Melissia wrote:You mean like the fact that lesbians at my high school were afraid of being outed because someone attempted to rape a lesbian because he thought he could turn her straight?

That is quite possibly one of the most horrible things you could ever do to another human being.
And that is another reason homophobia should be stamped out in schools. Being indoctrinated at home in to not accepting certain races/religions/sexualities etc, especially at a young age, creates a lifetime of hate which rarely stops at verbal abuse. This is why this plan makes some sense.

QFT. Do I like the idea that my kid may be influenced in his point of view by his peers to a great degree? Not really if I could avoid it. But do I like knowing that said influences will help him become an upstanding individual instead of a person phobic of people different from himself? Hell yes.

Melissia wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:yes. Same with pedophilia and homosexuality. Your point?

... that homosexuality and pedophilia are in no way equivalent. You might as well say that eating candy is equivalent to cannibalism because they're both less common than eating pizza.

And that leads into the point I was making a year ago.

You just established that homosexuality is morally superior to pedophilia (a statement i am not opposed to).

Now the question becomes, why? What makes it morally superior? Who gets to decide these things?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Now the question becomes, why?

Oh I don't know, maybe because one doesn't involve RAPING CHILDREN?

TrollPie wrote:

Melissia wrote:You mean like the fact that lesbians at my high school were afraid of being outed because someone attempted to rape a lesbian because he thought he could turn her straight?

That is quite possibly one of the most horrible things you could ever do to another human being.
And that is another reason homophobia should be stamped out in schools. Being indoctrinated at home in to not accepting certain races/religions/sexualities etc, especially at a young age, creates a lifetime of hate which rarely stops at verbal abuse. This is why this plan makes some sense.

Phobia means an aversion to. Not just fear.

So what if some young boy has a natural aversion to homosexuality? Should they be beaten down and reprogrammed?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Now the question becomes, why?

Oh I don't know, maybe because one doesn't involve RAPING CHILDREN?

I am not talking about raping children. Again, the term we should be using is Ephebophilia.

Why is Ephebophilia moral inferior?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

TrollPie wrote:
And to be honest, if your religion teaches intolerance, why are you following it?
(Don't respond to that point. Threadlock will ensue.)

Then don't ask, Troll.

I know, I shouldn't. I'm simply stating it as something to think about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:They both (along with many other bizarre things) are an alternate form of sexual preference to heterosexuality. That is fact.

Pedophilia and heterosexuality are not mutually exclusive.

yes. Same with pedophilia and homosexuality. Your point?

Not necassarily her point, but the percentage of homosexuals in the world is somewhere in the 10-15%. However, only around 7% of recorded child rapes are male-on-male/female-on-female. There is a common misconception that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles, which I think is started by the fact that boys and girls are given equal warning about paedophiles in schools.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

TrollPie wrote:

Melissia wrote:You mean like the fact that lesbians at my high school were afraid of being outed because someone attempted to rape a lesbian because he thought he could turn her straight?

That is quite possibly one of the most horrible things you could ever do to another human being.
And that is another reason homophobia should be stamped out in schools. Being indoctrinated at home in to not accepting certain races/religions/sexualities etc, especially at a young age, creates a lifetime of hate which rarely stops at verbal abuse. This is why this plan makes some sense.

Phobia means an aversion to. Not just fear.

So what if some young boy has a natural aversion to homosexuality? Should they be beaten down and reprogrammed?

If their is sufficient evidence that his phobia could cause him to commit crimes against homosexuals, then of course he should recieve education concerning the issue. Just like a potential rapist or murderer should be educated on morality etc. Just because you aren't sure if they will commit the crime, doesn't mean you shouldn't take steps to ensure they don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Now the question becomes, why?

Oh I don't know, maybe because one doesn't involve RAPING CHILDREN?

I am not talking about raping children. Again, the term we should be using is Ephebophilia.

Why is Ephebophilia moral inferior?

Teenage boys are less likely to be willing to have sex with a grown man.
Therefore, ephebophiles are more likely to force themeselves upon them.

TrollPie wrote:
If their is sufficient evidence that his phobia could cause him to commit crimes against homosexuals, then of course he should recieve education concerning the issue. Just like a potential rapist or murderer should be educated on morality etc. Just because you aren't sure if they will commit the crime, doesn't mean you shouldn't take steps to ensure they don't.

Evidence they may commit a crime? LOL
How does one prove a student may commit a crime specifically targeting homosexuals (without stepping on free speech, expectation of privacy, etc.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TrollPie wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Why is Ephebophilia moral inferior?

Teenage boys are less likely to be willing to have sex with a grown man.
Therefore, ephebophiles are more likely to force themeselves upon them.

Nice logic.

A woman is less likely to have sex with another woman. Does that make homosexuality inferior?

And going forward, how about I concede force in any sexuality is wrong and we can stop with that distraction. (Tired of the "Oh yea! Well Rape is bad so you are wrong!!!!" argument I seem to be getting.)

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

TrollPie wrote:
If their is sufficient evidence that his phobia could cause him to commit crimes against homosexuals, then of course he should recieve education concerning the issue. Just like a potential rapist or murderer should be educated on morality etc. Just because you aren't sure if they will commit the crime, doesn't mean you shouldn't take steps to ensure they don't.

Evidence they may commit a crime? LOL
How does one prove a student may commit a crime specifically targeting homosexuals (without stepping on free speech, expectation of privacy, etc.)

Psychological testing is the first one that springs to mind.
Tests such as showing people random blobs and scribbles, and asking what they see. Also asking the child questions concerning homosexuality, and questioning their parents on what they teach them. And, of course, if they say that homosexuals disgust them and are inferior to them it's going to be pretty obvious.

TrollPie wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

TrollPie wrote:
If their is sufficient evidence that his phobia could cause him to commit crimes against homosexuals, then of course he should recieve education concerning the issue. Just like a potential rapist or murderer should be educated on morality etc. Just because you aren't sure if they will commit the crime, doesn't mean you shouldn't take steps to ensure they don't.

Evidence they may commit a crime? LOL
How does one prove a student may commit a crime specifically targeting homosexuals (without stepping on free speech, expectation of privacy, etc.)

Psychological testing is the first one that springs to mind.
Tests such as showing people random blobs and scribbles, and asking what they see. Also asking the child questions concerning homosexuality, and questioning their parents on what they teach them. And, of course, if they say that homosexuals disgust them and are inferior to them it's going to be pretty obvious.

Yes. Let us do intense psychological screenings on all students that disagree with us (sure no violation of rights there!) And then grill the parents! And if the parents teach that marriage is between a man and a woman, then obviously this child is likely to commit a crime! We will subject the child to reprogramming!

LOL!
Nice!

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

TrollPie wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Why is Ephebophilia moral inferior?

Teenage boys are less likely to be willing to have sex with a grown man.
Therefore, ephebophiles are more likely to force themeselves upon them.

Nice logic.

A woman is less likely to have sex with another woman. Does that make homosexuality inferior?

And going forward, how about I concede force in any sexuality is wrong and we can stop with that distraction. (Tired of the "Oh yea! Well Rape is bad so you are wrong!!!!" argument I seem to be getting.)

What? If a woman is a lesbian, then she can find other lesbians to have sex with. An ephebophile wants young teens. Young teens are less likely to want to have sex, particularly with much older people. Therefore ephebophiles are more likely to turn to rape as a means of having sex with their targets.

Oh ,so now you're changing the subject huh? So you admit that you're wrong, then, and want to move the goalposts?

Fine.

On age of consent: You are the one that said first in this thread that children cannot legally consent, so you should already be familiar with the answer in question. While the age at which this applies is variable depending on the culture involved, in general children do not have the mental and emotional development necessary to legally consent, and it's not just for sexual intimacy either (they also can't technically consent to most contracts too, depending on the state and city). This is something demonstratively provable through scientific testing of groups of children at that particular age, though I imagine most laws are not formed based off of a study they still roughly equate. Additionally, in many places it's often perfectly legal for a seventy year old and a fifteen year old to get married even if they cannot have sex out of wedlock, because it is assumed that marriage is a commitment and therefor they are not merely taking advantage of the teenager.

As for what moral obligation? There's many, MANY non-religious ways to justify it. The simple ones are effectively the golden rule, do to others as you would have them do to you-- and as noted before, relationships at too young an age are demonstratively harmful to many children. Until they've developed emotionally and mentally to the point where they can be trusted with legal documents, the law prevents them from having legal sexual relations-- the law is not perfect in this area, as human mentality and sexuality are very complex subjects, so for the sake of closing loopholes or preventing abuse of the law it's given at a flat age, usually, depending on the state.

Aside from that, do you ascribe to deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics, pragmatics? I could probably write a damned paper on this, but I couldn't be arsed as I already passed my two ethics classes and I've ha enough of that until I reach my graduate level ethics classes.

If you want a religious reason, go look on my blog, as I posted one long ago there. I'm not touching THAT part of this subject any more than that. I am not a theology major, I'm a chemistry major. I'm not interested in a debate on theology.

Melissia wrote:Oh ,so now you're changing the subject huh? So you admit that you're wrong, then, and want to move the goalposts?

Fine.

On age of consent: You are the one that said first in this thread that children cannot legally consent, so you should already be familiar with the answer in question. While the age at which this applies is variable depending on the culture involved, in general children do not have the mental and emotional development necessary to legally consent, and it's not just for sexual intimacy either (they also can't technically consent to most contracts too, depending on the state and city). This is something demonstratively provable through scientific testing of groups of children at that particular age, though I imagine most laws are not formed based off of a study they still roughly equate. Additionally, in many places it's often perfectly legal for a seventy year old and a fifteen year old to get married even if they cannot have sex out of wedlock, because it is assumed that marriage is a commitment and therefor they are not merely taking advantage of the teenager.

As for what moral obligation? There's many, MANY non-religious ways to justify it. The simple ones are effectively the golden rule, do to others as you would have them do to you-- and as noted before, relationships at too young an age are demonstratively harmful to many children. Until they've developed emotionally and mentally to the point where they can be trusted with legal documents, the law prevents them from having legal sexual relations-- the law is not perfect in this area, as human mentality and sexuality are very complex subjects, so for the sake of closing loopholes or preventing abuse of the law it's given at a flat age, usually, depending on the state.

Aside from that, do you ascribe to deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics, pragmatics? I could probably write a damned paper on this, but I couldn't be arsed as I already passed my two ethics classes and I've ha enough of that until I reach my graduate level ethics classes.

If you want a religious reason, go look on my blog, as I posted one long ago there. I'm not touching THAT part of this subject any more than that. I am not a theology major, I'm a chemistry major. I'm not interested in a debate on theology.

1 -Not changing subject. I am trying to get to the root of the matter.
2 - I agree with your assessment on minors. (This was the point. It really is morally inferior)
3 - your non-religious golden rule is from Christ.
4 - If children "do not have the mental and emotional development necessary to legally consent", why the push to promote sexual lifestyles in the classroom?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

TrollPie wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

TrollPie wrote:
If their is sufficient evidence that his phobia could cause him to commit crimes against homosexuals, then of course he should recieve education concerning the issue. Just like a potential rapist or murderer should be educated on morality etc. Just because you aren't sure if they will commit the crime, doesn't mean you shouldn't take steps to ensure they don't.

Evidence they may commit a crime? LOL
How does one prove a student may commit a crime specifically targeting homosexuals (without stepping on free speech, expectation of privacy, etc.)

Psychological testing is the first one that springs to mind.
Tests such as showing people random blobs and scribbles, and asking what they see. Also asking the child questions concerning homosexuality, and questioning their parents on what they teach them. And, of course, if they say that homosexuals disgust them and are inferior to them it's going to be pretty obvious.

Yes. Let us do intense psychological screenings on all students that disagree with us (sure no violation of rights there!) And then grill the parents! And if the parents teach that marriage is between a man and a woman, then obviously this child is likely to commit a crime! We will subject the child to reprogramming!

LOL!
Nice!

You asked for ways to find evidence that a child may commit hate crimes against homosexuals. That's what I did.
I'm not saying to imprison anyone who doesn't agree with homosexuality. I'm saying that if someone grows up with serious-as in, hatred and disgust-phobia of a certain group, then they should be told the other side of the arguement and the parents should be told to stop indoctrinating their children. In an ideal world, that is. It's not going to happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, your use of the phrase "LOL" infuriates me.

1: Yes you are. You originally said 12 years of age, then changed your argument to 15-18 year olds

2: Pedophilia is morally inferior to homosexuality like murder is morally inferior to a parent hugging their child when they're crying at night due to a nightmare.

3: It's far, FAR older than Christianity.

4: Noone is suggesting promoting sexual lifestyles. What we ARE doing is promoting tolerance. If you do not understand the difference, just say so, and I will put you back on ignore because nothing good can come of this.

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:Just because someone has a belief against something in their religion doesn't mean they should be punished for it, when the belief becomes physical aggression or any other form of aggression then you punish them.

He spoke out his hatred of homosexuals, which is aggression in verbal form.

Let me use an anecdote because those are ever so much fun.

A lady in our church sponsored a muslim student from Iran some time ago and they got to the topic of religion. When asked about other religions the boy said that Christians and Jews can go to heaven because they believe in God but believe in him differently. When asked about other religions such as Hindu the boy said that they can't go to heaven because they don't have souls. Does that mean he hates Hindus, not necessarily it just means in his religion Hindus don't have souls.

The kid himself didn't start the controversial topic, the teacher did by asking the child to remove the confederate flag belt buckle.

I think you misunderstand Gen Lee: We don't want to say homosexuality is better than heterosexuality, but as it is becoming accepted as legally ok (As compared to the pedophilia or necrophilia you stated earlier), it deserves to be protected from detractors and those who would create a hostile environment for people of that gender.

We shouldn't pre-filter students based on their beliefs, but if a student does say something to create a hostile environment, it should be discouraged (The teacher was on the right track, but went too far with the suspension). While this may create a PC-style environment, treading on eggshells is a better alternative than straight denouncement or ridicule.

halonachos wrote:A lady in our church sponsored a muslim student from Iran some time ago and they got to the topic of religion. When asked about other religions the boy said that Christians and Jews can go to heaven because they believe in God but believe in him differently. When asked about other religions such as Hindu the boy said that they can't go to heaven because they don't have souls. Does that mean he hates Hindus, not necessarily it just means in his religion Hindus don't have souls.

IE, because of his religion he hates Hindus and considers them inferior.

If someone's religion said that black people have no soul (And there are still a non-insignificant number who believe this), that's still racist-- even if it's religiously motivated racism... it's still racism.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
3 - your non-religious golden rule is from Christ.

Please don't bring religion in to this. Don't present your personal beliefs as fact.

4 - If children "do not have the mental and emotional development necessary to legally consent", why the push to promote sexual lifestyles in the classroom?

This made me laugh. So now teaching people tolerance is promoting a "sexual lifestyle"? And what lifestyle isn't sexual? Is teaching tolerance of Islam promoting an Islamic lifestyle?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:Just because someone has a belief against something in their religion doesn't mean they should be punished for it, when the belief becomes physical aggression or any other form of aggression then you punish them.

He spoke out his hatred of homosexuals, which is aggression in verbal form.

Let me use an anecdote because those are ever so much fun.

A lady in our church sponsored a muslim student from Iran some time ago and they got to the topic of religion. When asked about other religions the boy said that Christians and Jews can go to heaven because they believe in God but believe in him differently. When asked about other religions such as Hindu the boy said that they can't go to heaven because they don't have souls. Does that mean he hates Hindus, not necessarily it just means in his religion Hindus don't have souls.

The kid himself didn't start the controversial topic, the teacher did by asking the child to remove the confederate flag belt buckle.

To not accept someone, you have to believe that there is something about them which is wrong. Non acceptance, as a rule, relates to belief that you are somehow superior to them-because if you aren't, shouldn't they be unaccepting of you?

Tell you what.

I'm going to stop posting in this thread.
You can pat yourselves on the back and say you won.

All I ask in return is that you not quote me further (as it is like continuing a conversation behind my back).

Rip apart any idea I put forward, just leave the quotes and my name out.

Deal?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:3 - your non-religious golden rule is from Christ.

That's flatly incorrect. Jesus preached a message in consistence with the Golden Rule, but the idea of moral reciprocity predates him by at least 1500 years.

Its an idea common to nearly all forms of moral philosophy and religion, even it is only conceived of to be rejected. Attributing it to Christ is like claiming the English invented language.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TrollPie wrote:What? If a woman is a lesbian, then she can find other lesbians to have sex with. An ephebophile wants young teens. Young teens are less likely to want to have sex, particularly with much older people. Therefore ephebophiles are more likely to turn to rape as a means of having sex with their targets.

I'd posit that the number of adolescents who would enjoy sex with adults is higher than, or at least nearly equivalent to, the number of people who would enjoy sex with another member of the same sex.

Adolescents have sex drives to, and they very often find themselves attracted to much older people.

Just because you believe someone is wrong doesn't mean you believe its your obligation to take them out back and beat the crap out of them. There are a lot of people I don't accept, most of them happen to be family and they know it. We've cut off every connection with that part of the family because of the way they act, unfortunately just because we don't accept them doesn't mean we don't love them. We know that they're wrong on a lot of what they do but we love them anyways.

dogma wrote:

TrollPie wrote:What? If a woman is a lesbian, then she can find other lesbians to have sex with. An ephebophile wants young teens. Young teens are less likely to want to have sex, particularly with much older people. Therefore ephebophiles are more likely to turn to rape as a means of having sex with their targets.

I'd posit that the number of adolescents who would enjoy sex with adults is higher than, or at least nearly equivalent to, the number of people who would enjoy sex with another member of the same sex.

Adolescents have sex drives to, and they very often find themselves attracted to much older people.

You got me there....*eyes move upwards with perverse thoughts, mostly concerning certain celebrities and several jars of bovril*

TrollPie wrote:

dogma wrote:

TrollPie wrote:What? If a woman is a lesbian, then she can find other lesbians to have sex with. An ephebophile wants young teens. Young teens are less likely to want to have sex, particularly with much older people. Therefore ephebophiles are more likely to turn to rape as a means of having sex with their targets.

I'd posit that the number of adolescents who would enjoy sex with adults is higher than, or at least nearly equivalent to, the number of people who would enjoy sex with another member of the same sex.

Adolescents have sex drives to, and they very often find themselves attracted to much older people.

You got me there....*eyes move upwards with perverse thoughts, mostly concerning certain celebrities and several jars of bovril*

Young women tend to either regret having sex or did not want to, but had it anyways. This is usually about 75% for 15 year old females, but the number declines over time to about 10% at the 18 year old age range.

Statistics: Making up numbers for fun and profit!

Melissia wrote:Statistics: Making up numbers for fun and profit!

Nope, adolescent psychology. Most young women regret having sex compared to boys of the same age.

I was talking about your percentage points, not your actual argument lol.

Melissia wrote:I was talking about your percentage points, not your actual argument lol.

Oh, either way. I may have been wrong about it being 75% but I remember it being incredibly high to the point that if you were a male and had sex with a female during middle school chances are she didn't really want to but felt pressured into doing it.

Of that I have no doubt.

So where were we, something about a teacher and a student being dick heads to each other? First of all the student may most likely be an idiot, secondly the teacher may most likely be an idiot. Just because their causes are different doesn't mean they're both not morons.

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:A lady in our church sponsored a muslim student from Iran some time ago and they got to the topic of religion. When asked about other religions the boy said that Christians and Jews can go to heaven because they believe in God but believe in him differently. When asked about other religions such as Hindu the boy said that they can't go to heaven because they don't have souls. Does that mean he hates Hindus, not necessarily it just means in his religion Hindus don't have souls.

IE, because of his religion he hates Hindus and considers them inferior.

If someone's religion said that black people have no soul (And there are still a non-insignificant number who believe this), that's still racist-- even if it's religiously motivated racism... it's still racism.

Actually, even then his beliefs aren't really in line with Muslim beliefs.

Islam considers followers of Judaism and Christianity to be misguided, but still 'People of the Book'. I don't know if that means that they get into heaven, but it does mean that you can't actually use the term infidel to describe a Jew or a Christian at all acurately, in the strictest sense. People of other religions, such as Hindus, do still have souls and can convert to the Muslim faith, but they don't share the same ancestry as the 'Big Three'.

Your point still stands though, religous bigots are still bigots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:You mean like the fact that lesbians at my high school were afraid of being outed because someone attempted to rape a lesbian because he thought he could turn her straight?

Although the article only really mentions South Africa, it's very common in a swathe of other countries as well. Ethiopia, that actually had a public display, being the worst offender.

If memory serves, a female Ethiopian that fled the country is now a judge on the Human Rights Commission and has written a book on it. Worth looking into.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:4 - If children "do not have the mental and emotional development necessary to legally consent", why the push to promote sexual lifestyles in the classroom?

It's not promoting a 'lifestyle'. It's pretty poor form to describe homosexuality, which comes as naturally as heterosexuality, as a 'lifestyle', not only because that implies a choice in the matter but also because there's no such thing as a gay lifestyle. Gay people are just attracted to the same sex, in other ways they are all different. Their choice of sexual partner is only an issue because some people make an issue out it it.

Anyway, children should learn about sexual relationships before they reach the age of consent. It may be broadly decided that they are not emotionally developed enough to consent to sex itself, but that's not a reason to discuss concepts around sex with them. Keeping children in ignorance is not a solution, and discussing issues around sex is not the same as actually having sex so you're really making very poor arguments.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Anyway, children should learn about sexual relationships before they reach the age of consent. It may be broadly decided that they are not emotionally developed enough to consent to sex itself, but that's not a reason to discuss concepts around sex with them. Keeping children in ignorance is not a solution, and discussing issues around sex is not the same as actually having sex so you're really making very poor arguments.

Actually, that's a big issue here in the states. Sexual education is lacking for the most parts and some states still teach abstinence only classes despite the fact that they are inferior to comprehensive sexual education classes.

I'm aware it's an issue, and we have the same ignorant arguments from conservative groups here, teach kids about sex and they'll all start doing it. Which just makes no sense, the preferred option is to 'protect their innocence' so they end up pregnant at 15 because they didn't know how to use a condom.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I'm aware it's an issue, and we have the same ignorant arguments from conservative groups here, teach kids about sex and they'll all start doing it. Which just makes no sense, the preferred option is to 'protect their innocence' so they end up pregnant at 15 because they didn't know how to use a condom.

Its weird how it happens, comprehensive sex shows that there is a little bit more sex but it's also safer sex because of the fact that they know to use condoms. Unfortunately the federal government takes funding from schools that teach coprehensive sex education or anything besides abstinence only courses.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I'm aware it's an issue, and we have the same ignorant arguments from conservative groups here, teach kids about sex and they'll all start doing it. Which just makes no sense, the preferred option is to 'protect their innocence' so they end up pregnant at 15 because they didn't know how to use a condom.

I always loved the argument that heterosexuality is the only natural form of human sexuality, but children won't engage in it if they aren't told what it is.

dogma wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:I'm aware it's an issue, and we have the same ignorant arguments from conservative groups here, teach kids about sex and they'll all start doing it. Which just makes no sense, the preferred option is to 'protect their innocence' so they end up pregnant at 15 because they didn't know how to use a condom.

I always loved the argument that heterosexuality is the only natural form of human sexuality, but children won't engage in it if they aren't told what it is.

I saw a picture of a sign protesting the anti-homosexual marriage protests saying that homosexuals aren't to blame because they don't reproduce and that we should blame heterosexuals for making 'gay babies'.

Frazzled wrote:Slaves were kept for monetary reasons since before writing in nearly ever culture. But it took people of faith to start the ball rolling to free them, both in the US and Britain.
Just because people have a chip on the shoulder about Christians on this board doesn't make them right.

Slavery was a huge part of the abolitionist movement, but it was also a very important part of the pro-slavery movement.

Religion is used for and for bad. Accept this and move on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:You can throw out that the Mormons pumped money into campaign ads. but you do realize that the No on 8 crowd outspent the Yes on 8 crowd, right? So your point is beyond useless.
(other than to be biased against religion, which is okay, right?)

It costs way less money to get people to be afraid of a boogeyman, than it does to support the rights of another human being.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:More money means nothing.
But I am not the one saying mormons 'bought' prop 8. Money does not determine votes.

Of course it doesn't, and that's why politicians never bother advertising on tv.

Be sensible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Children are not able to independently decide on sexual matters. We live in an society with an age of consent law. If you argue that teenagers can (and should) explore sexuality, why have an age of consent law? You are, in fact, saying teenager may consent to sexual activities.

Umm, the point of the age of consent is that by the time they've reached that age they've learnt about sex and had discussions on the subject

"Judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin." MLK was a brilliant man.
We probably shouldn't even be saying skin colors.

He certainly was brilliant. But pretending our understanding of race relations hasn't progressed since him is as stupid as pretending our understanding of evolution hasn't progressed since Darwin. The idea that we can just decide to not mention skin, or gender preference, and then everything will work out just fine just doesn't make any sense when you look at what we've learned since MLK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Should we explore the deep aspects of Abraham Lincoln's christian beliefs? it played a big part in his work to free slaves. How would you feel if students were learning in-depth Christian theology in a history class? Against it, right? Not that Christian theology is wrong and shameful, but it does not belong in a history class! Right?

We absolutely should teach that. This idea you're trying to make that there isn't time to study the lives and beliefs of great people, and how their circumstances and beliefs led to them doing great things is just completely bizarre.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:i am saying that high school level history classes do not study persons. They study broad eras in history.

The problem is that you simply cannot teach history without teaching about the people at the centre of it. You cannot teach modern Chinese history without teaching about Sun Yat Sen, Chiang Kai Shek or Mao.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:DarkPrince010 - We have very different ideas as to the purpose of school.

I thought it was to educate. Social engineering should not rear its ugly head there.

No, the issue is that you have an entirely fantastical idea about what education is. Education, information, knowledge, is not politically neutral and cannot be.

What is the point of understanding history if it doesn't challenge our views about the world operates?

I'm probably the only openly gay TG/S on this forum and I'm thinking “Huh?”
Both arguments have there merits and flaws.
In the context of a history lesson a brief two lines could/should be given to the person in question, unless it is the subject of social history which should be run at the same time as the historical time period.
I believe that all major social historic events should be covered, the stonewall riots, the suffragettes, and the road to social and personal equality for all.
How such a course would be run is questionable as I'm not sure how it could be done. If any thing it is not to promote a type of "sexual preference" but more of "not to be a d**k as every one is in the same boat as you" sort of thing.
(Note* I write this as I remove last nights make up and suffer from a hangover induced by living it up Gay. )

It's simple, guys: if students in California( or any other state) are doing badly, the Californian school board should concentrate on improving the curriculum they use, NOT devoting a whole chunk of a history class to the study of one particular group, no matter what.

Frankly, I don't think a persons orientation should be brought up in a public school curriculum. AFAIK, last time I heard, public schools where supposed to be a NEUTRAL environment. Bringing up a historical figures orientation is just begging for partisan friction.

My thoughts are like this: If you are gay/lesbian, guess what? It doesn't matter to me one BIT. If your are Bi? I really don't care! If your Heterosexual, hey, so what? A persons orientation does not matter to me, what matters to me is the content of the character. If your a good, honest person, your orientation won't change that.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Frankly, I don't think a persons orientation should be brought up in a public school curriculum.

I don't think people should hate tohers based on sexual orientation to begin with, but they do. What you suggest basically just means a continuation of the current levels of abuse GBLT teens receive.

Schools aren't neutral environments. They're LEARNING environments.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:It's simple, guys: if students in California( or any other state) are doing badly, the Californian school board should concentrate on improving the curriculum they use, NOT devoting a whole chunk of a history class to the study of one particular group, no matter what.

Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
Frankly, I don't think a persons orientation should be brought up in a public school curriculum. AFAIK, last time I heard, public schools where supposed to be a NEUTRAL environment. Bringing up a historical figures orientation is just begging for partisan friction.

While neutral environments can exist, when they come about they tend not to stay that way.

And, when you're environment pertains to something as broad as education, you're always going to ruffle feathers. Just ask the Young Earth people.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:My thoughts are like this: If you are gay/lesbian, guess what? It doesn't matter to me one BIT. If your are Bi? I really don't care! If your Heterosexual, hey, so what? A persons orientation does not matter to me, what matters to me is the content of the character. If your a good, honest person, your orientation won't change that.

But almost no-one is born a good, honest person. We are typically afraid or critical of things we don't understand. It takes knowledge to change that.

Ribon Fox wrote:I'm probably the only openly gay TG/S on this forum and I'm thinking “Huh?”
Both arguments have there merits and flaws.
In the context of a history lesson a brief two lines could/should be given to the person in question, unless it is the subject of social history which should be run at the same time as the historical time period.
I believe that all major social historic events should be covered, the stonewall riots, the suffragettes, and the road to social and personal equality for all.
How such a course would be run is questionable as I'm not sure how it could be done. If any thing it is not to promote a type of "sexual preference" but more of "not to be a d**k as every one is in the same boat as you" sort of thing.
(Note* I write this as I remove last nights make up and suffer from a hangover induced by living it up Gay. )

+1 to this.... except I'm straight and such... and no make up

education isn't about indoctrination, its about being exposed to as many things as possible and learning how to learn about things you don't know

frgsinwntr wrote:education isn't about indoctrination

That's news to me. When did this happen?

frgsinwntr wrote:education isn't about indoctrination, its about being exposed to as many things as possible and learning how to learn about things you don't know

Exactly what is the clear and definite dividing line between those two things?

frgsinwntr wrote:
education isn't about indoctrination, its about being exposed to as many things as possible and learning how to learn about things you don't know

So, its about indoctrination.

Learning that thing X is thing X and not thing Z is indoctrination. So is the whole process education of "learning how to learn."