The W
Views: 101379254
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
17.12.07 2209
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Is this appropriate?
This thread has 4 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
(1589 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (14 total)
Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 142/330
EXP: 396151
For next: 8624

Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3888 days
Last activity: 2954 days
#1 Posted on 29.5.03 2328.49
Reposted on: 29.5.10 2329.03
http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_queering_the_schools.html

I am a libertarian, and I believe that gays should have the right to marry, etc, but do we really need this in public schools? With so many kids unable to read, can't these schools try focusing on that instead of social engineering?
Promote this thread!
Vega14k
Cotechino
Level: 22

Posts: 82/86
EXP: 51931
For next: 6420

Since: 10.5.03

Since last post: 4219 days
Last activity: 4005 days
#2 Posted on 30.5.03 0106.36
Reposted on: 30.5.10 0106.51
. . . truly bizzare . . .

and more than a little disturbing. I myself am a homosexual, and have always been of the belief that a person's sexuality is inherited in some way - this business of "queer theory" is not something I've ever heard of, and given the fact that I believe science has found multiple physiological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals, as well as male homosexuality's relation to birthing patterns, as well as a host of very personal reasons, I find it somewhat dubious, to say the least.

In addition, I was raised Lutheran (and I truly WAS Lutheran - that is, I really was of the Lutheran faith, not just 'raised' that way) and I can assure anyone, my homosexuality was never nurtured nor was it a choice, nor was it *wanted,* - I can ASSURE you of that. I spent my high school years in a rather suicidal state because of my homosexuality and my problems accepting it. (I eventually found peace with my sexuality and have become a happy person ever since.)

I personally believe that there is a lot more bisexuality in the world than most people realize - and this confusion over the difference between bisexuality and homosexuality is at the root of the question: "Is sexuality a choice?" I am a homosexual, and this was not a choice - this much I know to be true. If a person is bisexual - there may be some "choices" there, I don't know, but only in so far as choosing what they physically practice, not choosing who they are attracted to.

Also, I believe it is a folly to think that bisexuality is 50/50. Many bisexuals are much more attracted to one sex than the other. For many bisexuals, they are mostly attracted to the opposite sex, but occasionally experience attraction to the same sex (and vice versa). This may account for some people believing their sexuality "changes," only because they are experiencing a part of their sexuality that was always there but not yet "aroused."

I can, however, only speculate on the issue of bisexuality, because despite having much contact with bisexuals, all I *really* know is my own sexuality and not anyone elses. (I really wish more people would adopt this philosophy, rather than pretending they definitively know the answer to everyone's sexuality.)

It's things like the subject of this article that make people think we're all a bunch of sex-crazed pervs, and that hurts. I agree with promoting the idea of gay rights, of course, but this seems all a little bit too much - if the article is accurate.

I would also like to point out, too, that these activist groups rarely represent the majority of the people they are supposed to represent. GLAAD goes overboard and I'm not surprised to learn that GLESN does too.

Extremist politics, no matter how you slice it, suck in a big way. I'll probably have more to say later, but for now, I need some sleep before before i think about this again.

(edited by Vega14k on 30.5.03 0248)

(edited by Vega14k on 30.5.03 0320)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1532/4700
EXP: 21716963
For next: 119699

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1325 days
Last activity: 1122 days
#3 Posted on 30.5.03 0615.00
Reposted on: 30.5.10 0615.04

    Originally posted by Vega14k
    I would also like to point out, too, that these activist groups rarely represent the majority of the people they are supposed to represent. GLAAD goes overboard and I'm not surprised to learn that GLESN does too.

That is a great point. I tend to think that the majority of "mainstream" America doesn't really care one way or the other what homosexuals do on their own. As I've said before, it's not my bag but more power for those it is.

The problem is that GLADD and apparently GLSEN are shooting themselves in the foot. By aggressively pushing the "queer theory" agenda all they are doing is alienating those people who might have been originally supportive or indifferent to gay issues. When something is pushed down's peoples throats, they tend to react very negatively.

And as far as some of the materials they're using, if it were my kid I'd try to bring up charges of distributing child pornography.
-proletarian-
Chipolata
Level: 25

Posts: 53/123
EXP: 88930
For next: 691

Since: 29.4.03

Since last post: 4112 days
Last activity: 4111 days
#4 Posted on 30.5.03 1224.10
Reposted on: 30.5.10 1229.11
The government doesn't belong in the nation's bedrooms. So long as 2 consenting adults are involved, anything goes, if you ask me. Gays want to marry? Go ahead. However, I draw the line at actively promoting homosexuality to kids in school. I don't believe that being gay is a choice, as everyone I have ever spoken to (who are gay) tell me the same thing over and over; they were born that way, and only realized their sexuality upon entering puberty.


And the whole "God doesn't like gays" argument holds no water with me. If someone out there wants to persecute gays based upon what the bible says, they should first consider another tidbit to come from the good book; "let he without sin cast the first stone" (or something like that, anyways )

I never understood the Christian right when it comes to questions of morality. If being gay is a sin, why should they care? If that's what they really believe, then won't God just send the gays to hell? Why do others feel the need to get involved in their lives? Do they believe that God will send THEM to hell unless they try to "mend" the gay person's ways? I dunno, it just sounds like one huge excuse for micromanaging other peoples' lives to me.

And this comes from the very group of people who will howl bloody murder about "government meddling" in their lives, but who are more than happy for government to legislate how a person can or can not live their lives. Weird.......
bash91
Merguez
Level: 55

Posts: 147/711
EXP: 1304226
For next: 9972

Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 854 days
Last activity: 1 day
#5 Posted on 31.5.03 1249.15
Reposted on: 31.5.10 1249.53

    Originally posted by -proletarian-
    I never understood the Christian right when it comes to questions of morality. If being gay is a sin, why should they care? If that's what they really believe, then won't God just send the gays to hell? Why do others feel the need to get involved in their lives? Do they believe that God will send THEM to hell unless they try to "mend" the gay person's ways? I dunno, it just sounds like one huge excuse for micromanaging other peoples' lives to me.

    And this comes from the very group of people who will howl bloody murder about "government meddling" in their lives, but who are more than happy for government to legislate how a person can or can not live their lives. Weird.......



Well, a short and slightly sarcastic response would be that Conservatives want the government to control everything but their businesses and bank accounts, Liberals want the government to control everything but their bedrooms, and Libertarians think that they are both full of it.

A more serious answer is that there is a serious perspectival gap between the behavior you are ascribing to many Christians and how they view their activities. From a Christian perspective, we are obligated(see Matthew 28:18-20)to spread and share the Gospel. As part of the "Great Commission", Christians are instructed to "teach all nations... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Given this commission/commandment, the Christian has no choice but to try and reach those who are sinning. (Now, there are differences about how to interpret Scripture in regards to homosexuality but I'm referring in this answer to mainstream fundamentalist (and no, that is not an oxymoron) churches and doctrine.) If the sinner isn't reached, they may indeed be bound for Hell, but that isn't the desired outcome for anyone. The Christian would far rather redeem than condemn.

Leviticus 19:18 commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Consequently, from this and other passages that I won't cite unless you really want them, we are commanded to try and teach and redeem our neighbor from sin. You are right in noting John 8:7 as a prohibition against persecuting or condemning the sinner, but it says nothing about judging and condemning the sin. Indeed, while we are instructed in Galatians 6:1 to be humble and gentle in our reproof to the sinner about their sins for the next time it may be me who needs reproof about my transgressions, we are still to hate and condemn the sin, no matter how gently we reprove the sinner.

While I could go on, I'll end by saying that what you see as "one huge excuse for micromanaging other peoples' lives", many Christians view as a commandment from Christ.

Tim

PS. I'm fully aware that there are hypocrites, idiots, and those who claim to be Christian out there who willingly misapply or misread Scripture in order to justify persecuting the sinner, but they don't represent the silent majority of Christians.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 89

Posts: 1341/2111
EXP: 6669235
For next: 246693

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#6 Posted on 31.5.03 1320.54
Reposted on: 31.5.10 1322.09
It is always intersting to read something you're used to reading from a different perspective.

I personally am all for the gender/sexuality revolution. I, of course, don't think 5-year-olds have a place in such revolution, but I also think you need to take an article on a random website with an agenda with a big grain of salt. Nobody is teaching 8-year-olds how to fist (which I highly doubt was just invented recently by the way).

Anyway, read their statement and peruse the website and make up our own mind - Click Here (glsen.org)

That article does what anti-anything-but-the-missionary-position-between-married-people-wanting-to-make-babies folks have been doing forever: equating different kinds of personal relationships and identity with having a lot of wierd sex with children, which is not what anyone is advocating. Weird sex - yes (I personally think the more ways of having sex the better). Lots of sex - well, any teenager worth his or her salt is going to do it as much as they can, regardless of whether they're straight, gay, or whatever. With children - come on folks, this really smacks of the whole "liberals love Saddam" bullshit. When you can't make an argument, just say imply your opponent is a child molester, racist, or unpatriotic.

I think all different gender expressions and families should be given the same respect as the one Phyllis Schlaffely favors. I think there's not enough love in the world, and we should celebrate and support it when there is (even if I do sound like an flower-child Oberlin professor). I personally love the definition of family that they put forth (“Family: Two or more persons who share resources, share responsibility for decisions, share values and goals, and have commitments to one another over a period of time . . . regardless of blood, or adoption, or marriage.”) - and think the world would be a hell of a lot better place if this were considered a fanily while a household where the husband beats the shit out of his wife and kids wasn't.

I also think people should get their freak on in the biggest way they can (safely! of course) between the approximate ages of 19 - 25. I have yet to see anyone with a healthy sense of self and a knowledge of safe sex hurt by getting freaky in whatever way they think might be fun.

cfgb
Bierwurst
Level: 83

Posts: 850/1806
EXP: 5279899
For next: 152345

Since: 2.1.02
From: Ottawa, Ontario

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 31 min.
#7 Posted on 1.6.03 2007.13
Reposted on: 1.6.10 2010.03
I don't wish to sound close-minded on the issue - but frankly having read that, the group in question should be kept out of schools. Elementary, middle, high, and even post-secondary.

Just the same as any group that encourages any form of sexual experimentation should not be allowed in public forums where the audience are not neccessarily there on free will.

I believe in open-minded discussion in regards to sexual orientation and the like; and it's a topic that high schools should feel open to talk about in the appropriate classrooms. I was unfortunate to go to a small redneck high school with less than 100 students to cover Grades 7-11, and when we did have some "health" discussions (on our own time, during lunch if you WANTED to attend), the talk of homosexuality was ALWAYS immediately squashed by our ever conservative principal - though based on attitudes from parents on the area, I can't really blame her.

However, I would deem that discussion appropriate.

I simply cannot justify under any circumstances people encouraging kids to do one thing or another - ESPECIALLY engaging in more sexual activity at that age, when we should be hammering home birth control, safe sex, and the other important issues to reduce life-changing accidents when you're still young enough to think you're invicible.

But that's me.
Scott Summets
Sujuk
Level: 64

Posts: 794/1008
EXP: 2160304
For next: 53805

Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3961 days
Last activity: 3929 days
#8 Posted on 3.6.03 0003.13
Reposted on: 3.6.10 0004.19
Vega, good post and I honestly think that GLAAD and some similar groups honestly can harm the gay community more than help it. I was in London for a huge gay parade, and it seemed to be a huge section of the fringe of the gay community, the stereotypical leather freaks and huge butch women basically thumbing their noses at the world. The gay people I have encountered in life for the most part have been good people (not all gay people are good people, just like not all straight people are either). I think gay relations with the more aggresive, racist, straight section of the world would be better if the world saw gay people as what they are--normal functioning beings, rather than what extremist groups push onto the public.
NEO
Salami
Level: 33

Posts: 152/217
EXP: 219605
For next: 9577

Since: 15.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 3895 days
Last activity: 3895 days
#9 Posted on 3.6.03 0737.12
Reposted on: 3.6.10 0738.14
Truly a brave new age that we're going into, yes? I hate to say it but it is inevitable. Our children are going to have to learn about that eventually.

It's pretty simple to me. I think homosexuality is NOT something you are born with, I think it is an unclean spirit or like a drug addiction.

All babies come out sounding the same, and there are no other species in the world that has gays, is there? Somehow it is conditioned psychologically. Some people treat it like a special gift or something. I really don't care for public affection and stuff. But to each, his own, I don't want to offend anybody.

I don't have anything against gays, but I'd rather DADT. It is between them and their God. Cuz realisticly, some people are gay and you don't even know it. I have come to realize and accept this. But the concept should not be forced on our children. I 2nd that motion of pressing charges or even taking my kid out out of that school or something.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1289/1759
EXP: 4960508
For next: 32362

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1371 days
Last activity: 137 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on 3.6.03 1522.54
Reposted on: 3.6.10 1524.14
    Originally posted by NEO
    Truly a brave new age that we're going into, yes? I hate to say it but it is inevitable. Our children are going to have to learn about that eventually.

    It's pretty simple to me. I think homosexuality is NOT something you are born with, I think it is an unclean spirit or like a drug addiction.

    All babies come out sounding the same, and there are no other species in the world that has gays, is there? Somehow it is conditioned psychologically. Some people treat it like a special gift or something. I really don't care for public affection and stuff. But to each, his own, I don't want to offend anybody.

    I don't have anything against gays, but I'd rather DADT. It is between them and their God. Cuz realisticly, some people are gay and you don't even know it. I have come to realize and accept this. But the concept should not be forced on our children. I 2nd that motion of pressing charges or even taking my kid out out of that school or something.



Thats a pretty uninformed opinion. There is strong scientific evidence that homosexuality is caused by either a chemical problem, or by defective genes.

Also, each and every mammalian species on earth has documented incidences of homosexuality. Not only is to natural, but perfectly NORMAL for a percentage of mammals, humans included, to be homosexual.

Whether or not you think the act of sex with a member of your own gender is a sin or not, does not change the fact that homosexuality is natural, and therefore, if you believe in God, it was created by God. This relagates the "sin" of homosexuality down from "horrific abomination" right down to "coveting, adultery, theft, and misrepresentation," sins your average christian seems to have little problem with today.

While I have no issues with the rights of homosexuals, I do not feel it should be taught in schools in the manner it is. It should be presented to them, but in a wholy factual matter. What is it, what causes it, etc. Not a happy "10% of you will choose to be gay, isn't that wonderful!"


(edited by Pool-Boy on 3.6.03 1325)
NEO
Salami
Level: 33

Posts: 153/217
EXP: 219605
For next: 9577

Since: 15.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 3895 days
Last activity: 3895 days
#11 Posted on 4.6.03 0639.35
Reposted on: 4.6.10 0641.26
Thank you for not blowin up or nothing. I appreciate the informative post.

Now I try to approach everything with an open mind. And I can admit that I really don't know too much about the subject.

I think it's pretty interesting that there have been cases of homosexual types in species other than humans. Kinda shocking really. Besides that dog on South Park, I never heard of it. Maybe primates I figured but....that's pretty wild.

So if you or anyone else would like to take some time out to elaborate a little or point me in the right direction. I'd like to know a little more. Not to get a "green-light" or anything, but just to be more educated.
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 141/810
EXP: 1533189
For next: 44366

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 162 days
Last activity: 2 days
#12 Posted on 4.6.03 1050.27
Reposted on: 4.6.10 1051.09
Whether or not you think the act of sex with a member of your own gender is a sin or not, does not change the fact that homosexuality is natural, and therefore, if you believe in God, it was created by God. This relegates the "sin" of homosexuality down from "horrific abomination" right down to "coveting, adultery, theft, and misrepresentation," sins your average christian seems to have little problem with today.

I don't even know where to begin on this paragraph. So, are you arguing that anyone who believes in God should believe that everything that happens on earth 'naturally' (whatever that means) was created by God? If so, does that mean that God thinks it is ok, therefore meaning that it is not a sin? One obvious example is sex. Everyone agrees that a sex drive is natural, but people (religious and nonreligious) make moral judgements about the appropriateness of different sexual activities. So, most people would argue that sex is natural, but cheating on your spouse or partner is morally wrong (to give an obvious example). To take things one step further, any mainstream Christian denomination would say that sex outside of a marital relationship is objectively, morally wrong. Unless that denomination recognizes homosexual unions, any sexual activity would be occurring outside of a marriage and would therefore be objectively, morally wrong.

Also, I don’t know your education, training or profession, but I suspect that you don’t have the moral or theological authority to ‘relegate’ homosexuality to the ‘normal’ sins that the ‘average’ Christian ‘seems to have little problem with.’ Again, I would argue that any mainstream Christian denomination would refer to the practice of homosexuality (but not the fact that someone is a homosexual) as a sin and would argue that theft, misrepresentation, adultery and coveting are also sins and should not be done. You’ll have to give me an example of a mainstream Christian denomination that has ‘little problem’ with those actions and does not feel that they are sins. Personally, I would argue that adultery would rank as a pretty ‘horrific abomination’, but that’s neither here nor there.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1290/1759
EXP: 4960508
For next: 32362

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1371 days
Last activity: 137 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#13 Posted on 4.6.03 1253.08
Reposted on: 4.6.10 1253.11
I never claimed that because God created homosexuals, that homosexual sex is theologically OK. I just feel that there is a separation between homosexuality and the act of sex. There is no clearer example of "love the sinner, hate the sin" than this. If homosexuality is natural, meaning that a condition exists in some humans where they are attracted to a member of the same sex- it cannot be sinful to BE a homosexual. If you are indeed born that way, there is nothing at all you can do about it.

On the other hand, the ACT of sex with a member of your gender is considered sinful. Now a normal Christian standard is that we are not supposed to judge, rather, God is. Even that aside-

When it comes down to it, it is innocent until proven guilty. If you are a Christian and view same-gender intercourse as a sin, and you encounter a homosexual, why just ASSUME that they are a sinner? There are celibate homosexuals. You see a homosexual couple, maybe they are in love, but forswore sex? You may consider this unlikely, but unless you either catch them, or they admit it to you openly, you have no way of knowing if they had sinned.

So why should we exclude an entire group of humanity with a defect of sorts (that is not malicious, one might consider the lack of desire to create offspring a defect), just because they have the potential to be sinful? We ALL have that potential. That was my point about adultery and theft and the like. Church authorities OF COURSE view all of these things as sinful and wrong, but your average, run-of-the-mill Christian is often dismissive of many sins. But to many, if you even have the potential to have same-gender sex, you are viewed with utter scorn. When stacking that attitude up with typical "Christian values," and the behavior of your average Christian, I view this as quite hypocritical.


(edited by Pool-Boy on 4.6.03 1054)
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 99/449
EXP: 651076
For next: 9093

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 601 days
Last activity: 468 days
AIM:  
#14 Posted on 4.6.03 1411.49
Reposted on: 4.6.10 1413.15
Hey, look at that, I agree with Pool Boy. I am myself a Christian who thinks homosexuals and homosexuality should be treated equally. One issue of concern to me is that there has been a decent amount of change from the Greek Bible verses to the King James Bible verses. This includes at least more anti-women verses. Personally, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it included more anti-homosexual verses. I don't know one way or the other. All I can do is make sure I love all people as they are.

But I agree in one respect. The promotion of any kind sexuality should not be taught in schools. This includes heterosexuality, however. Anymore, schools do basically promote heterosexuality. When they talk about sexuality, such phrases as "Eventually, a man will fall in love with a woman" when talking about safe sex. This phrase is a direct assertion that a man falling in love with a woman is normal and nothing else is. I don't feel it's the school's role to say this anymore then it's their role to say homosexuality is normal.

The only role of the school should be promoting abstinance, safety and education. As Pool Boy said, explain what a certain sexuality is, but also teach the dangers that go along with sex, any sex.

ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: FCC Lifts Restrictions
Next thread: As if NYC doesn't have enough problems....
Previous thread: Something to think about regarding Space Travel
(1589 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Is this appropriate?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.225 seconds.