Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » California invites Satan to dine with their children (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: California invites Satan to dine with their children
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In a related bill involving employment instead of education, it specifically excludes showers or dressing facilities.

quote:
(3) CERTAIN SHARED FACILITIES- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to establish an unlawful employment practice based on actual or perceived gender identity due to the denial of access to shared shower or dressing facilities in which being seen fully unclothed is unavoidable, provided that the employer provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the employee's gender identity as established with the employer at the time of employment or upon notification to the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is later.
I'm curious as to whether a similar exemption applies to locker rooms where "being seen fully unclothed is unavoidable".
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
To be honest, I don't know how the "perv" situation would be handled, but I don't expect that to actually happen. I doubt you could just show up at school one day in a dress and claim that you are a girl and walk right into the girls' locker room. More likely, the school would require some sort of medical or psychological documentation that a given genetic male truly has a female gender identity.

As was the case with gays in the past, almost no one who grows up with a gender contrary to their genetics shares that fact voluntarily with their peers. This law protects the few brave kids that do share this information, as well as those that are accidentally or involuntarily "outed." I don't see it as a Carte Blanche to sneak into the girls' room.

I agree that it likely wasn't intended as a "Carte Blanche to sneak into the girls' room" but depending on how it was worded, I can imagine it being used in that way. Unfortunately, I can't see where it actually is worded. It may just be my inability to understand all the legalese.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think there will be any kind of perverted payoff from allowing persons of the same "gender" (here meaning their outward identification and behavior, not their chromosomes) to use the same restrooms. I read this as allowing those who are living --as girls-- to use the girls restroom and those living as boys to use the boys room. Not for Billy who identifies as a boy and dresses and acts like a boy to saunter into the locker room to take a gander. I don't think there are many boys "perverted" enough to pretend to be transgendered just so they can go into a girls restroom.

Don't forget it's easy for kids to see pictures of naked bodies these days (which I'm sure is another lament, but just keep it in mind). Even compared to my own recent adolescence, the stuff is vastly easier to access and vastly more abundant. My point being that if someone really feels the need to look...they don't have to go to these lengths.

Anyway, if this even approaches something like freely unisex restrooms and locker rooms, it will certainly be possible (and I think certainly demanded) that sufficient privacy measures are taken to make it a non-issue. Seen "Ally McBeal"? You get over the initially weird feeling of having someone else of the opposite sex in the restroom , and what's the big deal if they can't see you? (And we don't have to look very hard for international examples where bathroom activities are really open to know that human beings can handle it just fine.)

The PC nonsense of having to represent every kind of marriage in a textbook doesn't seem substantiated by the text from the bill that was posted in this thread. If there was really such a requirement, I would be against it, but only as a waste of everyone's time and energy and a substantial insult to the intelligence of the kids...same as any overly enthusiastic PC requirement, like having to write "s/he" all the time. I think we can avoid bigotry without having to go out of our way to recognize and celebrate every variation.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Scifi, I think I'm on the same page as you.

I don't really see this as becoming the big deal that it's made out to be but knowing teenagers tendency to push the limits and many parents' tendency to defend their kids' bad behavior it wouldn't surprise me if some kid sometime decides to be a punk and walk into the girls locker room to talk to his exgirlfriend and then refuse to leave. Some parent somewhere will sue the school when they force him to leave because he's technically legally allowed to go in if he wishes.

And knowing California it could possibly happen more than one once and eventually turn into changing the law again. But again, it all depends on how it's worded which I can't seem to find myself.

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JohnLocke
Member
Member # 68

 - posted      Profile for JohnLocke   Email JohnLocke   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"What's to stop a perverted boy from claiming to be transsexual simply so he can get into the girls' bathroom and locker room?"

Lacking a note from his parents.

Lacking a note from his doctor.

Not having the appearance or even attempting the appearence of being female.

Upperclass females beat him up or otherwise embarrass him.

Too easy.

Posts: 663 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He could disguise himself as a toilet?
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLocke:
"What's to stop a perverted boy from claiming to be transsexual simply so he can get into the girls' bathroom and locker room?"

Lacking a note from his parents.

Lacking a note from his doctor.

Not having the appearance or even attempting the appearence of being female.

Upperclass females beat him up or otherwise embarrass him.

Too easy.

Where does it say it requires a note from his parents and doctor or even an attempt at appearance of being female?

Not that I'm "demanding a link" or anything. I am just really confused reading this stuff and not sure that people are getting it accurate.

[ October 17, 2007, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: LoverOfJoy ]

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Where does it say it requires a note from his parents and doctor or even an attempt at appearance of being female?
It doesn't have to say so. Schools regularly have to make judgments beyond what is in the state law. Local policy would enforce something like that and there doesn't seem to be a prohibition against letting the school make reasonable efforts to verify the veracity of a questionable gender claim.

For instance, there may not be a state law that requires schools to exclude boys from the girls' locker room.

[ October 17, 2007, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The irony of course, is that males in females' facilities are not the problem but, rather, females' in the males' facilities [FootInMouth] !

Have I not reported 6 cases since the publication of Moore's: Who Let Girls in the Boys' Locker Room?

So, until any females around here complain about allowing female sports reporters into pro-players' men's rooms, I suspect that this is just reverse sexism -- again!

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Don't forget it's easy for kids to see pictures of naked bodies these days (which I'm sure is another lament, but just keep it in mind). Even compared to my own recent adolescence, the stuff is vastly easier to access and vastly more abundant. My point being that if someone really feels the need to look...they don't have to go to these lengths.
Ahh, but you're forgetting Hannibal Lechter's first rule: what do we covet, but what we see every day?

I would have traded 1,000 photos of some nameless porn star for a single glance of my high school crush, even in her underwear [Smile]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What puzzles me about this thread is that Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the latest same-sex marriage bill less than a week ago.

quote:
(10-12) 19:02 PDT SACRAMENTO, (AP) --


Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday carried out his promise to continue to veto gay marriage bills.


The Republican governor turned down a measure by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, that would have lifted the state's ban on same-sex marriages by defining marriage as a union between two persons, not just a man and a woman.


Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar Leno bill in 2005.


The governor announced in February that he would veto this year's version if it reached his desk and said last month that he would keep turning down such bills as long as lawmakers kept sending them to him.


"It would be wrong for the people to vote for something and for me to then overturn it," Schwarzenegger said in September, referring to voters' approval of Proposition 22 in 2000. "So they can send this bill down as many times as they want, I won't do it."


Proposition 22 was intended to prevent California from recognizing gay marriages performed in other states or countries.


In his veto message, Schwarzenegger said voters and the state Supreme Court should decide the issue. The high court is likely to rule next year on whether California's ban on gay marriages violates the constitution.


The governor said voters "should then determine what, if any, statutory changes are needed in response to the court's ruling."

So the governor is hardly leading the campaign for the approval of same-sex marriage. But any textbook which says that all Americans think that marriages must be between one man and one woman, or that all existing marriages are so constituted, is simply telling a lie. That is a hotly disputed issue in California today, and state-approved textbooks may not include propaganda for either side on such matters.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What textbooks in California must now include, however, is gay history - my objection to which, of course, is that "gay history" began with Compton's Cafeteria quean riot in August of 1966! B.C. in California means "before California".

California has historical amnesia, gay or straight.

Not unrelated, Maine has just become the 29th state to recognize joint gay adoption rights.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are they going to require all kids to get a note from their parent/doctor or only those that feel they are girls but happen to look masculine and those that feel they are boys that happen to look feminine?

If my boy goes to school in a pink shirt will I have to send a note confirming that I want him to go to the boy's bathroom?

If they don't do it across the board the school may run the risk of being discriminatory depending on the wording of the law.

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If these school kids go to college and wind up in unisex dorms, which is normal nowadays, they'll be confronted with unisex facilities. See the thread on unisex bathrooms -- but note that in the dorm facilities, males and females shower not in stalls but in shower rooms. There's no privacy because there's no reason for it anymore. There never was.

I can remember the horrification, just outside Paducah, when I stript and jumped a cliff into the Cumberland River with some people who'd taken me to their favor watering hole. Hey, when you're biking, bicycling, a bathing costume, beachrobe, and bathing slippers are not in the luggage! This was a culture clash. They were good Christians! They didn't swim in the nude! Suddenly, they were good and I was bad. It's like Americans trying to hit the bars in Rabat!

If these schoolkids go to Europe they shall be confronted by unisex bathrooms -- and no, the urinals have not been eliminated; they hang them on street corners. When it comes to basic functions, men do not want to be inconvenienced.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Regardless, there is a noteable distinction between a woman (even a lesbian) and a boy
That, dear Trout, is a quote of the day [Wink]
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
At some point, Aquinas, religion has got to come to grips with the fact that hermaphrodites were created not by Satan but by God -- just like kids born deaf and dumb and deformed!
Richard, you forgot to add heterosexuals :-P
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
Don't forget it's easy for kids to see pictures of naked bodies these days (which I'm sure is another lament, but just keep it in mind). Even compared to my own recent adolescence, the stuff is vastly easier to access and vastly more abundant. My point being that if someone really feels the need to look...they don't have to go to these lengths.
Ahh, but you're forgetting Hannibal Lechter's first rule: what do we covet, but what we see every day?

I would have traded 1,000 photos of some nameless porn star for a single glance of my high school crush, even in her underwear [Smile]

I agree, I was in junior high more recently then most of you. Real boob is much more valuable than picture boob. It's like cool-currency.

'I've seen two real boobs!'
'Sweet man, I've only seen one! Lets be friends.'

[ October 17, 2007, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: TommySama ]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aquinas:
Matt,

Even people who have no problem with homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality, etc. should be able to see that allowing boys and girls to use the same bathrooms is simply wrong. What's to stop a perverted boy from claiming to be transsexual simply so he can get into the girls' bathroom and locker room?

Getting beaten up by the other boys is what's to stop him. Duh.

Unless of course he's doing it for the lulz, in which case he should be lauded by his peers as a living legend [Smile]

Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cripes! I've even heard of fags on panty raids ... doing it for the lulz!

Boys will be boys, I suppose -- even getting into their panty hose in the girls' locker room!

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
but note that in the dorm facilities, males and females shower not in stalls but in shower rooms. There's no privacy because there's no reason for it anymore. There never was.
AHHHH.... You mean in common shower rooms, together? Seriously Richard, where do you get this stuff from.

We had unisex bathrooms back in university, but we always had separate stalls. It wasn't like Starship Troopers [Smile]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah Richard, I actually stayed at Columbia last weekend. The bathrooms were unisex, but they had private showers.
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WeAreAllJust LooseChange
Member
Member # 3411

 - posted      Profile for WeAreAllJust LooseChange         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Quote:
---
What's to stop a perverted boy from claiming to be transsexual simply so he can get into the girls' bathroom and locker room?
---
I asked myself the question too and I answered myself, once I thought about this for a minute.

The answer is: the boy/girl who is presumed to be transsexual or whatever will have the same will be required to present the same proof which school kids who are sick have to present to be excused - a written notice by their parents. There could be many variations of this of course, acknowledging the fact that there might be parents who might not agree on what their own kids true sexual orientation is.
But as kids at school are one of the parts of US population who do not have all the constitutional rights, which a grownup US citizen has (free speech to give an example) - the fact that there will be cases of conflicts should not surprise anyone. The “Strong Father” model of parenting does not die easy.

In the end I'm sure the public schools governing entities will find ways to implement this regulation without turning into a unofficial strip club.

(Now I'm sure some pundit will say that some of the public schools already ARE such).

Posts: 174 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apropos of very little; I once went to a club in which the bathrooms were co-ed. There were no problems. Of course we were all almost adults.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just don't see why children have the right of free speech -- but we don't [Mad] ! Who says? That's not fair and square!
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I can remember the horrification, just outside Paducah, when I stript and jumped a cliff into the Cumberland River with some people who'd taken me to their favor watering hole. "

I'll be... you ARE me!

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You didn't know?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071020/ap_on_re_us/teacher_sex_abuse

That's why I say that any parent who REALLY cares about their kids wouldn't send them to public school, and private schools aren't much if any better.

A lot of teachers take this sex education stuff too far and seem to think it's a hands on course. Thanks but no thanks.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Dey:
What textbooks in California must now include, however, is gay history - my objection to which, of course, is that "gay history" began with Compton's Cafeteria quean riot in August of 1966! B.C. in California means "before California".

California has historical amnesia, gay or straight.

Not unrelated, Maine has just become the 29th state to recognize joint gay adoption rights.

Well let's be honest, as far as highschool-level stuff is concerned, there was no gay history before some pissed off queens started throwing stuff at police in the 60s. Gay history before that is pretty much "Yeah the greeks man, the greeks. Then we've got about two thousand years of gays being really unpopular until some psychologists and academics in the 20th century asked a bunch of awkward questions about sexual taboos. Now we're going to mention some Oscar Wilde titles and move back onto straight history". I mean what more can you do for highschool students?
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, Rallan, just because nasty Jews, Christians, and Muslims banned homophilics in education -- along with reality, that doesn't mean that the rest of the world did. Notwithstanding, were not poetry and philosophy and mathematics and the mechanical sciences kept alive, one way or another?

It must be remembered that, by keeping the arts and sciences alive (Frederick II HRE and the founding of the University of Naples?, the Neoplatonic Academy at Florence, Montaigne, Descartes, Bacon ..., et al., homophilia never died. The Church missed a few faggots to burn at the stake.

So, though I would rank Wilde an important philosopher, more successful to utilitarian social democracy than Marx, for example, I would consider Bacon, Boyle, Newton, Locke (the white one), Spinoza, Hume, Voltaire, Bentham, Arnold, Paine, Boscovitch, Brillat-Savarin, Kant, Carlisle, Coleridge, Goethe, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Holderlin, Thoreau, Schopenhauer, von Humboldt, Bachunan, Butler, Emerson, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Keynes, Sartre, Alain Locke (the black one), Newman, Nietzsche, Santayana ... more important as philosophers, of whatever nature, than as homosexuals whatever their unnature.

No homophilicist is arguing, Rallan, that a homosexual's homosexuality is more important than his contributions to civilization; but if you are suggesting that his homosexuality would be irrelevant to his contributions, I would have to ask you to demonstrate that. I can lead you to a whole literature that suggests that it does, but I've read heavily in this literature -- and I missed it.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm suggesting that highschool history has neither the time nor the conveniently pre-educated students to cover this in depth, especially when they've got the whole rest of history to cram in before the end of highschool. A brief overview of the forces that attitudes towards sexuality in the western world,and the groundwork that was laid for gay civil rights over the last century or two (especially in California, since the kids should be proud of how much of that particular civil rights battle was played out in their own back yard) is a good thing, but we can hardly ask for a serious in-depth treatment of gay history when it's already an uphill battle getting kids to realise that ancient civilizations other than Rome, Greece, and Egypt existed, or just how much fightin' and feudin' America had to do to get to its current size. The highschool classroom just ain't the sort of environment where you can realistically expect a subtle, nuanced look at how the homosexuality of various historical figures influenced their life and works, because getting subtle, nuanced looks at anything from teenagers is a Herculean task. It'd be nice for kids to come out of their history class knowing that half the Ninja Turtles were gay, or aware of the role Kinsey's research played in overthrowing conventional wisdom about human sexual behavior, but we can't expect much more than that.
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you not confusing gay history with the gay revolt?

At the risk of repeating myself, gay history begins 48 centuries ago.

It is not gay history that separated from straight history, Rallan; it is straight history that separated from gay history -- and that happened in the 4th century.

Gay history has always been there; it was Judaeo-Christian history which declared war on Gay history, not vv, and sought to make it a separate nonentity. Judaeo-Christians may have had a religious mandate to oppress homosexuals and suppress homophilia, but it can hardly be blamed on homosexuals that they oppressed heterosexuals and suppressed heterophilic history.

One doesn't have to teach gay history separately; it is only a homophobic perception that gay history is something else than history.

My argument, as you've followed it, in regards to History as a curriculum, has been that the left wing (led largely by scream-quean ex-communists and macho-feminist lesbians) subducted History into Sociology through social constructionism for political ends. Their joy was in mixing their sexuality with their nazistic tendencies towards parental socialism.

My argument now is that those who oppose Gay History in our public schools (and we have it in the East) is that they would do well to accept any feelers from the gay men and women who defeated the (De-)Constructionists to get History back into the public schools as a serious subject.

Leftists argued that History was a tool of sexist, patriarchal, capitalist, Caucasian oppression; gay history has not only the retorts to those claims, but is the missing, necessary male part to the natural state of history. This is why Social Constructionism proved sterile, imploded into Deconstructionism, and has to be thrown out of academia altogether.

Once History is no longer Homophobic History (which was what we had before History was subverted into Sociology), Homophilics can become the graduate specialty it ought to be.

Otherwise, a little honesty from homophobes on the right could bring this 17-century-long division to a well deserved end.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ronwe
Member
Member # 5285

 - posted      Profile for Ronwe   Email Ronwe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Honesty from homophobes? Try this, I don't wanty any queers polluting my innocernt child with their deviant ideologies. If that's too murky, then I offer this: Homos can stay the heck away from me. Unless you're a lezzy, then two of you can come play with me.

Seriosly though, what about the rights of closed minded people trying to preserve their way of life? Why does the government have to force this on them? They don't want to deal with gays, and those gays go marching right into their front lawn saying "I'm gay, go F***'n deal with it." What happened to "This is my lawn, you're not invited, get lost" What about their rights to go to a public school and not be brainwashed by all these outragious revolutionary ideas? What about the Amish man? What about him? Or how about the Biggot? Who even bothered to consider his rights here?

[ October 22, 2007, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Ronwe ]

Posts: 69 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The rights of close minded people trying to preserve their way of life should have diddly to do with what is and isn't taught in schools. If you don't like the way they teach your child history because it's not patriotic enough or it casts something you value in a bad light or it gives a positive portrayal of something you don't like, suck it up. If you don't like the science they teach your child because it contradicts your religious beliefs, suck it up. If you don't like the books kids are studying in English because they're filled with immoral ideas, suck it up. If you don't like the math cirriculum because you're Gene Ray and you understand the truth of 4-Cornered TimeCube mathematics, suck it up. Take your kids to a private school that suits your ideology, or have them homeschooled, but don't expect your so-called "right" to never be exposed to anything that offends you to trump the duty of state schools to teach the facts and provide a well-rounded education.

That being said though, I still think Richard's idea of how to integrate gay history into the classroom is altogether too complicated, subtle, and nuanced to work well.

Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ronwe
Member
Member # 5285

 - posted      Profile for Ronwe   Email Ronwe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you for proving my point, Rallan. Your footprints are all over my front lawn. In the old days we didn't have to listen to your kind. Hell I still don't have to listen if I don't want to. We just let the gunpowder do the talking for us. But now you got more gunpowder than we do. Suck it up? I got one thing to say to you: Didn't like Columbine, suck it up.

Jokes aside, that's a serious statement there. The fact that somebody would be willing to go into a school that they had attended, where they had been bullied by people with a similar mentality as yours, and murder those people at random means there is something serious to consider here. Some people don't want to have other ideas force upon them, and for one reason or another they end up in a school that is supposed to be able to accommodate all kinds of people without prejudice or offense. Well, you exchange the prejudice of the gays for the prejudice of the Bigots. The thing is, to their credit I have not seen many gays who took a gun and murdered a bunch of kids because they were pissed off at being oppressed. Bigots on the other hand, seem to me to be a little less conservative with their ammunition.

The grass is always greener in the other school. The problem is that some people are willing to kill other people who step on their lawn.

The point of all of this is that the decision comes down to what the most vocal side wants. And because there is no room for compromise in public policy, some decisions can have dangerous implications. I've seen what it is like to be from the other viewpoint, and frankly I'm worried that decisions like these can have much broader implications than we realize at the moment. (EDIT: I'm not worried, I'm freakin' terrified! This scares the crap out of me!)

Now what I said here is a damn cold hearted thing to say. I don't swear normally except when I swear to tell the truth, and brother do I mean it now. "Didn't like Columbine? Suck it up!" Would you believe that there are people who believe in this mentality, who believe that using force to prove a point is the most righteous thing they could do. They say "Hell, you think you can push me around and make me do and say and believe what ever you want me to, but I got a surprise for you" The animosity that is present on both sides is staggering. And what's even more incredible is that the animosity isn't seen. We don't even realize it when we are being offense. The words Rallan said before, "suck it up", are very offensive by themselves. They literally mean that I am saying you are inferior, and that you have no right to be inferior, and you have to become just as good as me. Either you suck it up and be like me, or you are in error. And every time we say something that says somebody else is inferior, we drive them to counter it. Usually they do it by bettering themselves, but when that feeling is combined with spite, they will prove that they are correct in defiance of what we say. That usually means that they use a gun to use it too. Even Rallan here just saying "suck it up" was a threat to use force. It was, really! It was a threat that this is how things are now, and if I didn't play ball and get along with it, somebody - the police, a judge - somebody would force me to comply with the law. And if I refused to comply, they would probably shoot at me in turn. So either I suck it up and quite complaining about how things are, or I break the law and possibly get shot at, right Rallan? Some people will preempt that, because it's the only thing they believe in doing. Those kids in Columbine chose to use force first because they were pretty sure they wouldn't be allowed to give a warning that would be heeded. So they were left only with the choice of proving their point, that either they would be respected or force others to pay the consequences.

How's that for the devil's advocate? I don't personally agree with this belief, but I can't disqualify the argument. I offer it here as a lesson to show that whenever we say we are doing the right thing, that we are right and this policy/belief/argument is right, you're also saying that somebody else is wrong. And there are a lot of people out there who don't take kindly to being labeled as wrong, yourself included.

[ October 23, 2007, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: Ronwe ]

Posts: 69 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How's that for the devils advocate?
I think he'd be proud.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ronwe
Member
Member # 5285

 - posted      Profile for Ronwe   Email Ronwe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
How's that for the devils advocate?
I think he'd be proud.
Thank you for the compliment! I strive to accomidate as many points of view as possible. It's not easy, and sharing alternate viewpoints with others is even harder. But when they're really disgusting, I know I did a good job with that one!

[ October 23, 2007, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: Ronwe ]

Posts: 69 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Pass me that rather small boy over there," said the Devil at the dinner table.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ronwe
Member
Member # 5285

 - posted      Profile for Ronwe   Email Ronwe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I outdid myself on that one, I actually made a point of uneducated ignorant ideology. I never thought I would be able to argue from that stance, it's contrary to everything I believe. God I love the devil sometimes, sometimes God loves the devil. Heck who am I kidding, God always loves the devil! He has to, it's the only way they can coexist together in the same religion!

Speaking of which, who knows the best way to win this arguement? Anyone? We have both points of view (and then some), so now what do we do?

Posts: 69 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ronwe, you're right. Those Columbine boys didn't like the fact that they had to learn along side niggers. Solution? Ban history lessons that put slavery in a bad light; that mention positive influences by blacks; etc.
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The roasted one, Brother, au jus ... or the boiled one ... and the hollandaise ...?

I did indeed enjoy the exercise, Ronwe; but I think the boys who executed the massacres at the Columbine school were Unitarians; and there has been unconfirmed rumors that they were gay though one gay man in town claims that this was a straight rumor.

I've spoken in a few schools, leaving teachers stupefied, but students tend to take it all in rather matter-of-factly. The most interesting point, however, is that they do better on tests regarding gay history than straight! Perhaps it is the naughtiness of it that they remember. I also introduce a chronological system which I think should be universal. It divides historical time into 6 millennia (the last to be filled in by the future).

I think the most-interesting point, however, is that the teachers haven't a clue about it. They, of cours,e haven't been taught it -- and it is hilarious to watch them afterwards trying to act like experts in front of the students [Big Grin] !

That is still a crisis for teachers -- the necessity to be authority figures. I remember a wonderful incident at private school when an older tutor said to me of a younger teacher, "Oh don't pay any attention to him, Dey. I'll be grading your papers."

I suspect that the problem Ronwe puts forth, which is all-too real, will be alleviated as religion has its feet put to the fire ... [Smile] .

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Richard, you've spoken at schools? How? and why the hell didn't you take up my offer to come speak at my friends birthday party last year!
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1