the world is flat. Therefore the premise that the world is flat is true. And we can deduce logically and validly that if you travel to the edge of the flat earth, you will fall over the edge. This is a valid conclusion by default. NOT.
Some of us have formally studied logic in the course of mathematics, computer science, philosophy. I know it's not normally taught in schools these days and more's the pity. It's really a most interesting and useful discipline. I only mention it because you keep insisting that you're being logical etc. Your local library probably has some textbooks if you want to learn about thinking, believing, knowing, constructing a compelling argument.
I'm done.
My right to an opinion renders the premise true and my conclusion from said opinion gives credence to those inferences, from which, upon this logic, makes it very valid by default.
The world is flat. It is my opinion the world is flat. Therefore the premise that the world is flat is true. And we can deduce logically and validly that if you travel to the edge of the flat earth, you will fall over the edge. This is a valid conclusion by default. NOT.
Some of us have formally studied logic in the course of mathematics, computer science, philosophy. I know it's not normally taught in schools these days and more's the pity. It's really a most interesting and useful discipline. I only mention it because you keep insisting that you're being logical etc. Your local library probably has some textbooks if you want to learn about thinking, believing, knowing, constructing a compelling argument.
I'm done.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
I don't think the word 'natural' if that is what is being used is appropriate but i wouldn't say there is anything wrong with it as some people are born this way and if that is the case then they can't help being gay. Apparently you do get some gay animals so it is in nature but i don't think teachers need to use the word 'natural' to describe it. Funnily enough a teacher at my old school who everyone was sure was latent homosexual asked the whole class 'do you think homosexuality is natural?' many felt uncomfortable answering this question it could have been phrased better such as 'what is your opnion on homosexuality?'. One thing that makes me wonder about civil partnerships is which surname do they use once they are married?
-
Omni_Skittles
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
AussiePam;1263845 wrote: Omni - I know you have been taught a particular religious position on this, and that's fine of course, but when you say men aren't made to impregnate men, and also speak of women not impregnating women, it makes it seem that you see sex only in terms of impregnation, or the possibility of impregnation.
If you take it that God created every man and woman - it seems He, in his wisdom, made all of us pretty imperfectly. We aren't all 100% male hormones, or 100% female hormones. We're all somewhere on the scale and mostly predominantly one thing or the other. But still, what about men who are chemically predisposed to feeling attracted to other men, or women ditto. It complicates their lives very much. Like Saint, I feel lucky to be clear in my gender identity, but it does seem to be luck of the draw. Maybe there are some cases where a person can decide to curb or redirect their sexual feelings, but many cannot - and for them their feelings are entirely natural. Made by the same hand that made you - if you believe we are all God's children.
A clear and 100% socially accepted, sexual identity is a blessing not apparently given to all. And for those who don't have this, I'm not going to be their judge, or exclude them, or despise them as if they were less than human. They are part of the human family like the rest of us.
As for sexuality merely being for procreation, impregnation - that would mean that a wife who is alreay pregnant should not have sex with her husband until such time as he can possibly impregnate her again.
Where is the human warmth aspect, the togetherness, emotional help, intimacy???
Where I probably most agree with the perceived argument is that homosexuality should not be promoted as a lifestyle choice. It isn't, any more than heterosexuality is. It's one aspect of life - just one part of a whole human being.Fine, but it's normal then for humans to sleep with animals because we share a bond and love with it. Totally natural. Therefore that should as well be taught in our schools and that's why i'm homeschooling my kids whenever i get them lol
If you take it that God created every man and woman - it seems He, in his wisdom, made all of us pretty imperfectly. We aren't all 100% male hormones, or 100% female hormones. We're all somewhere on the scale and mostly predominantly one thing or the other. But still, what about men who are chemically predisposed to feeling attracted to other men, or women ditto. It complicates their lives very much. Like Saint, I feel lucky to be clear in my gender identity, but it does seem to be luck of the draw. Maybe there are some cases where a person can decide to curb or redirect their sexual feelings, but many cannot - and for them their feelings are entirely natural. Made by the same hand that made you - if you believe we are all God's children.
A clear and 100% socially accepted, sexual identity is a blessing not apparently given to all. And for those who don't have this, I'm not going to be their judge, or exclude them, or despise them as if they were less than human. They are part of the human family like the rest of us.
As for sexuality merely being for procreation, impregnation - that would mean that a wife who is alreay pregnant should not have sex with her husband until such time as he can possibly impregnate her again.
Where is the human warmth aspect, the togetherness, emotional help, intimacy???
Where I probably most agree with the perceived argument is that homosexuality should not be promoted as a lifestyle choice. It isn't, any more than heterosexuality is. It's one aspect of life - just one part of a whole human being.Fine, but it's normal then for humans to sleep with animals because we share a bond and love with it. Totally natural. Therefore that should as well be taught in our schools and that's why i'm homeschooling my kids whenever i get them lol
Smoke signals ftw!
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
Omni_Skittles;1264151 wrote: Fine, but it's normal then for humans to sleep with animals because we share a bond and love with it. Totally natural. Therefore that should as well be taught in our schools and that's why i'm homeschooling my kids whenever i get them lol
Omni - It's hard to know what to say to you. You're obviously a nice kid, trying to do the right thing. Like we all are. I'm Christian too, and do not support children being taught that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, or that bestiality is anything but a perversion. Kids are curious - they, like you, need to be exposed to life, not just brainwashed. They need to learn, gradually, to think, not just trot out religious platitudes by rote.
Home schooling is, I know, very popular in America. And I've met a few transplants here who did it to their children... who would occasionally be allowed to play with my children. They were academically bright kids, but in all cases socially clueless. They'd missed out on the rough and tumble of the playground, of coping with different attitudes, learning give and take, and how to reconcile differences, talk about things. I don't think you'll be doing your future children a favour by cocooning them. They'll meet reality soon enough, whatever you do, but just may not be able to deal with it.
Anyway, that's my opinion. I often have dangerous ideas. One of my dangerous ideas is that everyone should spend 3 months somewhere else, in safety, but separated from their own 'tribe'. In some place foreign both in language and ideas to all they have experienced before. I think that would broaden all our outlooks and make us all much less blinkered.
Omni - It's hard to know what to say to you. You're obviously a nice kid, trying to do the right thing. Like we all are. I'm Christian too, and do not support children being taught that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, or that bestiality is anything but a perversion. Kids are curious - they, like you, need to be exposed to life, not just brainwashed. They need to learn, gradually, to think, not just trot out religious platitudes by rote.
Home schooling is, I know, very popular in America. And I've met a few transplants here who did it to their children... who would occasionally be allowed to play with my children. They were academically bright kids, but in all cases socially clueless. They'd missed out on the rough and tumble of the playground, of coping with different attitudes, learning give and take, and how to reconcile differences, talk about things. I don't think you'll be doing your future children a favour by cocooning them. They'll meet reality soon enough, whatever you do, but just may not be able to deal with it.
Anyway, that's my opinion. I often have dangerous ideas. One of my dangerous ideas is that everyone should spend 3 months somewhere else, in safety, but separated from their own 'tribe'. In some place foreign both in language and ideas to all they have experienced before. I think that would broaden all our outlooks and make us all much less blinkered.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
-
Omni_Skittles
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
AussiePam;1264156 wrote: Omni - It's hard to know what to say to you. You're obviously a nice kid, trying to do the right thing. Like we all are. I'm Christian too, and do not support children being taught that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, or that bestiality is anything but a perversion. Kids are curious - they, like you, need to be exposed to life, not just brainwashed. They need to learn, gradually, to think, not just trot out religious platitudes by rote.
Home schooling is, I know, very popular in America. And I've met a few transplants here who did it to their children... who would occasionally be allowed to play with my children. They were academically bright kids, but in all cases socially clueless. They'd missed out on the rough and tumble of the playground, of coping with different attitudes, learning give and take, and how to reconcile differences, talk about things. I don't think you'll be doing your future children a favour by cocooning them. They'll meet reality soon enough, whatever you do, but just may not be able to deal with it.
Anyway, that's my opinion. I often have dangerous ideas. One of my dangerous ideas is that everyone should spend 3 months somewhere else, in safety, but separated from their own 'tribe'. In some place foreign both in language and ideas to all they have experienced before. I think that would broaden all our outlooks and make us all much less blinkered.I'm not entirely concerned with religion here. Homosexuality as a lifestyle isn't natural. I mean sure i can give you every verse in the Bible that says homosexuality is a sin, But seriously just logically I would think that it would be so obvious homosexuality is not natural... and are you kidding me? My whole life has been a broadening experience... I mean living on the reservation and then to this world is completely different... I've adapted pretty well, and now I live in dallas now, and work with homosexuals as a ministry... I don't yell at there faces and tell them there going to hell but i get to listen to story after story of how they were molested as children, or how they were just fed up with men... and so on... some of these issues go into the psyche not the anatomy...
Home schooling is, I know, very popular in America. And I've met a few transplants here who did it to their children... who would occasionally be allowed to play with my children. They were academically bright kids, but in all cases socially clueless. They'd missed out on the rough and tumble of the playground, of coping with different attitudes, learning give and take, and how to reconcile differences, talk about things. I don't think you'll be doing your future children a favour by cocooning them. They'll meet reality soon enough, whatever you do, but just may not be able to deal with it.
Anyway, that's my opinion. I often have dangerous ideas. One of my dangerous ideas is that everyone should spend 3 months somewhere else, in safety, but separated from their own 'tribe'. In some place foreign both in language and ideas to all they have experienced before. I think that would broaden all our outlooks and make us all much less blinkered.I'm not entirely concerned with religion here. Homosexuality as a lifestyle isn't natural. I mean sure i can give you every verse in the Bible that says homosexuality is a sin, But seriously just logically I would think that it would be so obvious homosexuality is not natural... and are you kidding me? My whole life has been a broadening experience... I mean living on the reservation and then to this world is completely different... I've adapted pretty well, and now I live in dallas now, and work with homosexuals as a ministry... I don't yell at there faces and tell them there going to hell but i get to listen to story after story of how they were molested as children, or how they were just fed up with men... and so on... some of these issues go into the psyche not the anatomy...
Smoke signals ftw!
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
gmc;1263934 wrote: compact oxford english dictionary
If your basic premise is flawed then so is your logic. You have a right to your opinion and if you choose to ignore all the evidence that suggests homosexuality is a natural phenomenon- that's your choice but just because you have an opinion doesn't make you right and everybody else wrong.
Compact Oxford English Dictionary
You are prejudiced and homophobic. A strongly felt prejudice, no matter how strongly, is still just an unreasoning opinion. You just think everybody should be as prejudiced as you are and because prejudice is unreasoning any responses that are reasonable you will not be prepared to listen to. People like you imo should not be allowed to dictate what other people's children are taught-teach your own if you must but if you are afraid your children will grow up not sharing your prejudices maybe you should home school and cut then off from society.
Prejudice be it racist, misogynistic or homophobic tends to go out the window once you start seeing other people as just that-other people who might be different. It takes a lot of self esteem and self respect to be able to do that though. If you are intelligent enough you should be able to get beyond your prejudices.
I object to bestiality because the animal is hardly a willing party. It's as wrong as cutting off a dog's tails just to make them look better-and no I'm not a vegan. Sex between willing human adults in any shape or form is their own business.
Your attitude to masturbation suggest you have been given a strange complex of sexual hangups somewhere in your upbringing. Would you make it a criminal offence as well if you could? Either that or you are just out to wind everybody up. If this thread hasn't been a wind up you have my sympathy.
Neither does your opinion make you right. The difference being that you're the one presenting your opinion as being true as opposed to I from which I've given my opinion and gave you the reasoning as to why I know homosexuality to be unnatural. You've wanted me to be "prejudice" from your first post. Quite frankly you haven't understood a word I've said. I told you I didn't want any children taught that homosexuality were natural and you can't help but presume I'm implying I'd rather have children taught the exact opposite. You're creating "prejudice" HUGE difference
It's simply why you feel I'm considering what I've defined as unnatural as being "wrong". I never said anything close, you just want me to so you can get off on creating controversy I've no need for it
If your basic premise is flawed then so is your logic. You have a right to your opinion and if you choose to ignore all the evidence that suggests homosexuality is a natural phenomenon- that's your choice but just because you have an opinion doesn't make you right and everybody else wrong.
Compact Oxford English Dictionary
You are prejudiced and homophobic. A strongly felt prejudice, no matter how strongly, is still just an unreasoning opinion. You just think everybody should be as prejudiced as you are and because prejudice is unreasoning any responses that are reasonable you will not be prepared to listen to. People like you imo should not be allowed to dictate what other people's children are taught-teach your own if you must but if you are afraid your children will grow up not sharing your prejudices maybe you should home school and cut then off from society.
Prejudice be it racist, misogynistic or homophobic tends to go out the window once you start seeing other people as just that-other people who might be different. It takes a lot of self esteem and self respect to be able to do that though. If you are intelligent enough you should be able to get beyond your prejudices.
I object to bestiality because the animal is hardly a willing party. It's as wrong as cutting off a dog's tails just to make them look better-and no I'm not a vegan. Sex between willing human adults in any shape or form is their own business.
Your attitude to masturbation suggest you have been given a strange complex of sexual hangups somewhere in your upbringing. Would you make it a criminal offence as well if you could? Either that or you are just out to wind everybody up. If this thread hasn't been a wind up you have my sympathy.
Neither does your opinion make you right. The difference being that you're the one presenting your opinion as being true as opposed to I from which I've given my opinion and gave you the reasoning as to why I know homosexuality to be unnatural. You've wanted me to be "prejudice" from your first post. Quite frankly you haven't understood a word I've said. I told you I didn't want any children taught that homosexuality were natural and you can't help but presume I'm implying I'd rather have children taught the exact opposite. You're creating "prejudice" HUGE difference
It's simply why you feel I'm considering what I've defined as unnatural as being "wrong". I never said anything close, you just want me to so you can get off on creating controversy I've no need for it
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
AussiePam;1263942 wrote: The world is flat. It is my opinion the world is flat. Therefore the premise that the world is flat is true. And we can deduce logically and validly that if you travel to the edge of the flat earth, you will fall over the edge. This is a valid conclusion by default. NOT.
Some of us have formally studied logic in the course of mathematics, computer science, philosophy. I know it's not normally taught in schools these days and more's the pity. It's really a most interesting and useful discipline. I only mention it because you keep insisting that you're being logical etc. Your local library probably has some textbooks if you want to learn about thinking, believing, knowing, constructing a compelling argument.
I'm done.
I've told you I were presenting my logic as to what I know to be true. It's my logic so claiming it's wrong based off of my reasoning isn't exactly prolific. It's what happens when you resent people for their "opinions".
Some of us have formally studied logic in the course of mathematics, computer science, philosophy. I know it's not normally taught in schools these days and more's the pity. It's really a most interesting and useful discipline. I only mention it because you keep insisting that you're being logical etc. Your local library probably has some textbooks if you want to learn about thinking, believing, knowing, constructing a compelling argument.
I'm done.
I've told you I were presenting my logic as to what I know to be true. It's my logic so claiming it's wrong based off of my reasoning isn't exactly prolific. It's what happens when you resent people for their "opinions".
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K, I've been confused with this thread from the get go. 
When you asked the question I assumed you meant in school from teacher.
I know its a little late in the day but can you clarify?
When you asked the question I assumed you meant in school from teacher.
I know its a little late in the day but can you clarify?
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1264453 wrote: I've told you I were presenting my logic as to what I know to be true. It's my logic so claiming it's wrong based off of my reasoning isn't exactly prolific. It's what happens when you resent people for their "opinions".
Gotta love ya, K.Snyder. :-6
Gotta love ya, K.Snyder. :-6
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1264452 wrote: Neither does your opinion make you right. The difference being that you're the one presenting your opinion as being true as opposed to I from which I've given my opinion and gave you the reasoning as to why I know homosexuality to be unnatural. You've wanted me to be "prejudice" from your first post. Quite frankly you haven't understood a word I've said. I told you I didn't want any children taught that homosexuality were natural and you can't help but presume I'm implying I'd rather have children taught the exact opposite. You're creating "prejudice" HUGE difference
It's simply why you feel I'm considering what I've defined as unnatural as being "wrong". I never said anything close, you just want me to so you can get off on creating controversy I've no need for it
The difference is I know what an opinion is and can explain why I hold such an opinion in a logical manner. I'm not going to bother though because you reject all the scientific studies etc that challenge your opinion out of hand. A prejudice is an unreasoned opinion. It is also intolerant and you are a bigot.
We are not going to agree so let's agree to disagree.
Bigot
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
There are still those who think mixing the races is unnatural and doom their offspring to a lifetime of misery and prejudice if given a chance. There were even Christian scientists who worked out how many generations of careful breeding it would take to correct the "error". They were forgiving for the bible told them to be so but they were still racist bigots, bible inspired racism is hopefully a thing of the past maybe homophobia will go the same way. It seems to be only religious people that find tolerance a problem
It's simply why you feel I'm considering what I've defined as unnatural as being "wrong". I never said anything close, you just want me to so you can get off on creating controversy I've no need for it
The difference is I know what an opinion is and can explain why I hold such an opinion in a logical manner. I'm not going to bother though because you reject all the scientific studies etc that challenge your opinion out of hand. A prejudice is an unreasoned opinion. It is also intolerant and you are a bigot.
We are not going to agree so let's agree to disagree.
Bigot
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
There are still those who think mixing the races is unnatural and doom their offspring to a lifetime of misery and prejudice if given a chance. There were even Christian scientists who worked out how many generations of careful breeding it would take to correct the "error". They were forgiving for the bible told them to be so but they were still racist bigots, bible inspired racism is hopefully a thing of the past maybe homophobia will go the same way. It seems to be only religious people that find tolerance a problem
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
abbey;1264469 wrote: K, I've been confused with this thread from the get go.
When you asked the question I assumed you meant in school from teacher.
I know its a little late in the day but can you clarify?
I feel sex is something people know within themselves and children know who they are based off of instinct. When you suggest sex is something people should be taught it belittles their intelligence. It's exactly why you get the word "prejudice" from a completely harmless observation. If people teach their children moral values then they will make better decisions regardless of sexual ones. When you've instilled moral values you don't have to worry about "your" child learning perverted sexual acts from other children yet suggest homosexuality is "natural". If it's "natural" then why worry about what other kids teach them? But none the less this is beside the point because if all parents instilled moral virtues in all children parents wouldn't have to worry about their children learning "unnatural" sex acts while I still have no idea one could be afraid of this and still suggest homosexuality is "natural". It's contradicting logic, from which I'll spell mine out.
1. Life defines nature.
2. Sex organs define life.
3. Therefore it must be true that any act, with ones sexual organs, not signifying the potential for life is unnatural as defined by the word "nature".
When you asked the question I assumed you meant in school from teacher.
I know its a little late in the day but can you clarify?
I feel sex is something people know within themselves and children know who they are based off of instinct. When you suggest sex is something people should be taught it belittles their intelligence. It's exactly why you get the word "prejudice" from a completely harmless observation. If people teach their children moral values then they will make better decisions regardless of sexual ones. When you've instilled moral values you don't have to worry about "your" child learning perverted sexual acts from other children yet suggest homosexuality is "natural". If it's "natural" then why worry about what other kids teach them? But none the less this is beside the point because if all parents instilled moral virtues in all children parents wouldn't have to worry about their children learning "unnatural" sex acts while I still have no idea one could be afraid of this and still suggest homosexuality is "natural". It's contradicting logic, from which I'll spell mine out.
1. Life defines nature.
2. Sex organs define life.
3. Therefore it must be true that any act, with ones sexual organs, not signifying the potential for life is unnatural as defined by the word "nature".
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
gmc;1264655 wrote: The difference is I know what an opinion is and can explain why I hold such an opinion in a logical manner. I'm not going to bother though because you reject all the scientific studies etc that challenge your opinion out of hand. A prejudice is an unreasoned opinion. It is also intolerant and you are a bigot.
We are not going to agree so let's agree to disagree.
Bigot
There are still those who think mixing the races is unnatural and doom their offspring to a lifetime of misery and prejudice if given a chance. There were even Christian scientists who worked out how many generations of careful breeding it would take to correct the "error". They were forgiving for the bible told them to be so but they were still racist bigots, bible inspired racism is hopefully a thing of the past maybe homophobia will go the same way. It seems to be only religious people that find tolerance a problem
I'm no bigot, you're just an instigator, that's all that is
We are not going to agree so let's agree to disagree.
Bigot
There are still those who think mixing the races is unnatural and doom their offspring to a lifetime of misery and prejudice if given a chance. There were even Christian scientists who worked out how many generations of careful breeding it would take to correct the "error". They were forgiving for the bible told them to be so but they were still racist bigots, bible inspired racism is hopefully a thing of the past maybe homophobia will go the same way. It seems to be only religious people that find tolerance a problem
I'm no bigot, you're just an instigator, that's all that is
-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16958
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1264740 wrote:
3. Therefore it must be true that any act, with ones sexual organs, not signifying the potential for life is unnatural as defined by the word "nature".
So, are you saying that the only people that should have sex are the ones trying to conceive?
Therefore, the couple where he's firing blanks or she is unable to conceive shouldn't have sex at all. It would be 'unnatural' for them to partake in what also happens to be an act of intimacy and love?
3. Therefore it must be true that any act, with ones sexual organs, not signifying the potential for life is unnatural as defined by the word "nature".
So, are you saying that the only people that should have sex are the ones trying to conceive?
Therefore, the couple where he's firing blanks or she is unable to conceive shouldn't have sex at all. It would be 'unnatural' for them to partake in what also happens to be an act of intimacy and love?
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
Betty Boop;1264746 wrote: So, are you saying that the only people that should have sex are the ones trying to conceive?
Therefore, the couple where he's firing blanks or she is unable to conceive shouldn't have sex at all. It would be 'unnatural' for them to partake in what also happens to be an act of intimacy and love?
:wah: Oh dear.
No, not at all. I've suggested nothing other than I don't want the idea that homosexuality is "natural" suggested to children.
Anything else is what I consider to be true based off of my logic.
Let's talk about fried chicken!
Eating greasy fried chicken is unnatural because it's unhealthy. What is not healthy for anyone to eat, from which they use their mouths to do so, is unnatural. This is the negative effect from which I'm not implying that homosexuality is unhealthy for those that wish to partake in the act.
The neutral effect still holds true that if anyone wishes to eat a condom full of air just because they're intrigued enough to wonder what they'd find rummaging through their own feces is entirely their prerogative. Because this is not healthy nor unhealthy it's still unnatural because one has used their mouth to eat something intended to keep said individual healthy so they may live.
Eating healthy food is completely natural. Unfortunately far too many people are left without enough healthy food to eat
It's the logic of all of it.
The moral of the story? I LOVE fried chicken...I eat fried chicken like if I didn't eat fried chicken I'd lose something...That doesn't mean I think it's perfectly natural to eat greasy unhealthy chicken. I've expressed my opinion. Why people feel I'm being "Prejudice" is quite frankly stupid
Therefore, the couple where he's firing blanks or she is unable to conceive shouldn't have sex at all. It would be 'unnatural' for them to partake in what also happens to be an act of intimacy and love?
:wah: Oh dear.
No, not at all. I've suggested nothing other than I don't want the idea that homosexuality is "natural" suggested to children.
Anything else is what I consider to be true based off of my logic.
Let's talk about fried chicken!
Eating greasy fried chicken is unnatural because it's unhealthy. What is not healthy for anyone to eat, from which they use their mouths to do so, is unnatural. This is the negative effect from which I'm not implying that homosexuality is unhealthy for those that wish to partake in the act.
The neutral effect still holds true that if anyone wishes to eat a condom full of air just because they're intrigued enough to wonder what they'd find rummaging through their own feces is entirely their prerogative. Because this is not healthy nor unhealthy it's still unnatural because one has used their mouth to eat something intended to keep said individual healthy so they may live.
Eating healthy food is completely natural. Unfortunately far too many people are left without enough healthy food to eat
It's the logic of all of it.
The moral of the story? I LOVE fried chicken...I eat fried chicken like if I didn't eat fried chicken I'd lose something...That doesn't mean I think it's perfectly natural to eat greasy unhealthy chicken. I've expressed my opinion. Why people feel I'm being "Prejudice" is quite frankly stupid
-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16958
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1264751 wrote: :wah: Oh dear.
No, not at all. I've suggested nothing other than I don't want the idea that homosexuality is "natural" suggested to children.
Anything else is what I consider to be true based off of my logic.
Let's talk about fried chicken!
Eating greasy fried chicken is unnatural because it's unhealthy. What is not healthy for anyone to eat, from which they use their mouths to do so, is unnatural. This is the negative effect from which I'm not implying that homosexuality is unhealthy for those that wish to partake in the act.
The neutral effect still holds true that if anyone wishes to eat a condom full of air just because they're intrigued enough to wonder what they'd find rummaging through their own feces is entirely their prerogative. Because this is not healthy nor unhealthy it's still unnatural because one has used their mouth to eat something intended to keep said individual healthy so they may live.
Eating healthy food is completely natural. Unfortunately far too many people are left without enough healthy food to eat
It's the logic of all of it.
The moral of the story? I LOVE fried chicken...I eat fried chicken like if I didn't eat fried chicken I'd lose something...That doesn't mean I think it's perfectly natural to eat greasy unhealthy chicken. I've expressed my opinion. Why people feel I'm being "Prejudice" is quite frankly stupid
Then using the words 'any act' in your statement no 3 is the wrong use of words.
No, not at all. I've suggested nothing other than I don't want the idea that homosexuality is "natural" suggested to children.
Anything else is what I consider to be true based off of my logic.
Let's talk about fried chicken!
Eating greasy fried chicken is unnatural because it's unhealthy. What is not healthy for anyone to eat, from which they use their mouths to do so, is unnatural. This is the negative effect from which I'm not implying that homosexuality is unhealthy for those that wish to partake in the act.
The neutral effect still holds true that if anyone wishes to eat a condom full of air just because they're intrigued enough to wonder what they'd find rummaging through their own feces is entirely their prerogative. Because this is not healthy nor unhealthy it's still unnatural because one has used their mouth to eat something intended to keep said individual healthy so they may live.
Eating healthy food is completely natural. Unfortunately far too many people are left without enough healthy food to eat
It's the logic of all of it.
The moral of the story? I LOVE fried chicken...I eat fried chicken like if I didn't eat fried chicken I'd lose something...That doesn't mean I think it's perfectly natural to eat greasy unhealthy chicken. I've expressed my opinion. Why people feel I'm being "Prejudice" is quite frankly stupid
Then using the words 'any act' in your statement no 3 is the wrong use of words.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
Betty Boop;1264754 wrote: Then using the words 'any act' in your statement no 3 is the wrong use of words.
The context from which I used "any act" isn't true for those that are told they cannot have children. The act of it still signifies that it's natural because it's still logically the same.
Signify: To give (something) a meaning or an importance; To show one’s intentions with a sign etc
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz= ... tnG=Search
The intention is still the same for those unable to reproduce. It's no different, of one unable to reproduce, having sex not wishing to have a child than those, that are able to have children(Not to forget that just because one is told they're unable to reproduce doesn't always necessarily mean it's true) having sex not wishing to have a child. They're both logically the same regardless of the end result.
The context from which I used "any act" isn't true for those that are told they cannot have children. The act of it still signifies that it's natural because it's still logically the same.
Signify: To give (something) a meaning or an importance; To show one’s intentions with a sign etc
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz= ... tnG=Search
The intention is still the same for those unable to reproduce. It's no different, of one unable to reproduce, having sex not wishing to have a child than those, that are able to have children(Not to forget that just because one is told they're unable to reproduce doesn't always necessarily mean it's true) having sex not wishing to have a child. They're both logically the same regardless of the end result.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1264743 wrote: I'm no bigot, you're just an instigator, that's all that is
Actually you are the one that started the thread or have you forgotten that? Either that or you need to look up what instigate actually means. I am one of your interlocutors, but you seem more interested in holding forth than discussing so I shall leave you to it.
Actually you are the one that started the thread or have you forgotten that? Either that or you need to look up what instigate actually means. I am one of your interlocutors, but you seem more interested in holding forth than discussing so I shall leave you to it.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
It's obvious this is a very confusing subject for you, K, and thats most likely why you brought it up. You seem to be applying the terms 'logic' and 'opinion' so loosely that there isn't any distinction between the two any longer.K.Snyder;1264740 wrote:
1. Life defines nature.Nature defines life! You've got it backwards.
K.Snyder;1264740 wrote: 2. Sex organs define life.In this one your definition is so narrow.
Sex organs assist in the reproduction of species. However, they also assist in hormone production and regulation which regulates mood and feelings, and sex organs also provide amazing release of energy as well as super good feelings through the build up and release of bodily fluids.
K.Snyder;1264740 wrote: 3. Therefore it must be true that any act, with ones sexual organs, not signifying the potential for life is unnatural as defined by the word "nature".No! Therefore you have either mis-labeled or narrowly defined things to fit your 'logic' which is ACTUALLY your 'opinion'.
1. Life defines nature.Nature defines life! You've got it backwards.
K.Snyder;1264740 wrote: 2. Sex organs define life.In this one your definition is so narrow.
Sex organs assist in the reproduction of species. However, they also assist in hormone production and regulation which regulates mood and feelings, and sex organs also provide amazing release of energy as well as super good feelings through the build up and release of bodily fluids.
K.Snyder;1264740 wrote: 3. Therefore it must be true that any act, with ones sexual organs, not signifying the potential for life is unnatural as defined by the word "nature".No! Therefore you have either mis-labeled or narrowly defined things to fit your 'logic' which is ACTUALLY your 'opinion'.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1264740 wrote:
1. Life defines nature.
2. Sex organs define life.
3. Therefore it must be true that any act, with ones sexual organs, not signifying the potential for life is unnatural as defined by the word "nature".
If we want to know what's natural, we should look at nature. About 10% of the population is gay/lesbian. AFAIK this percentage also mirrors what we find in the animal kingdom. Some people are born with both male and female genitals. Some people are born with two heads. Some people are born with a female body, but male brain. That's nature. Nature doesn't have a brain itself, and it doesn't calculate a path to maximize species reproduction. It branches out in all directions, like rain scattering.
If a kid is born gay, and you don't tell them that it's natural, what do you hope to accomplish? To make them straight? To have them repress their homosexuality and conform to someone else's sexual preferences? Society is already extremely homophobic and prejudiced towards gay people, and losing more people like Alan Turing is definitely not what the world needs. Plus other kids naturally will pick on the minorities unless they are taught tolerance and understanding. Bullying is also natural, and nature is not always good.
As for there "being no gay gene" ...what your analysis is ignoring, is that humans are *social* animals. What's important is not the survival of any one individual but the group. Look at an ant colony. Not all ants reproduce do they?
1. Life defines nature.
2. Sex organs define life.
3. Therefore it must be true that any act, with ones sexual organs, not signifying the potential for life is unnatural as defined by the word "nature".
If we want to know what's natural, we should look at nature. About 10% of the population is gay/lesbian. AFAIK this percentage also mirrors what we find in the animal kingdom. Some people are born with both male and female genitals. Some people are born with two heads. Some people are born with a female body, but male brain. That's nature. Nature doesn't have a brain itself, and it doesn't calculate a path to maximize species reproduction. It branches out in all directions, like rain scattering.
If a kid is born gay, and you don't tell them that it's natural, what do you hope to accomplish? To make them straight? To have them repress their homosexuality and conform to someone else's sexual preferences? Society is already extremely homophobic and prejudiced towards gay people, and losing more people like Alan Turing is definitely not what the world needs. Plus other kids naturally will pick on the minorities unless they are taught tolerance and understanding. Bullying is also natural, and nature is not always good.
As for there "being no gay gene" ...what your analysis is ignoring, is that humans are *social* animals. What's important is not the survival of any one individual but the group. Look at an ant colony. Not all ants reproduce do they?
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
gmc;1264873 wrote: Actually you are the one that started the thread or have you forgotten that? Either that or you need to look up what instigate actually means. I am one of your interlocutors, but you seem more interested in holding forth than discussing so I shall leave you to it.
I brought it up as my opinion. I haven't at all suggested I wanted homosexuality banned. I hadn't implied anything with my question.
I've made it quite clear that I do things that I myself deem to be unnatural so I can't see why anyone could ever think I were prejudice toward anyone, let alone gay people.
I brought it up as my opinion. I haven't at all suggested I wanted homosexuality banned. I hadn't implied anything with my question.
I've made it quite clear that I do things that I myself deem to be unnatural so I can't see why anyone could ever think I were prejudice toward anyone, let alone gay people.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
Robert J;1264877 wrote: It's obvious this is a very confusing subject for you, K, and thats most likely why you brought it up. You seem to be applying the terms 'logic' and 'opinion' so loosely that there isn't any distinction between the two any longer.Nature defines life! You've got it backwards.
In this one your definition is so narrow.
Sex organs assist in the reproduction of species. However, they also assist in hormone production and regulation which regulates mood and feelings, and sex organs also provide amazing release of energy as well as super good feelings through the build up and release of bodily fluids.
No! Therefore you have either mis-labeled or narrowly defined things to fit your 'logic' which is ACTUALLY your 'opinion'.
Without life you have no "nature". You have it backwards
Sex organs define life. What's blisteringly about that? The rest is irrelevant to nature from which leaves you to add things completely irrelevant to the logic of nature. Ones "feelings" has absolutely nothing to do with nature so why you've brought it up is beyond me
In this one your definition is so narrow.
Sex organs assist in the reproduction of species. However, they also assist in hormone production and regulation which regulates mood and feelings, and sex organs also provide amazing release of energy as well as super good feelings through the build up and release of bodily fluids.
No! Therefore you have either mis-labeled or narrowly defined things to fit your 'logic' which is ACTUALLY your 'opinion'.
Without life you have no "nature". You have it backwards
Sex organs define life. What's blisteringly
about that? The rest is irrelevant to nature from which leaves you to add things completely irrelevant to the logic of nature. Ones "feelings" has absolutely nothing to do with nature so why you've brought it up is beyond meHomosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
yaaarrrgg;1264887 wrote: If we want to know what's natural, we should look at nature. About 10% of the population is gay/lesbian. AFAIK this percentage also mirrors what we find in the animal kingdom. Some people are born with both male and female genitals. Some people are born with two heads. Some people are born with a female body, but male brain. That's nature. Nature doesn't have a brain itself, and it doesn't calculate a path to maximize species reproduction. It branches out in all directions, like rain scattering.
If a kid is born gay, and you don't tell them that it's natural, what do you hope to accomplish? To make them straight? To have them repress their homosexuality and conform to someone else's sexual preferences? Society is already extremely homophobic and prejudiced towards gay people, and losing more people like Alan Turing is definitely not what the world needs. Plus other kids naturally will pick on the minorities unless they are taught tolerance and understanding. Bullying is also natural, and nature is not always good.
As for there "being no gay gene" ...what your analysis is ignoring, is that humans are *social* animals. What's important is not the survival of any one individual but the group. Look at an ant colony. Not all ants reproduce do they?
We disagree in that I know that no one is born "gay"
If a kid is born gay, and you don't tell them that it's natural, what do you hope to accomplish? To make them straight? To have them repress their homosexuality and conform to someone else's sexual preferences? Society is already extremely homophobic and prejudiced towards gay people, and losing more people like Alan Turing is definitely not what the world needs. Plus other kids naturally will pick on the minorities unless they are taught tolerance and understanding. Bullying is also natural, and nature is not always good.
As for there "being no gay gene" ...what your analysis is ignoring, is that humans are *social* animals. What's important is not the survival of any one individual but the group. Look at an ant colony. Not all ants reproduce do they?
We disagree in that I know that no one is born "gay"
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1264936 wrote: We disagree in that I know that no one is born "gay"
Look at the real world:
Caster Semenya, forced to take gender test, is a woman ... and a man
Look at the real world:
Caster Semenya, forced to take gender test, is a woman ... and a man
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
I've made it quite clear that I do things that I myself deem to be unnatural so I can't see why anyone could ever think I were prejudice toward anyone, let alone gay people.
prejudice
• noun 1 preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience. 2 unjust behaviour formed on such a basis.
It's fairly clear that you are prejudiced, you consider it unnatural but always come back to "I know it is". You don't have a reason you just think it is so and that should be all there is to it.
All men are created equal
Except ones who don't fit the "norm" it would seem. You are advocating that some people be denied the right to pursue their lives as they see fit even if it is a lifestyle that is not a threat to anyone else and that children be taught discrimination is acceptable.
K.Snyder;1264936 wrote: We disagree in that I know that no one is born "gay"
No one is born racist, misogynistic or homophobic either. come to that they are not born christian, muslim or hindu, they have to be taught to be any of those things.
It is not natural to hate people or despise them for being different or to think them unnatural just because they are different little kids just find it interesting so why do you want to go against nature and teach children to be homophobic rather than accepting of others?
prejudice
• noun 1 preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience. 2 unjust behaviour formed on such a basis.
It's fairly clear that you are prejudiced, you consider it unnatural but always come back to "I know it is". You don't have a reason you just think it is so and that should be all there is to it.
All men are created equal
Except ones who don't fit the "norm" it would seem. You are advocating that some people be denied the right to pursue their lives as they see fit even if it is a lifestyle that is not a threat to anyone else and that children be taught discrimination is acceptable.
K.Snyder;1264936 wrote: We disagree in that I know that no one is born "gay"
No one is born racist, misogynistic or homophobic either. come to that they are not born christian, muslim or hindu, they have to be taught to be any of those things.
It is not natural to hate people or despise them for being different or to think them unnatural just because they are different little kids just find it interesting so why do you want to go against nature and teach children to be homophobic rather than accepting of others?
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
Rather relevant story from Arkansas, this 10 yr old kid seems to have strong opinions on the matter of homosexuality.
"I've always tried to analyze things because I want to be lawyer," Will said. "I really don't feel that there's currently liberty and justice for all."
After asking his parents whether it was against the law not to stand for the pledge, Will decided to do something. On Monday, Oct. 5, when the other kids in his class stood up to recite the pledge of allegiance, he remained sitting down. The class had a substitute teacher that week, a retired educator from the district, who knew Will's mother and grandmother. Though the substitute tried to make him stand up, he respectfully refused. He did it again the next day, and the next day.
Will Phillips, 10-Year-Old, Won't Pledge Allegiance To A Country That Discriminates Against Gays (VIDEO)
"I've always tried to analyze things because I want to be lawyer," Will said. "I really don't feel that there's currently liberty and justice for all."
After asking his parents whether it was against the law not to stand for the pledge, Will decided to do something. On Monday, Oct. 5, when the other kids in his class stood up to recite the pledge of allegiance, he remained sitting down. The class had a substitute teacher that week, a retired educator from the district, who knew Will's mother and grandmother. Though the substitute tried to make him stand up, he respectfully refused. He did it again the next day, and the next day.
Will Phillips, 10-Year-Old, Won't Pledge Allegiance To A Country That Discriminates Against Gays (VIDEO)
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1264934 wrote: Without life you have no "nature". You have it backwards
Sex organs define life. What's blisteringly about that? The rest is irrelevant to nature from which leaves you to add things completely irrelevant to the logic of nature. Ones "feelings" has absolutely nothing to do with nature so why you've brought it up is beyond meK, at times I've gotten myself caught up in discussions such as this from your end.
I understand you believe you know all this as intuitive facts, and when people such as nearly everyone other than you who has participated in this thread comes up with other perspectives and even scientific facts, you reject them with your personal logic and believe you're refuting everything thats thrown at you. But thats not what is really happening here. People are attempting to get through to you with small facts and ideas because you've effectively closed yourself off to reason. You're obsessing.
You should take a step back and try to relax. You have to understand that you can't be 100% right when everything else says you've got it incorrectly. Saying " I know" is not a legitimate argument unless you're going to offer some evidence, K.
If you reassess this what you're saying is that you and those that agree with you are the smartest people on the planet and everyone else are complete fools, and I know you know better than that.
This forum boasts a membership that includes some extremely intelligent and educated people as well as some that have the audacity to check facts and figures, and they are also very tolerant, kind and long suffering. You should give them more credit than you are.
Just think about what I've said, please.
You are very smart when you think reasonably.
Sex organs define life. What's blisteringly
about that? The rest is irrelevant to nature from which leaves you to add things completely irrelevant to the logic of nature. Ones "feelings" has absolutely nothing to do with nature so why you've brought it up is beyond meK, at times I've gotten myself caught up in discussions such as this from your end.I understand you believe you know all this as intuitive facts, and when people such as nearly everyone other than you who has participated in this thread comes up with other perspectives and even scientific facts, you reject them with your personal logic and believe you're refuting everything thats thrown at you. But thats not what is really happening here. People are attempting to get through to you with small facts and ideas because you've effectively closed yourself off to reason. You're obsessing.
You should take a step back and try to relax. You have to understand that you can't be 100% right when everything else says you've got it incorrectly. Saying " I know" is not a legitimate argument unless you're going to offer some evidence, K.
If you reassess this what you're saying is that you and those that agree with you are the smartest people on the planet and everyone else are complete fools, and I know you know better than that.
This forum boasts a membership that includes some extremely intelligent and educated people as well as some that have the audacity to check facts and figures, and they are also very tolerant, kind and long suffering. You should give them more credit than you are.
Just think about what I've said, please.
You are very smart when you think reasonably.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
koan;1265213 wrote: Rather relevant story from Arkansas, this 10 yr old kid seems to have strong opinions on the matter of homosexuality.
"I've always tried to analyze things because I want to be lawyer," Will said. "I really don't feel that there's currently liberty and justice for all."
After asking his parents whether it was against the law not to stand for the pledge, Will decided to do something. On Monday, Oct. 5, when the other kids in his class stood up to recite the pledge of allegiance, he remained sitting down. The class had a substitute teacher that week, a retired educator from the district, who knew Will's mother and grandmother. Though the substitute tried to make him stand up, he respectfully refused. He did it again the next day, and the next day.
Will Phillips, 10-Year-Old, Won't Pledge Allegiance To A Country That Discriminates Against Gays (VIDEO)Pretty smart and gutsy kid.
"I've always tried to analyze things because I want to be lawyer," Will said. "I really don't feel that there's currently liberty and justice for all."
After asking his parents whether it was against the law not to stand for the pledge, Will decided to do something. On Monday, Oct. 5, when the other kids in his class stood up to recite the pledge of allegiance, he remained sitting down. The class had a substitute teacher that week, a retired educator from the district, who knew Will's mother and grandmother. Though the substitute tried to make him stand up, he respectfully refused. He did it again the next day, and the next day.
Will Phillips, 10-Year-Old, Won't Pledge Allegiance To A Country That Discriminates Against Gays (VIDEO)Pretty smart and gutsy kid.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
gmc;1265099 wrote: It's fairly clear that you are prejudiced, you consider it unnatural but always come back to "I know it is". You don't have a reason you just think it is so and that should be all there is to it.
Except ones who don't fit the "norm" it would seem. You are advocating that some people be denied the right to pursue their lives as they see fit even if it is a lifestyle that is not a threat to anyone else and that children be taught discrimination is acceptable.
No one is born racist, misogynistic or homophobic either. come to that they are not born christian, muslim or hindu, they have to be taught to be any of those things.
It is not natural to hate people or despise them for being different or to think them unnatural just because they are different little kids just find it interesting so why do you want to go against nature and teach children to be homophobic rather than accepting of others?
I'm not teaching children anything. I say "I know it is" in the same way you say "I know it's natural". The difference being you think you're correct
You've invented "prejudice" in this thread. All I've done is expressed my "opinion".
I don't agree with homosexuality. What on God's green Earth does that have to do with "Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable"?
Except ones who don't fit the "norm" it would seem. You are advocating that some people be denied the right to pursue their lives as they see fit even if it is a lifestyle that is not a threat to anyone else and that children be taught discrimination is acceptable.
No one is born racist, misogynistic or homophobic either. come to that they are not born christian, muslim or hindu, they have to be taught to be any of those things.
It is not natural to hate people or despise them for being different or to think them unnatural just because they are different little kids just find it interesting so why do you want to go against nature and teach children to be homophobic rather than accepting of others?
I'm not teaching children anything. I say "I know it is" in the same way you say "I know it's natural". The difference being you think you're correct
You've invented "prejudice" in this thread. All I've done is expressed my "opinion".
I don't agree with homosexuality. What on God's green Earth does that have to do with "Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable"?
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
Robert J;1265220 wrote: K, at times I've gotten myself caught up in discussions such as this from your end.
I understand you believe you know all this as intuitive facts, and when people such as nearly everyone other than you who has participated in this thread comes up with other perspectives and even scientific facts, you reject them with your personal logic and believe you're refuting everything thats thrown at you. But thats not what is really happening here. People are attempting to get through to you with small facts and ideas because you've effectively closed yourself off to reason. You're obsessing. 14 voted "No" to 11 voting "yes". How you'd ever thought it was sensible to say "when people such as nearly everyone other than you who has participated in this thread comes up with other perspectives and even scientific facts" is beyond me and quite frankly defines your intent with this post as being false. You dreamed it.
Robert J;1265220 wrote:
You should take a step back and try to relax. You have to understand that you can't be 100% right when everything else says you've got it incorrectly. Saying " I know" is not a legitimate argument unless you're going to offer some evidence, K.
If you reassess this what you're saying is that you and those that agree with you are the smartest people on the planet and everyone else are complete fools, and I know you know better than that.
This forum boasts a membership that includes some extremely intelligent and educated people as well as some that have the audacity to check facts and figures, and they are also very tolerant, kind and long suffering. You should give them more credit than you are.
Just think about what I've said, please.
You are very smart when you think reasonably. I've presented my logic. I've also presented the fact that sexual organs define life. It's absolutely essential that a penis and vagina is involved to create life. Without life you have no nature. Without "nature" you have no legitimate use of the word "natural".
It's not my fault you haven't read my posts and insist you're correct when afterall "people such as nearly everyone other than you who has participated in this thread comes up with other perspectives and even scientific facts". "nearly everyone other than you who has participated in this thread comes up with other perspectives" so based off of your own logic having been displayed in this post it's "You should take a step back and try to relax. You have to understand that you can't be 100% right when everything else says you've got it incorrectly. Saying " I know" is not a legitimate argument unless you're going to offer some evidence,..." Robert
I understand you believe you know all this as intuitive facts, and when people such as nearly everyone other than you who has participated in this thread comes up with other perspectives and even scientific facts, you reject them with your personal logic and believe you're refuting everything thats thrown at you. But thats not what is really happening here. People are attempting to get through to you with small facts and ideas because you've effectively closed yourself off to reason. You're obsessing. 14 voted "No" to 11 voting "yes". How you'd ever thought it was sensible to say "when people such as nearly everyone other than you who has participated in this thread comes up with other perspectives and even scientific facts" is beyond me and quite frankly defines your intent with this post as being false. You dreamed it.
Robert J;1265220 wrote:
You should take a step back and try to relax. You have to understand that you can't be 100% right when everything else says you've got it incorrectly. Saying " I know" is not a legitimate argument unless you're going to offer some evidence, K.
If you reassess this what you're saying is that you and those that agree with you are the smartest people on the planet and everyone else are complete fools, and I know you know better than that.
This forum boasts a membership that includes some extremely intelligent and educated people as well as some that have the audacity to check facts and figures, and they are also very tolerant, kind and long suffering. You should give them more credit than you are.
Just think about what I've said, please.
You are very smart when you think reasonably. I've presented my logic. I've also presented the fact that sexual organs define life. It's absolutely essential that a penis and vagina is involved to create life. Without life you have no nature. Without "nature" you have no legitimate use of the word "natural".
It's not my fault you haven't read my posts and insist you're correct when afterall "people such as nearly everyone other than you who has participated in this thread comes up with other perspectives and even scientific facts". "nearly everyone other than you who has participated in this thread comes up with other perspectives" so based off of your own logic having been displayed in this post it's "You should take a step back and try to relax. You have to understand that you can't be 100% right when everything else says you've got it incorrectly. Saying " I know" is not a legitimate argument unless you're going to offer some evidence,..." Robert
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
Simple lessons really..
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1265428 wrote: 14 voted "No" to 11 voting "yes". How you'd ever thought it was sensible to say "when people such as nearly everyone other than you who has participated in this thread comes up with other perspectives and even scientific facts" is beyond me and quite frankly defines your intent with this post as being false. You dreamed it.
I've presented my logic. I've also presented the fact that sexual organs define life. It's absolutely essential that a penis and vagina is involved to create life. Without life you have no nature. Without "nature" you have no legitimate use of the word "natural".
It's not my fault you haven't read my posts and insist you're correct when afterall "people such as nearly everyone other than you who has participated in this thread comes up with other perspectives and even scientific facts". "nearly everyone other than you who has participated in this thread comes up with other perspectives" so based off of your own logic having been displayed in this post it's "You should take a step back and try to relax. You have to understand that you can't be 100% right when everything else says you've got it incorrectly. Saying " I know" is not a legitimate argument unless you're going to offer some evidence,..." RobertI didn't say that there wasn't others that didn't disagree with your premised question. What I am saying is you're not making a whole lot of sense in your arguments, they are circular and self serving only. Many people can't even understand what you're saying. I know you think that that is because your so called logic is above us all, but thats not what it is.
But you win!:) because it's futile to converse with an obstinate mind.
I've presented my logic. I've also presented the fact that sexual organs define life. It's absolutely essential that a penis and vagina is involved to create life. Without life you have no nature. Without "nature" you have no legitimate use of the word "natural".
It's not my fault you haven't read my posts and insist you're correct when afterall "people such as nearly everyone other than you who has participated in this thread comes up with other perspectives and even scientific facts". "nearly everyone other than you who has participated in this thread comes up with other perspectives" so based off of your own logic having been displayed in this post it's "You should take a step back and try to relax. You have to understand that you can't be 100% right when everything else says you've got it incorrectly. Saying " I know" is not a legitimate argument unless you're going to offer some evidence,..." RobertI didn't say that there wasn't others that didn't disagree with your premised question. What I am saying is you're not making a whole lot of sense in your arguments, they are circular and self serving only. Many people can't even understand what you're saying. I know you think that that is because your so called logic is above us all, but thats not what it is.
But you win!:) because it's futile to converse with an obstinate mind.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1265426 wrote: I'm not teaching children anything. I say "I know it is" in the same way you say "I know it's natural". The difference being you think you're correct
You've invented "prejudice" in this thread. All I've done is expressed my "opinion".
I don't agree with homosexuality. What on God's green Earth does that have to do with "Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable"?
I just voted yes to even the numbers a bit.
Homosexuality is a part of the natural world. I can produce screeds of evidence to back up that assertion but I'm not going to bother because you are not interested in looking at any evidence that conflicts with your viewpoint. You are a bigot, prejudiced in your views and intolerant of the opinions of others.
Don't know why you brought masturbation in to it as also being unnatural-after all it's having sex with someone you love. Rather than strengthening your case it suggests you have some serious hang ups about your own sexuality.
The world is a lot more tolerant than it used to be but there always seem to be people that prefer bigotry and hatred to tolerance and understanding.
You've invented "prejudice" in this thread. All I've done is expressed my "opinion".
I don't agree with homosexuality. What on God's green Earth does that have to do with "Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable"?
I just voted yes to even the numbers a bit.
Homosexuality is a part of the natural world. I can produce screeds of evidence to back up that assertion but I'm not going to bother because you are not interested in looking at any evidence that conflicts with your viewpoint. You are a bigot, prejudiced in your views and intolerant of the opinions of others.
Don't know why you brought masturbation in to it as also being unnatural-after all it's having sex with someone you love. Rather than strengthening your case it suggests you have some serious hang ups about your own sexuality.
The world is a lot more tolerant than it used to be but there always seem to be people that prefer bigotry and hatred to tolerance and understanding.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
Robert J;1265457 wrote: I know you think that that is because your so called logic is above us all, but thats not what it is.
You're solely confused
Not my problem
You're solely confused
Not my problem
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
gmc;1265482 wrote: I just voted yes to even the numbers a bit.
Homosexuality is a part of the natural world. I can produce screeds of evidence to back up that assertion but I'm not going to bother because you are not interested in looking at any evidence that conflicts with your viewpoint. You are a bigot, prejudiced in your views and intolerant of the opinions of others.
The world is a lot more tolerant than it used to be but there always seem to be people that prefer bigotry and hatred to tolerance and understanding.
By your own logic you're a bigot and prejudiced against religious people because you do not feel it's natural to teach religion
"The world is a lot more tolerant than it used to be but there always seem to be people that prefer bigotry and hatred to tolerance and understanding."
How does that not apply?
Why you keep inventing "prejudice" and " "bigot" is entirely your problem
You don't want to teach children eating greasy fried chicken is natural because it's not? By your logic such would prove you're prejudice against people that eat greasy fried chicken. That classifies you as not only a bigot but a hypocrite
Homosexuality is a part of the natural world. I can produce screeds of evidence to back up that assertion but I'm not going to bother because you are not interested in looking at any evidence that conflicts with your viewpoint. You are a bigot, prejudiced in your views and intolerant of the opinions of others.
The world is a lot more tolerant than it used to be but there always seem to be people that prefer bigotry and hatred to tolerance and understanding.
By your own logic you're a bigot and prejudiced against religious people because you do not feel it's natural to teach religion
"The world is a lot more tolerant than it used to be but there always seem to be people that prefer bigotry and hatred to tolerance and understanding."
How does that not apply?
Why you keep inventing "prejudice" and " "bigot" is entirely your problem
You don't want to teach children eating greasy fried chicken is natural because it's not? By your logic such would prove you're prejudice against people that eat greasy fried chicken. That classifies you as not only a bigot but a hypocrite
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1265815 wrote: By your own logic you're a bigot and prejudiced against religious people because you do not feel it's natural to teach religion
"The world is a lot more tolerant than it used to be but there always seem to be people that prefer bigotry and hatred to tolerance and understanding."
How does that not apply?
Why you keep inventing "prejudice" and " "bigot" is entirely your problem
You don't want to teach children eating greasy fried chicken is natural because it's not? By your logic such would prove you're prejudice against people that eat greasy fried chicken. That classifies you as not only a bigot but a hypocrite
I haven't actually mentioned the teaching of religion. I don't object but I would also teach kids about science and the theory of evolution.
The world is more tolerant but it's no thanks to those who want to teach homophobia as if it is natural.
I would teach children eating greasy chicken is bad for them and let them look at and understand all the scientific research behind that assertion.
You last sentence suggest you ae either a complete numpty, a wind up merchant or that english is a second language to you. In any case I'm not wasting any more time with this.
"The world is a lot more tolerant than it used to be but there always seem to be people that prefer bigotry and hatred to tolerance and understanding."
How does that not apply?
Why you keep inventing "prejudice" and " "bigot" is entirely your problem
You don't want to teach children eating greasy fried chicken is natural because it's not? By your logic such would prove you're prejudice against people that eat greasy fried chicken. That classifies you as not only a bigot but a hypocrite
I haven't actually mentioned the teaching of religion. I don't object but I would also teach kids about science and the theory of evolution.
The world is more tolerant but it's no thanks to those who want to teach homophobia as if it is natural.
I would teach children eating greasy chicken is bad for them and let them look at and understand all the scientific research behind that assertion.
You last sentence suggest you ae either a complete numpty, a wind up merchant or that english is a second language to you. In any case I'm not wasting any more time with this.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
gmc;1265967 wrote: I haven't actually mentioned the teaching of religion. I don't object but I would also teach kids about science and the theory of evolution.
The world is more tolerant but it's no thanks to those who want to teach homophobia as if it is natural.
I would teach children eating greasy chicken is bad for them and let them look at and understand all the scientific research behind that assertion.
You last sentence suggest you ae either a complete numpty, a wind up merchant or that english is a second language to you. In any case I'm not wasting any more time with this.
Well that's good because you haven't understood anything I've said from the start
I've said it before and it appears I have to say it again, I don't wish to teach kids anything when it comes to sex. Above the age of 12 they can learn about biology.
And you've blatantly voiced how much you're against religion yet suggest you don't mind that it's taught? However your mind works dude
The world is more tolerant but it's no thanks to those who want to teach homophobia as if it is natural.
I would teach children eating greasy chicken is bad for them and let them look at and understand all the scientific research behind that assertion.
You last sentence suggest you ae either a complete numpty, a wind up merchant or that english is a second language to you. In any case I'm not wasting any more time with this.
Well that's good because you haven't understood anything I've said from the start
I've said it before and it appears I have to say it again, I don't wish to teach kids anything when it comes to sex. Above the age of 12 they can learn about biology.
And you've blatantly voiced how much you're against religion yet suggest you don't mind that it's taught? However your mind works dude
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1266303 wrote: I've said it before and it appears I have to say it again, I don't wish to teach kids anything when it comes to sex. Above the age of 12 they can learn about biology.
But you've framed this issue as a double standard. What I'm hearing you say is that gay/lesbian couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, or adopt kids.
But you've framed this issue as a double standard. What I'm hearing you say is that gay/lesbian couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, or adopt kids.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
yaaarrrgg;1266329 wrote: But you've framed this issue as a double standard. What I'm hearing you say is that gay/lesbian couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, or adopt kids.
How do you get "not allowed to marry" out of "Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?"?
Gay people adopting kids confuses me when applied to the concept of "natural". If "homosexuality" was "natural" then why would a gay person want kids?
Perhaps you can explain that one.
How do you get "not allowed to marry" out of "Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?"?
Gay people adopting kids confuses me when applied to the concept of "natural". If "homosexuality" was "natural" then why would a gay person want kids?
Perhaps you can explain that one.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1266334 wrote: How do you get "not allowed to marry" out of "Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?"?
Gay people adopting kids confuses me when applied to the concept of "natural". If "homosexuality" was "natural" then why would a gay person want kids?
Perhaps you can explain that one.
A gay couple is one type of sterile couple. The set also includes heterosexual couples who are naturally sterile, and people who have been "fixed."
Ok, so you think that gay people should be allowed to marry, just not adopt children? Since it would implicitly teach them that the emotional bond between same sex couples was natural and acceptable?
Homosexuality is of course as much about human emotional bonding as sex, if not more so. Though, in your view, all relationships seems to be reduced down to sex, and sex is further reduced down to a mechanism for procreation. That's a very rigid view though, and doesn't really allow for the existence of people like Caster Semenya. Is s/he natural and acceptable to you?
Gay people adopting kids confuses me when applied to the concept of "natural". If "homosexuality" was "natural" then why would a gay person want kids?
Perhaps you can explain that one.
A gay couple is one type of sterile couple. The set also includes heterosexual couples who are naturally sterile, and people who have been "fixed."
Ok, so you think that gay people should be allowed to marry, just not adopt children? Since it would implicitly teach them that the emotional bond between same sex couples was natural and acceptable?
Homosexuality is of course as much about human emotional bonding as sex, if not more so. Though, in your view, all relationships seems to be reduced down to sex, and sex is further reduced down to a mechanism for procreation. That's a very rigid view though, and doesn't really allow for the existence of people like Caster Semenya. Is s/he natural and acceptable to you?
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
yaaarrrgg;1266339 wrote: A gay couple is one type of sterile couple. The set also includes heterosexual couples who are naturally sterile, and people who have been "fixed."
Ok, so you think that gay people should be allowed to marry, just not adopt children? Since it would implicitly teach them that the emotional bond between same sex couples was natural and acceptable?
Homosexuality is of course as much about human emotional bonding as sex, if not more so. Though, in your view, all relationships seems to be reduced down to sex, and sex is further reduced down to a mechanism for procreation. That's a very rigid view though, and doesn't really allow for the existence of people like Caster Semenya. Is s/he natural and acceptable to you?
You're missing my point. I'm talking about the logic behind being gay and the end result being the inability to have kids.
You have it backwards. I'm applying sex as being an expression of love between two people not one at a time, from which obviously singles out "male" homosexuals but none the less still relative
I still don't see any form of homosexuality to be natural. Nor do I find it to be natural to kill ones self by the "intricacies" of greasy fried chicken yet I LOVE the stuff go figure
Any human being is natural and acceptable to me. I wish for one moment one might read something and not assume the person they're reading is trying to be malicious in any way. It's the entire reason why "you people" can't keep "friends" on the internet
It's some of people's actions I know to be unnatural regardless of homo sexual acts or not
Ok, so you think that gay people should be allowed to marry, just not adopt children? Since it would implicitly teach them that the emotional bond between same sex couples was natural and acceptable?
Homosexuality is of course as much about human emotional bonding as sex, if not more so. Though, in your view, all relationships seems to be reduced down to sex, and sex is further reduced down to a mechanism for procreation. That's a very rigid view though, and doesn't really allow for the existence of people like Caster Semenya. Is s/he natural and acceptable to you?
You're missing my point. I'm talking about the logic behind being gay and the end result being the inability to have kids.
You have it backwards. I'm applying sex as being an expression of love between two people not one at a time, from which obviously singles out "male" homosexuals but none the less still relative
I still don't see any form of homosexuality to be natural. Nor do I find it to be natural to kill ones self by the "intricacies" of greasy fried chicken yet I LOVE the stuff
go figureAny human being is natural and acceptable to me. I wish for one moment one might read something and not assume the person they're reading is trying to be malicious in any way. It's the entire reason why "you people" can't keep "friends" on the internet
It's some of people's actions I know to be unnatural regardless of homo sexual acts or not
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1266343 wrote: It's some of people's actions I know to be unnatural regardless of homo sexual acts or not
That's fair. I'm still curious though who Caster can fall in love with? A man or a woman? If the set of males and females intersect, either way s/he is going to have gay sex.
There are three positions here: pro, con, and neutral. I will accept that you have no malicious view towards gay people. The issue with neutrality though is that the gay haters like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are practically inciting mobs to round up gay people and kill them. Even if you are purely neutral in teaching kids anything about gay people, these people are not going to be neutral. They are going to advance an extreme agenda of hate and fascism.
If something is "unnatural" in someone's mind it's not a far jump, in someone's mind, to put a stop to it. That's why, IMO, neutrality isn't an option. Someone has to stick up for these people or else the extremists will eventually run them over.
In a better world though, neutrality would be a perfectly fine position with me. It's not so much what you are advocating, as much as the sorry state of our society, that worries me. If you don't teach kids something about tolerance, someone else is going to. And the people who are the most passionate about the issue are fueled by hate. I'm worried their voices are going to drown out the more moderate and reasonable views.
That's fair. I'm still curious though who Caster can fall in love with? A man or a woman? If the set of males and females intersect, either way s/he is going to have gay sex.
There are three positions here: pro, con, and neutral. I will accept that you have no malicious view towards gay people. The issue with neutrality though is that the gay haters like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are practically inciting mobs to round up gay people and kill them. Even if you are purely neutral in teaching kids anything about gay people, these people are not going to be neutral. They are going to advance an extreme agenda of hate and fascism.
If something is "unnatural" in someone's mind it's not a far jump, in someone's mind, to put a stop to it. That's why, IMO, neutrality isn't an option. Someone has to stick up for these people or else the extremists will eventually run them over.
In a better world though, neutrality would be a perfectly fine position with me. It's not so much what you are advocating, as much as the sorry state of our society, that worries me. If you don't teach kids something about tolerance, someone else is going to. And the people who are the most passionate about the issue are fueled by hate. I'm worried their voices are going to drown out the more moderate and reasonable views.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
yaaarrrgg;1266437 wrote: That's fair. I'm still curious though who Caster can fall in love with? A man or a woman? If the set of males and females intersect, either way s/he is going to have gay sex.
There are three positions here: pro, con, and neutral. I will accept that you have no malicious view towards gay people. The issue with neutrality though is that the gay haters like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are practically inciting mobs to round up gay people and kill them. Even if you are purely neutral in teaching kids anything about gay people, these people are not going to be neutral. They are going to advance an extreme agenda of hate and fascism.
If something is "unnatural" in someone's mind it's not a far jump, in someone's mind, to put a stop to it. That's why, IMO, neutrality isn't an option. Someone has to stick up for these people or else the extremists will eventually run them over.
In a better world though, neutrality would be a perfectly fine position with me. It's not so much what you are advocating, as much as the sorry state of our society, that worries me. If you don't teach kids something about tolerance, someone else is going to. And the people who are the most passionate about the issue are fueled by hate. I'm worried their voices are going to drown out the more moderate and reasonable views.
My position is confusing to those that put religious/moral connotations behind what I've defined as natural. I've already said that I find greasy fried chicken to be unnatural because it slowly kills people. I LOVE the stuff therefore I've disclosed my reluctance to imply my definition of "natural" has consequences behind it. It's why you get words like "prejudice" and the other horse feces :yh_eyerol
I've never once mentioned anything about a lack of tolerance. Once again it's been invented in this thread.
By God teach "tolerance", I encourage it. For there to be a reason to use the word "tolerance" says quite alot about ones view of the very reason they'd thought the word "tolerance" was useful.
There are three positions here: pro, con, and neutral. I will accept that you have no malicious view towards gay people. The issue with neutrality though is that the gay haters like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are practically inciting mobs to round up gay people and kill them. Even if you are purely neutral in teaching kids anything about gay people, these people are not going to be neutral. They are going to advance an extreme agenda of hate and fascism.
If something is "unnatural" in someone's mind it's not a far jump, in someone's mind, to put a stop to it. That's why, IMO, neutrality isn't an option. Someone has to stick up for these people or else the extremists will eventually run them over.
In a better world though, neutrality would be a perfectly fine position with me. It's not so much what you are advocating, as much as the sorry state of our society, that worries me. If you don't teach kids something about tolerance, someone else is going to. And the people who are the most passionate about the issue are fueled by hate. I'm worried their voices are going to drown out the more moderate and reasonable views.
My position is confusing to those that put religious/moral connotations behind what I've defined as natural. I've already said that I find greasy fried chicken to be unnatural because it slowly kills people. I LOVE the stuff therefore I've disclosed my reluctance to imply my definition of "natural" has consequences behind it. It's why you get words like "prejudice" and the other horse feces :yh_eyerol
I've never once mentioned anything about a lack of tolerance. Once again it's been invented in this thread.
By God teach "tolerance", I encourage it. For there to be a reason to use the word "tolerance" says quite alot about ones view of the very reason they'd thought the word "tolerance" was useful.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1266472 wrote: By God teach "tolerance", I encourage it. For there to be a reason to use the word "tolerance" says quite alot about ones view of the very reason they'd thought the word "tolerance" was useful.
In my mind, the simplest way to teach tolerance is to explain that it's natural and acceptable that Susy has two dads or that Billy has two moms.
Splitting semantic hairs as you are doing has confused half the adults here including myself. How do you expect kids to understand what you are saying?
Meanwhile if you don't address the issue at all, Pat Robertson (and others) will gladly build upon your inaction and call for open oppression of gays. My last post, I didn't say you were intolerant, I said there are intolerant people that will take your complicit silence and build on it.
In my mind, the simplest way to teach tolerance is to explain that it's natural and acceptable that Susy has two dads or that Billy has two moms.
Splitting semantic hairs as you are doing has confused half the adults here including myself. How do you expect kids to understand what you are saying?
Meanwhile if you don't address the issue at all, Pat Robertson (and others) will gladly build upon your inaction and call for open oppression of gays. My last post, I didn't say you were intolerant, I said there are intolerant people that will take your complicit silence and build on it.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
yaaarrrgg;1266511 wrote: In my mind, the simplest way to teach tolerance is to explain that it's natural and acceptable that Susy has two dads or that Billy has two moms.
Splitting semantic hairs as you are doing has confused half the adults here including myself. How do you expect kids to understand what you are saying?
Meanwhile if you don't address the issue at all, Pat Robertson (and others) will gladly build upon your inaction and call for open oppression of gays. My last post, I didn't say you were intolerant, I said there are intolerant people that will take your complicit silence and build on it.
I know you weren't calling me intolerant. I don't know why you'd assume that I thought you had.
On that,..I don't know how it's logically possible for you to say "to teach tolerance is to explain that it's natural and acceptable" when clearly the usage of the word "tolerance" wholeheartedly implicates your opinion pertaining to homosexuality is unnatural.
Would you use the word "tolerance" in the suggestion that sex between opposite sexes were natural? I highly doubt it
Splitting semantic hairs as you are doing has confused half the adults here including myself. How do you expect kids to understand what you are saying?
Meanwhile if you don't address the issue at all, Pat Robertson (and others) will gladly build upon your inaction and call for open oppression of gays. My last post, I didn't say you were intolerant, I said there are intolerant people that will take your complicit silence and build on it.
I know you weren't calling me intolerant. I don't know why you'd assume that I thought you had.
On that,..I don't know how it's logically possible for you to say "to teach tolerance is to explain that it's natural and acceptable" when clearly the usage of the word "tolerance" wholeheartedly implicates your opinion pertaining to homosexuality is unnatural.
Would you use the word "tolerance" in the suggestion that sex between opposite sexes were natural? I highly doubt it
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1266592 wrote: I know you weren't calling me intolerant. I don't know why you'd assume that I thought you had.
On that,..I don't know how it's logically possible for you to say "to teach tolerance is to explain that it's natural and acceptable" when clearly the usage of the word "tolerance" wholeheartedly implicates your opinion pertaining to homosexuality is unnatural.
Would you use the word "tolerance" in the suggestion that sex between opposite sexes were natural? I highly doubt it
Yes, I think if same-sex parents were raising a child, they should explain to the child that it's natural and acceptable that Susy has a mom and dad. Tolerance is about respecting differences. I think it has to go both directions.
On that,..I don't know how it's logically possible for you to say "to teach tolerance is to explain that it's natural and acceptable" when clearly the usage of the word "tolerance" wholeheartedly implicates your opinion pertaining to homosexuality is unnatural.
Would you use the word "tolerance" in the suggestion that sex between opposite sexes were natural? I highly doubt it
Yes, I think if same-sex parents were raising a child, they should explain to the child that it's natural and acceptable that Susy has a mom and dad. Tolerance is about respecting differences. I think it has to go both directions.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
yaaarrrgg;1266597 wrote: Yes, I think if same-sex parents were raising a child, they should explain to the child that it's natural and acceptable that Susy has a mom and dad. Tolerance is about respecting differences. I think it has to go both directions.
My point was that your use of the word "tolerance" is an implication that your reasoning favored one subset. Considering you'd used the word "tolerance" in correlation with "homosexuality" it implied you tolerated "homosexuality" from which directly implies you'd had a reason to contemplate accepting it. "Natural" isn't defined as such
So you'd say that "heterosexuality is tolerable"? You would make a statement such as that? "heterosexuality is tolerable"? You'd honestly find it convenient to make a statement in those exact words?
My point was that your use of the word "tolerance" is an implication that your reasoning favored one subset. Considering you'd used the word "tolerance" in correlation with "homosexuality" it implied you tolerated "homosexuality" from which directly implies you'd had a reason to contemplate accepting it. "Natural" isn't defined as such
So you'd say that "heterosexuality is tolerable"? You would make a statement such as that? "heterosexuality is tolerable"? You'd honestly find it convenient to make a statement in those exact words?
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1266601 wrote: My point was that your use of the word "tolerance" is an implication that your reasoning favored one subset. Considering you'd used the word "tolerance" in correlation with "homosexuality" it implied you tolerated "homosexuality" from which directly implies you'd had a reason to contemplate accepting it. "Natural" isn't defined as such
So you'd say that "heterosexuality is tolerable"? You would make a statement such as that? "heterosexuality is tolerable"? You'd honestly find it convenient to make a statement in those exact words?
I wasn't thinking about it on that level. I see two different groups: one an accepted majority, and the other a somewhat historically persecuted minority. The majority has been intolerant of the minority. If this wasn't the case, tolerance wouldn't be an issue.
But I see your point. Perhaps "less intolerance from heterosexuals" would be a better choice of words. I don't know that gay people are all that intolerant of heterosexual people.
So you'd say that "heterosexuality is tolerable"? You would make a statement such as that? "heterosexuality is tolerable"? You'd honestly find it convenient to make a statement in those exact words?
I wasn't thinking about it on that level. I see two different groups: one an accepted majority, and the other a somewhat historically persecuted minority. The majority has been intolerant of the minority. If this wasn't the case, tolerance wouldn't be an issue.
But I see your point. Perhaps "less intolerance from heterosexuals" would be a better choice of words. I don't know that gay people are all that intolerant of heterosexual people.