bradlyallen2
Well-Known Member
The bible is already homophobic hate literature, no need to view it as such through the prop 8 filter.
Is Gay Marriage Really That Big Deal?
- Thread starter joepro
- Start date
Seamaiden
Well-Known Member
There is no way the teachers could have taken those children off premises without specific permission, Vi. A note is sent home outlining the purpose of the field trip, where it's to take place, when, how the kids are to be transported (I probably would have been one of the moms to go along), in very specific detail. Are you saying that they fooled the parents of these kids into agreeing to let their kids be indoctrinated?? If so, you're flat out wrong, and I call bullshit. You are displaying that you don't know how a simple field trip is handled by schools, public and otherwise. There is no way this could happen without parents' full knowledge and consent. Explain to me, in fact explain to us all how this would happen against a parent's will, considering how these things are done at all schools, please.
Your argument is... weak, Vi. It holds absolutely no water.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Actually, there is a possible situation, under which Vi's argument would hold water. If the teacher failed to adequately disclose all the details.
ViRedd
New Member
I'm thinkin' that maybe the parents WERE told of the field trip, but that it was promoted as a trip to the circus freak show. But then, in San Francisco, they have a transvestite city council member who dresses in drag for the meetings at city hall and a mayor who promotes free condoms and butt lube for his constituents attending the San Francisco bath houses ... so you never know.
Now then, all seriousness aside, you didn't answer the questions:
If Prop. 8 is passed, and parents speak out against this type of indoctrination, would they be sued/prosecuted for "hate speech?" If Prop. 8 is passed, and churches/pastors speak out against homosexuality, will they lose their tax-free status? Will the Bible be banned as homophobic hate literature?
Vi
Seamaiden
Well-Known Member
Yes, let's address this, in all seriousness. First, let's begin with what seems to be, from everything I have looked at and read, a mistaken premise. This is that children would be "taught homosexuality" in schools. Where does Prop. 8 address this, either way?I'm thinkin' that maybe the parents WERE told of the field trip, but that it was promoted as a trip to the circus freak show. But then, in San Francisco, they have a transvestite city council member who dresses in drag for the meetings at city hall and a mayor who promotes free condoms and butt lube for his constituents attending the San Francisco bath houses ... so you never know.
Now then, all seriousness aside, you didn't answer the questions:
If Prop. 8 is passed, and parents speak out against this type of indoctrination, would they be sued/prosecuted for "hate speech?" If Prop. 8 is passed, and churches/pastors speak out against homosexuality, will they lose their tax-free status? Will the Bible be banned as homophobic hate literature?
Vi
Second, what is to prevent the scenarios you are suggesting the passing of 8 would prevent from happening in the first place? At this time, there is nothing. So, I ask you and anyone else who believes the propaganda, if it hasn't happened yet, why do we need this sort of "preventative"? What we need is for more parents to get the fuck off their lazy God damned asses and PAY THE FUCK ATTENTION to what's happening to your kids in school. Gee, which would Seamaiden rather for her kids? A gay teacher who can spell, or a straight teacher who can't? Why do we have teachers WHO CAN'T SPELL teaching our kids?? This is a real and now problem. I, fortunately, no longer have to deal with it so directly as both my boys have graduated. But I have nephews, a niece and a granddaughter. And, I hope, a future.
Third, why not start having churches kick into the kitty? We, collectively, need the cash, and if you've seen any of the ginormous complexes, all built with parishioner dollars, that some churches are able to build completely and entirely tax-free, then you might agree that treating them like, say, gaming Indian tribes, might not be such a bad deal.
Fourth, you fail entirely to address the fact of the matter, which is that field trips do not happen without a very detailed description of events provided for parents. Even if the description is not detailed, is it so wrong to think that some onus lies with parents who are considering giving permission to ask a simple question, if anything is unclear? Liability in SF cannot, legally, be all that different from liability in, say, New York. Schools still face the same issues. The real issue I see here is a disgust with the idea of homosexuality, which engenders a sense of outrage with the idea of "little kids, first graders even!" being introduced to the idea of a more unorthodox type of love.
So, yes, let's address this in all seriousness. Fully and completely.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Are you prepared to let them have control of the curriculum too then?
I disagree, Public Education is a dismal failure at any rate, and needs to be axed, or at least opened to competition. Maybe with their jobs on the line the teachers will stop raping students, and start teaching students.
Of course, there are other reforms that would also make the education system better. One would be giving principals the ability to hire and fire instead of letting it reside in the board. The principals are like general managers. They are the one's that are responsible for making sure the schools are doing their job. If they don't have the ability to do that, then what's the point of their position, besides cheerleading and figure-heading?
misshestermoffitt
New Member
Kids already know about homosexuality. They speak to each other on the playground. They are fully aware that Sally has 2 Dads and John has 2 moms and most of the time the kids don't have a problem with it. It's the parents that hand down their values of hate that cause the problems.
lopezri
Well-Known Member
LOL!!! Wow! I even had to laugh at that and I'm one of those circus freaks!I'm thinkin' that maybe the parents WERE told of the field trip, but that it was promoted as a trip to the circus freak show. But then, in San Francisco, they have a transvestite city council member who dresses in drag for the meetings at city hall and a mayor who promotes free condoms and butt lube for his constituents attending the San Francisco bath houses ... so you never know.
Vi
But seriously. . . aside from the indoctrination (which needs to be left out of the public school system, but the Democrats continue to insist on using it for their own means,) I'd just be upset that my hard earned income, which was redistributed in the form of tax dollars, was spent on such a ridiculous trip. Just because the school is granted those dollars doesn't mean that they have to go around spending frivoulously. Those dollars could have been well spent on textbooks, etc. Not on some stupid trip to show children it's okay for two women to lock lips.
ccodiane
New Member
Excellent points Lo. How much does it cost to gas up a bus nowadays? In addition, I'd like to know what these kids, on average, score on their next math test, missed day and all?
School was for education, what parents were for values. That's what I've been told, anyhow.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
What does Mom have to say about Leviticus 20:13?
Does she think gays should be killed? That's what the bible says.
Marriage stabilizes society. Elizabeth Taylor has done more damage to the institution of marriage than two gay dudes ever will.
ccodiane
New Member
States rights. Start a petition; vote on a referendum. Win. It's that easy.I personaly have no issue with anyone whos gay.
It's as gross as two uglys or fatties displaying their love.
Don't know why some feel they own the patent on marriage?
How can a state enforce such a sexist practice?
(I can get fired from my job for the telling of a gay joke)
Is there not more then one form for christian marriage already?olygamy?
Marriage is a social, religious,spiritual, or legal union of human individuals.
Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The reasons givin from the right are sooooo ludicrous.
I herd today a few new reasons, schools will have to rewrite books, churches will get sued for hate speech???
Have to say it's better then the argument of 'why not a man and a animal then.'
Heres a few more reasons, i thought was funny.
12 Reasons | Gator Gay-Straight Alliance
- Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
- Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
- Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
- Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
- Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
- Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
- Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
- Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
- Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
- Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
- Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
- Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians
K
Keenly
Guest
like i said, closed minded,
no matter how bad she is proven wrong some how she is still right
i dont know how this works in her brain
ccodiane
New Member
Good thing she's "pro-life" then, huh.
ccodiane
New Member
Maybe, but what about the mortgage debacle (housing institution)?
FOXNews.com - Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
WASHINGTON — Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s.
Excerpts-
So did Frank’s partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions.
yada yada
"If this had been his ex-wife and he was Republican, I would bet every penny I have - or at least what’s not in the stock market - that this would be considered germane," added Gainor, a T. Boone Pickens Fellow. "But everybody wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard."
ViRedd
New Member
Well, thanks for seeing the humor in my post, lopezri. And I assure you, it was meant in fun.
Having a number of Gay friends, both women and men, I know for sure that they are not all liberal kooks. In fact, some of them are to the right of Darth Vader. And why not? They make great money, work their asses off to make it, and they hate to see the looters plunder it away in the form of taxes.
On the issue at hand though ... with the condition of education in this country, "Heather has two mommies" should be the last thing on the educational list. How about reading, writing and 'rithmatic first, then unwashed history after that?
Vi
VTXDave
Well-Known Member
Vi...Do you really want to go there? I'm prepared to grapple. Are you?I'm thinkin' that maybe the parents WERE told of the field trip, but that it was promoted as a trip to the circus freak show. But then, in San Francisco, they have a transvestite city council member who dresses in drag for the meetings at city hall and a mayor who promotes free condoms and butt lube for his constituents attending the San Francisco bath houses ... so you never know.
Now then, all seriousness aside, you didn't answer the questions:
If Prop. 8 is passed, and parents speak out against this type of indoctrination, would they be sued/prosecuted for "hate speech?" If Prop. 8 is passed, and churches/pastors speak out against homosexuality, will they lose their tax-free status? Will the Bible be banned as homophobic hate literature?
Vi
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
It's an interesting point, but to me all it proves is that graft and corruption are equal opportunity vices.
However, I do agree that Rep. Frank's partner should be scrutinized as thoroughly as anyone else. Like the marriage issue, the homosexuality is irrelevant.
lopezri
Well-Known Member
I agree Vi. I have my degree in education and I have to tell you, not once during my college education did we learn that we should be indoctrinating children on the idea of sexuality. Now I did have some professors who were leaning toward liberalism but you could tell who they were by their race and/or nationality. Isn't that sadWell, thanks for seeing the humor in my post, lopezri. And I assure you, it was meant in fun.
Having a number of Gay friends, both women and men, I know for sure that they are not all liberal kooks. In fact, some of them are to the right of Darth Vader. And why not? They make great money, work their asses off to make it, and they hate to see the looters plunder it away in the form of taxes.
On the issue at hand though ... with the condition of education in this country, "Heather has two mommies" should be the last thing on the educational list. How about reading, writing and 'rithmatic first, then unwashed history after that?
Vi
! And even though I'm into sucking dick I still don't think that is something we should be exposing our children to. They'll figure it out on their own. My nieces and nephews did and they seem to be coming around just fine without having it shoved in their faces. As far as gay people not being liberal, good for them! It's a good indication that they aren't allowing the media to do their thinking for them. I've been described as being slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun and that doesn't bother me in the least. At least I'm showing that I have SOME morals and principles. I'm surprised that there are people out there that think that agreeing with everything that is available is more acceptable than having some restraint. Progress is good, but moving to fast is just a disaster waiting to happen. We should have learned from history that jumping into things doesn't work out as well as having some restraint and observing what might happen first.
History has shown that what works best is to let Europe progress with social issues first and the U.S. can follow. Let the U.S. progress with technology and medicine and let the rest of the world follow.
ccodiane
New Member
I agree wholeheartedly. However, one belongs in the courts; one doesn't. (hint, hint...
...criminal courts)
ccodiane
New Member
They'll figure it out on their own. My nieces and nephews did and they seem to be coming around just fine without having it shoved in their faces.I agree Vi. I have my degree in education and I have to tell you, not once during my college education did we learn that we should be indoctrinating children on the idea of sexuality. Now I did have some professors who were leaning toward liberalism but you could tell who they were by their race and/or nationality. Isn't that sad
As far as gay people not being liberal, good for them! It's a good indication that they aren't allowing the media to do their thinking for them. I've been described as being slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun and that doesn't bother me in the least. At least I'm showing that I have SOME morals and principles. I'm surprised that there are people out there that think that agreeing with everything that is available is more acceptable than having some restraint. Progress is good, but moving to fast is just a disaster waiting to happen. We should have learned from history that jumping into things doesn't work out as well as having some restraint and observing what might happen first.
History has shown that what works best is to let Europe progress with social issues first and the U.S. can follow. Let the U.S. progress with technology and medicine and let the rest of the world follow.
Ummmm?No pun intended?....
.... I like the way you think Lo. I was thinkin' today. The traditional definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are outdated. "Liberals" are, "You don't judge me!, and, I won't judge you!".....and then they walk away and judge each other. Conservatives say, "You judge me, and, I'll judge you." They walk away knowing they set a standard for themselves. When this exchange of ideas happens, character is revealed.
"Liberal" - "Don't judge me. I'm not up to the challenge."
......or........
"Conservative" - "Judge me. I'm up to the challenge."