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 » Obama's Safe Schools Czar (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Obama's Safe Schools Czar
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A quick note - Happy New Year Ornery.

In my last attempt at participation here, I was in a bad mood, and was not logging on for an honest debate. I logged on and simply engaged in personal attacks. I apologized for it, and do not wish to resume that manner of discourse.

Anyone want to take shots at me for that, go back to my "TREASON" thread and have a go at it, rather than try and derail this thread...

Anyhow -

As I've been saying for some time now, I contend that the public education system in this country was designed specifically to dumb down and brainwash the masses to churn out corporate worker drones, mindless consumerists, "globally-aware" citizens and cannon fodder for the military industrial complex.

There's a damn good reason why the US is way down on the bottom of the rankings of industrialized first world nations when it comes to reading, math and science academic achievements.

It's because we have a system of "education" that is nothing more than a system of indoctrination...a deliberate means of socially engineering an entire generation of children.

Look no further than Obama's appointed "Safe School's Czar" Kevin Jennings.

He is the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).

Needless to say, this is the kind of crap this "Educator" is associated with:

High School Students Given “Fisting Kits” At Kevin Jennings’ GLSEN Conference

Who here thinks this is appropriate?

A good idea?

A necessary component to "education?"

If my child were exposed to this garbage, I'd personally go down to this conference and commence to beat the living **** out of these moral degenerates trying to indoctrinate my kids into accepting these deviant sexual practices as "normalized."

Furthermore, the fact that Obama can appoint this deviant degenerate who founded an organization that was caught trying to instill acceptance of such perversions into school children...and the mainstream media does not even make a whimper -- just goes to show how far in the tank the media is when it comes to serving as nothing more than a propaganda arm for the Democrat party.

We get all of the gory details of Republican senators forays into propositioning men in public restrooms...but not a peep about a high ranking administration official and his ties to an organization caught trying to indoctrinate school children into normalized acceptance of deviant and subversive sexual lifestyles.

Who thinks this sort of thing is a good idea? A relevant and necessary part of a child's "education?"

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  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 
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/12/kevin-jennings-glsen-sicko-rea.html

Excerpts from the recommended reading list:

I was going to post them here but I don't think I'll do it. Read it if you dare.

-----------------------------------------

And this good news from Germany, remembering that many on the Surpreme Court look to laws in other nations for inspiration in interpretating our Constitution:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118635

Christian fathers put in jail for shunning explicit sex ed
International organization fighting for parents protecting their children

Posted: December 11, 2009
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


"An international human-rights organization today announced it will pursue a civil lawsuit on behalf of parents who want to control their children's education and withhold them from explicit sex-education and playacting classes required by the German government.

Joel Thornton of the International Human Rights Group told WND the government in Salzkotten, Germany, is sending the fathers of the children to jail for terms of one week because they have refused to turn their children over to school officials for mandated sex classes...

... The government already has imposed fines on the families, which continue to accrue. Thornton said the families are being targeted with a "Bussgeld," a fine described as "repentance money" designed to show contrition for wrong behavior.

The families so far have refused to pay because that would be admitting guilt.

Thornton said the cases being brought against the families – whose names are being withheld for the protection of the children – reveal the dedication among German officials to punish parents who refuse to hand over their children to the state for education purposes.

The government's determination is evident, Thornton said, whether parents are objecting to an explicit sex class or whether the family chooses to homeschool their children.

"Unlike American officials, German officials do not recognize the right of parents to opt their children out of offensive classes such as sex education which overrides the parent's beliefs or desires for their own children," Thornton said.

"One of the reasons for this is that German officials view the children as belonging to the state, particularly during the time they are in school," he said."

---------------------------------------------

Add all that to the brainwashing of the new "Obama Youth" and all I can say is good luck.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I love how the linked article doesn't even blink at the inconsistency of calling them "fisting kits" then going on to talk about how it describes how to make a dental dam.

That's probably the least of the sins in the above referenced articles as they fight against attempts to teach people to embrace sexuality as a positive, controllable aspect of themselves rather than letting them be more easily be controlled by their shame over it.

I am glad to see that the Obama administration has finally seemed to learn not to try to appease such smear campaigns and is actually sticking to its guns to some degree on such matters.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's probably the least of the sins in the above referenced articles as they fight against attempts to teach people to embrace sexuality as a positive, controllable aspect of themselves rather than letting them be more easily be controlled by their shame over it.

Oh yes, I'm so glad you agree that our educational system should be indoctrinateing kids into accepting all variants of sexual morality...even if the parents may find such teachings objectionable.

Why not teach 'em about Adult/Child sex too while where at it? Why not bestiality? That way kids can bang their pet dogs and "embrace sexuality as a positive, controllable aspect of themselves rather than letting them be more easily be controlled by their shame over it." [Roll Eyes]

BTW - read the links found within that article, and click on the audio recording that captured the leader of the session graphically describing "fisting."

[ January 05, 2010, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If my child were exposed to this garbage, I'd personally go down to this conference and commence to beat the living **** out of these moral degenerates trying to indoctrinate my kids into accepting these deviant sexual practices as "normalized."
Daruma, my esteem for your political philosophy just took a nose dive. Libertarianism I can respect, if not agree with. This is just bigotry hiding behind the convenient "protect the children" shield.

First of all, the article is blatantly lying about the kits. There is no connection to "fisting" whatsoever; its completely fabricated by the author of the rant. I got the same dental dam instructions in high school (though I wasn't actually provided with a glove). Its neither new nor innappropriate.

Second, this was an optional seminar, held at a college, with only the most tenuous connections to public funds dug up by the article.

Third, the original incident is *itself* a trumped up, inflated tempest-in-a-teapot. A conveniently edited clip, with no context, of a man answering candidly a question about sexual terminology. Nothing is advocated, and the subject was not even prompted by the speaker. Again, when I asked my middle school gym teacher, during sex ed., to explain how intercourse worked (I imagined prohibitive friction), he explained vaginal lubrication and how it was produced. I was 11. Once you realize that you can't force all young people to conform to your personal moral vicissitudes, the rational approach is to educate them with the truth, highlight the dangers, and enable them to protect themselves. Ultimately, the choice is theirs. A libertarian would understand this.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
Oh yes, I'm so glad you agree that our educational system should be indoctrinateing kids into accepting all variants of sexual morality...even if the parents may find such teachings objectionable.

Kids don't need any indoctrination into their own sexualities. They come part and parcel with the package. On the other hand, education on how to safely explore and learn to come to terms with said sexualities? Objective and informed explanations of the facts behind all those things that the turn up with a Googling? (The edgy, older, cool kid on the playground has been enhanced, if not completely replaced) Where else will they get that? (Certainly there are many parents up to the task, but by and large, they're not the ones protesting the inclusion of such in health and sexuality curricula.)

Your argument hinges on an implicit assumption- that parents otherwise have even near exclusive control over the sexual education of their children- that has never really been true.

They need reliable sources of facts on sexuality, especially on matters of safety. Those do not preclude applying those facts within their own personal moral frameworks, but without the basic education, they can't actually make informed decisions.

And your attempts at shock value are laughable. Of course they should learn about pedophilia, bestiality, and fetishes in general, both to learn how to differentiate between those that are and are not potentially harmful and to understand how to manage harmful ones so that they do not become overriding compulsions.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ahh I see.

Thanks for the enlightenment. I guess I'm just a bigot and a homo-phobe afraid of libertine sexual mores.

I will do my best to seek out re-education so I can learn to accept this new, progressive attitude.

[Exploding]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mores are tangential here. Once you have the facts, you can operate on whatever mores you bring to the table in a safe and informed manner.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ahh I see.

Thanks for the enlightenment. I guess I'm just a bigot and a homo-phobe afraid of libertine sexual mores.

I will do my best to seek out re-education so I can learn to accept this new, progressive attitude.

No. You've created a thread based on an article that blantanly lies, exaggerates, and takes quotes out of context.

You then use this despicable source to justify heated rhetoric about how the Obama adminstration is trying to indoctrinate our children in "these deviant sexual practices "--when you've shown absolutely no indication that Kevin Jennings or anyone else plans to incorporate this overblown nonsense into any lesson plans. IOW, mere guilt by association.

And you further muddy the intellectual waters by implying that this guilt by association is somehow related to the academic achievement of our school system. [Roll Eyes]

There is extremely little reason and logic in your intial post, and a surfeit of emotion and unjusstified fear. Fear apparently based on your disgust of "perverted" sexual practices. Unfortuately, this fear apparently is overcoming your reason.

Look at this again with a critical eye and you'll see that they are pushing your buttons and getting you to act on emotion, not reasoning. You're being used, Daruma. You're being played.

You should be outraged, but not at Kevin Jennings and the Obama Administration. [Mad]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
Ahh I see.

Thanks for the enlightenment. I guess I'm just a bigot and a homo-phobe afraid of libertine sexual mores.

I will do my best to seek out re-education so I can learn to accept this new, progressive attitude.

[Exploding]

I have no idea what you are, as a person. What you appear as, based on your posts, is (ironically, considering your self-presentation) the most easily manipulated segment of the population: the outraged ignorant. Outrage is easy to manufacture in such people, and the ignorance makes it easy to point.

You came on here incensed about what this article claims is happening, expressing the desire to violently attack the bad guys. Several posters immediately point out that the source of your outrage contains at least one obvious lie, and many more misleading passages. A rational response would be to ask "why is this source lying to me? Does the correct information produce the same outrage? Is my outrage useful to the authors of this article?" Its ridiculous that you can call others sheeple without asking these very basic questions of yourself.

How do you use a useful idiot? Piss him off and aim him. Do you not have the slightest doubt that you might be being manipulated here? Or, put another way, how are we to take your repeated calls to "wake up", when you are quite demonstrably talking in your sleep?

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm looking forward to the Obama weapons training classes.

After all every American adult has a right to keep and bare arms. And surely we don't want a child to grow to adulthood without a proper understanding of firearms.

Since young kids can very easily hurt themselves and other people if they are not familiar with weapons we should start the training early.

Perhaps 22 caliber pistols in kindergarten getting to gradually larger hand guns as the kids get physically older and can handle the bigger weapons. Then in middle school they can learn shot gun handling and hopefully by 14 the kids will be ready for larger rifles and automatic weapons.

Sure some parents may object but,
Kids need reliable sources of facts on weapons, especially on matters of safety. Those do not preclude applying those facts within their own personal moral frameworks, but without the basic education, they can't actually make informed decisions.

And,

Of course they should learn about hand grenades, anti-tank weapons, and machine guns in general, both to learn how to differentiate between those that are and are not potentially harmful and to understand how to manage harmful ones so that they do not become overriding compulsions.

That's probably the least of the sins in the above referenced articles as they fight against attempts to teach people to embrace violence as a positive, controllable aspect of themselves rather than letting them be more easily be controlled by their shame over it.

I'll be glad to see when the Obama administration has finally seemed to learn not to try to appease such smear campaigns and is actually sticking to its guns to some degree on such matters.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Violence is not a positive aspect of someone, I'm afraid.
Posts: 22935 | 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 Adam Masterman:

First of all, the article is blatantly lying about the kits. There is no connection to "fisting" whatsoever; its completely fabricated by the author of the rant. I got the same dental dam instructions in high school (though I wasn't actually provided with a glove). Its neither new nor innappropriate.

Second, this was an optional seminar, held at a college, with only the most tenuous connections to public funds dug up by the article.

Did I miss something? They are given a kit with a glove for fisting and instructions on how to turn it into a dental dam for oral sex if preferred. The article focuses on the more sensational aspect but keeps a quote from the news article that explains that it's for fisting or oral sex. That seems like typical news sensationalism not blatant lying. What is the blatant lie? That the glove isn't really being distributed in part for fisting? Are you really sure about that? What makes you think so? Simply because there are instructions on how to turn it into a dental dam too?

Also a brief aside about public funds is making a tenuous connection? It wasn't the main point of the article but it quoted from another a more thorough explanation (which didn't seem tenuous to me).

quote:
Public funds were used for the event with at least two school buses being used to transport students, from Methuen High School and Marblehead Public Schools. Adam Glick, Conference Coordinator, said he did not know how the buses were paid for. Other children were transported by public school teachers in private cars.

The private homosexual sponsor, GLSEN, is given state funds for many purposes and does not publicly report on how the money is spent.

So the sponsor is at least partly publicly funded and school buses were used for transportation. Not huge but not tenuous.

Certainly similar funding for Boy Scout activities would be called out on by gay rights activists, would it not? If the BSA received state funds for some good works it does but didn't publicly disclose where those funds were going and then held a jamboree with school buses and teachers used for transportation, you don't think gay rights groups would have a fuss over it? Would you hold it against them if they mentioned it in an article?

Pyrtolin, if the way they handled the fisting/dental dam kits was the least of their "sins" what other things did you find that was worse?

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
whitefire
Member
Member # 6505

 - posted      Profile for whitefire   Email whitefire       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Using a gun isn't inherently violent just like sex isn't.
But both can be:

Rape = murder, I think, in the examples.

I've taken a lot of joy in target shooting when I was a teen, though I never cared to actually hunt.

JWatts was very careful, I thought, to avoid anything regarding how/for what purpose firearms are used.

[ January 06, 2010, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: whitefire ]

Posts: 97 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
After all every American adult has a right to keep and bare arms. And surely we don't want a child to grow to adulthood without a proper understanding of firearms.

Since young kids can very easily hurt themselves and other people if they are not familiar with weapons we should start the training early.

You know, that really isn't a half-bad idea. It would probably save quite a few lives if done responsibly. There are certainly enough guns in the U.S.A. that knowing gun safety is something everyone should know.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 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:
Look at this again with a critical eye and you'll see that they are pushing your buttons and getting you to act on emotion, not reasoning. You're being used, Daruma.
Are you calling Daruma a sheeple? [Wink]

EDIT: Ah. I see it has already been done explicitly. Oh the irony.

[ January 06, 2010, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Did I miss something? They are given a kit with a glove for fisting and instructions on how to turn it into a dental dam for oral sex if preferred. The article focuses on the more sensational aspect but keeps a quote from the news article that explains that it's for fisting or oral sex.
Yes, you missed something. The "news article" quoted isn't a news article, its a similar agitprop piece, probably part of the same organization (there are no links on their site about how they operate). Just follow the link, you'll see what I mean. The point remains that the only mention or reference to fisting comes exclusively from the commentators. No one at this conference said or did anything remotely connected to fisting.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  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 
JWatts, I think you might have a good argument there. Gun safety classes might be a good idea. (Of course the likelihood of needing that information is lower than needing information about sexuality.)
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LoverOfJoy:
Pyrtolin, if the way they handled the fisting/dental dam kits was the least of their "sins" what other things did you find that was worse?

In the first one, failing to mention that the discussion of fisting was in direct response to a student question about it.

Calling fisting an inherently unsafe practice (which is only true if it's approached without any idea of how to do it properly)

In the second, taking book excerpts completely out of context, then omitting the fact that the books there were taken from were on the upper age end of a list for parents of gay teens to point them to resources that they could evaluate and choose which ones they felt were appropriate for their kids.

Using "pornographic" as interchangeable wit, at worst, "explicit" without even showing that there was an intent to be erotic, never mind prurient.

The biggest of all, that pervades the entire attitude expressed across all the complaints, though is summed up in this comment from the first one:

quote:
Ha! I was conceived in the backseat of a Chevy…by a couple who weren’t taught sex-ed in school. People have been figuring out on their own what goes where in order to have sex for thousands of years.
The fact that it seems to have been said completely unironically underscores the dangers of the active ignorance that it promotes.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
JWatts, I think you might have a good argument there. Gun safety classes might be a good idea. (Of course the likelihood of needing that information is lower than needing information about sexuality.)

Absolutely. It only falls apart toward the end where he picks poor parallels (given that no one if born with heavy weapons wired into their brains) Then completely fails to include a parallel lie, but leaves the reference to it in, so that said reference is a bit of a non sequitur.

Including young elementary kids completely out of context didn't really work either, and the only parallels that exist for it anywhere come from completely fabricated accusations.

Heck, I'd up the ante and bring it a little closed to the original by saying that kids should able to pick martial arts as an alternate gym track, both for good exercise and for the practical applications of self discipline and defense.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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 could be wrong, but I thought LoJ was asking a slightly different question that implied a misunderstanding. I think he was asking what sins went along with the purported promotion of fisting, which has already been discredited. I don't think he realized that you were pointing to a rhetorical 'sin' on the part of those complaining (apparently dishonestly) about GLSEN.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LoverOfJoy:
Certainly similar funding for Boy Scout activities would be called out on by gay rights activists, would it not? If the BSA received state funds for some good works it does but didn't publicly disclose where those funds were going and then held a jamboree with school buses and teachers used for transportation, you don't think gay rights groups would have a fuss over it? Would you hold it against them if they mentioned it in an article?

There's actually no hypothetical there at all. There is a lot of outcry about the boy scouts being allowed to be actively discriminatory (based on religion and orientation) while still enjoying huge amounts of public finding, land grants, and the like.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jwatts used a little satire to basically make my point for me...that which Pyrtolin and Adam simply cannot comprehend because you are so far beholden to the Statist mindset.

1) It is not the states business whatsoever to be involved in education.

2) But since it is, "education" should be simply concerned with "reading, riting, rithmetic."

3) Sexuality, and morality should NEVER be the domain of the State or it's educational system. That is the domain of the parents.

4) No. 3 is based NOT on my wishes to impose my own sexual mores on society, but rather the idea that when the State DOES seek to "educate" students on sexual mores, they most certainly will be teaching principles and ideas that definitely are counter to what many student's own parents would never consider teaching. Just as JWatts metaphor regarding guns...I'm sure Pyrtolin would be vehemently opposed to his own children being instructed by the educational system on the use of firearms against his own personal beliefs.

5) With all do resepect Adam, I laugh my ass off at a collectivist liberal progressive who proudly voted for Obama and fails to see how the man and the DNC have utterly betrayed all the ideals you faulted Bush and the GOP for...trying to tell me how I'm not living up to my "libertarian" ideals.

6) Who's being "used" for agitprop? Those of you that minimize this organization, what they are doing, and their founder and his role in the administration are in fact being used by the very people who have worked to socially engineer society to destroy the role of the nuclear Patriarchal family as the primary source of authority and direction for children. YOU who argue favorably for this State sponsored indoctrination of libertine sexual mores are the useful idiots for the cause of promoting cultural Marxism as the primary change agent of this country.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have no idea what you are, as a person. What you appear as, based on your posts, is (ironically, considering your self-presentation) the most easily manipulated segment of the population: the outraged ignorant.

How's that hope and change working out for ya?

[Exploding]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  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 
So naive. I suppose it's completely impossible that shill kids could be asking about fisting, put up to the question by the presenters who have conveniently brought all the necessary props for a demonstration just in case the question comes up.

Here's some excerpts from the safe school czar's reading list for children. I was hesitant to even post it because it reeks of child porn and perversion. It's like the child porn where the adults sit back and watch the kids having sex. Are these teachers some sort of voyeurs encouraging child sex for their own sick vicarious thrills? Or are they just laying groundwork for extra sex partners when the children reach the age of conent? Or are they just natural pervs who delight in encouraging their perversion?

I'm not sure but the one thing that is for sure is that sane people wouldn't trust their children with them.

Yes, I know that's all pretty harsh. It might even seem paranoid. Until you read some of this:

"Reflections of a Rock Lobster – Pages 13 + 14

(At the age of six, the author played “sex therapist” with a five-year-old friend, and “explored our sexuality to its fullest.”)

One friend I was very close to was Billy Marlen. Billy was a year behind me in school yet we got along well together. In our friendship, a special camaraderie existed that was rare in my other friendships. There was a brotherhood that does not often occur even between brothers. We shared our toys and spent many summer days building sandcastles on the beach. On rainy days I’d walk down to Billy’s house where we spent the day reading books and building racetracks and playing sex therapist in his basement. We were human beings who knew no social inhibitions and were willing to explore our sexuality to its fullest.

….

Passages of Pride – Page 4

(Beginning at the age of five, a young child has sexual encounters with his playmates.)

Throughout his childhood, from age five on, Derek would sneak off with a friend into someone’s basement or the woods along the back alley, where they would take off their pants and play with each other, usually fondling each other’s genitals. It became habitual.

“At that time, I didn’t quite have a name for it,” says Derek. “It was something that I liked doing, that felt good, that I wanted to do as often as I could. The other kids always recognized it as being something bad and dirty. And all I wanted to know was, When can we do it again?”

…

In Your Face – Page 150

(The author describes how a sudden and impulsive sexual encounter was the healthiest relationship he’s ever had, then regrets the incestuous relationship he had with his cousin.)

But I know in the immediate future I want a very healthy relationship, because I’ve never really had a healthy relationship. The closest I’ve had was with a guy that I met at the lake when we lived in Davenport. I just met him at the lake, and he already had a boyfriend and stuff. I just walked up to him and said, “Do you want to f**k?” and we did. For a week. And then I went home because I couldn’t handle it anymore. The relationship I had with my cousin was very, very twisted, and I didn’t like hiding it. I mean, he was my cousin, and so it feels rather disgusting. But I think that you’re gonna fall in love with whomever you’re gonna fall in love with."

From:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/04/explosive-the-not-safe-for-school-reading-list-of-the-safe-schools-czar/

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  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 
Libertarianism would allow people to decide for themselves what they're comfortable with, not have the government dictate to them it's all okay, go for it.

It's as funny to see people tell libertarians how much they've betrayed their ideals as it is to watch them do the same thing with Christians. Predictable. Does it ever work?

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
So naive. I suppose it's completely impossible that shill kids could be asking about fisting, put up to the question by the presenters who have conveniently brought all the necessary props for a demonstration just in case the question comes up.


So true, Cherry. The liberal/Dems have no problem pointing out the Bush warmonger shill that was "planted" in the white house press corp to ask pre-selected questions...

...but these "Educators" are merely trying to help children be comfortable with their sexuality - afterall, most children are curious about "fisting!"

[Exploding]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  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 
I have to admit, if "fisting" means what I think it means (which I won't describe while operating a work computer) that does go just a bit further than what I'd expect is normal for a "curious" adolescent. The activity I am picturing is pretty extreme even for hardcore porn. Hard to imagine how it would ever be necessary or desirable to talk about it with young children.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Jwatts used a little satire to basically make my point for me...that which Pyrtolin and Adam simply cannot comprehend because you are so far beholden to the Statist mindset.


Neither of us has any trouble comprehending your point. Its not exactly nuanced. Mostly, we have been pointing out that the factual basis for your point is incorrect. That, and waiting for you to acknowledge that and respond to it in some way. No snarkiness; please just address that point.

quote:
1) It is not the states business whatsoever to be involved in education.


A position I have no problem with, aside from the fact that its a sure recipe for creating a permanent aristocracy, and would pretty quickly give us the world's least educated populace.

quote:
2) But since it is, "education" should be simply concerned with "reading, riting, rithmetic."


An interesting position, but maybe you should back it up with some kind of persuasive reasoning. I'm puzzled at the idea of a public education system in a democratic country not teaching civics.

quote:
3) Sexuality, and morality should NEVER be the domain of the State or it's educational system. That is the domain of the parents.


And yet, your beef seems to be that this institution is teaching something you consider immoral. Are you saying that no subjects that touch on morality can be taught, lest they inadvertently fail to express a negative view of something some parent might consider immoral? Or should we take a vote on what's immoral, and use that as a guideline. Here's where libertarianism is starting to crumble, and theocratic mob rule is sneaking in. Homosexuality isn't "immoral" in any objective sense, its simply a Judeo-Christian religious taboo.

quote:
4) No. 3 is based NOT on my wishes to impose my own sexual mores on society, but rather the idea that when the State DOES seek to "educate" students on sexual mores, they most certainly will be teaching principles and ideas that definitely are counter to what many student's own parents would never consider teaching. Just as JWatts metaphor regarding guns...I'm sure Pyrtolin would be vehemently opposed to his own children being instructed by the educational system on the use of firearms against his own personal beliefs.

The logical fallacies here are what justify my use of the term "outraged ignorant". First of all, there's the appeal to popularity: most people think homosexuality is wrong, therefore it mustn't be presented in a de-stygmatized fashion. This makes me question whether you've ever met a gay person. Possibly the most hellish experience in American society is growing up gay with homphobic parents. There are countless thousands of people who will attest to owing their sanity and even lives to understanding teachers and councilors when they found themselves in this situation. You're entitled to your ideology, but my "side" is winning this battle, and rightly so. The treatment of gays in this country has been barbaric, and when you consider how many of those victims were/are still children themselves, its horrifying. There will *always* be gay people; its time for America to just deal with it and put the cruelity of intolerance in the past.

Oh, and the other logical fallacy here is conflating a private seminar with public school sex ed.

quote:
5) With all do resepect Adam, I laugh my ass off at a collectivist liberal progressive who proudly voted for Obama and fails to see how the man and the DNC have utterly betrayed all the ideals you faulted Bush and the GOP for...trying to tell me how I'm not living up to my "libertarian" ideals.


I'm going to assume you meant
"the DNC have utterly betrayed all the ideals you faulted Bush and the GOP for [not having]", since what you wrote is grammatically unclear. Anyway, first of all, glad to have amused you. [Smile] Second, I'm only a "collectivist liberal progressive" in the sense that you have just labeled me so. Is this because I named you a libertarian? If so, I apologize; my recollection was that you self-identified as such. If its instead a description of my positions, I guess I'll just not address it. Its inaccurate by common definitions of those terms, but I doubt you are using those common definitions. And if we are going to clarify terms, I would prefer to begin with your acknowledgment of the factual errors of the article, and perhaps your response to the questions I posed.

quote:
6) Who's being "used" for agitprop? Those of you that minimize this organization, what they are doing, and their founder and his role in the administration are in fact being used by the very people who have worked to socially engineer society to destroy the role of the nuclear Patriarchal family as the primary source of authority and direction for children. YOU who argue favorably for this State sponsored indoctrination of libertine sexual mores are the useful idiots for the cause of promoting cultural Marxism as the primary change agent of this country.
I'm having trouble parsing the buzzwords, but I'll try. I believe what I have done is present what this organization is doing in a way that is more accurate than your article, which contains lies, or your response, which fails to address those lies. "Minimize" implies decreased accuracy, yet I have done the reverse. If this minimizes the offense, that would imply that the offense was *inflated* by this article and those who are promoting it. Again, settling this issue in any way requires you to address the false claims in some way.

As for

"the very people who have worked to socially engineer society to destroy the role of the nuclear Patriarchal family as the primary source of authority and direction for children."

I suppose I am one of those people, yes. My family is egalitarian, not patriarchal, and far more emphasis is placed on extended than nuclear, compared to the ideal you seem to be espousing. Its a better model for raising children, its far more dominant in human history, and it seeks to reverse the perversion of denying matriarchal wisdom to children and society that is the peculiar disease of modernism (broadly defined). But thats simply what I do in my own house.

I have not, nor do I, advocate for indoctrination of libertine sexual mores. Indeed, I argue for the opposite of indoctrination: the empowerment of knowledge. You, conversely, are upset that your right to privately indoctrinate your children might be impeded. In reality, you can't force your gay kid to be straight, any more than I can force my homophobic kid to be tolerant. Children are still people, they have their own minds and ultimately will make their own decisions. They are not the property of their parents, and raising children is a privilege, not a right. People find that out as soon as they decide to bust their kids head to make a point (ideally; sadly, DHS isn't half as effective as it needs to be).

In short, schools needn't (and don't) take a position on whether certain practices are immoral or not. Schools simply recognize the reality of what children are choosing to do, and educate them to be able to protect themselves and make informed choices. No amount of red-scare buzzwords can distort that into something sinister.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma, have you explained somewhere why patriarchy is a good thing?

Or do I just have a different definition of patriarchy?

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Neither of us has any trouble comprehending your point. Its not exactly nuanced. Mostly, we have been pointing out that the factual basis for your point is incorrect. That, and waiting for you to acknowledge that and respond to it in some way. No snarkiness; please just address that point.


Factual basis is incorrect? FACT: Obama's "Safe School Director" is the founder of this Gay activist group.

FACT: They did have a "seminar" in which they explicitly detailed various aspects of sexual behavior, and handed out props and materials that explicitly demonstrate sexual activity.

A position I have no problem with, aside from the fact that its a sure recipe for creating a permanent aristocracy, and would pretty quickly give us the world's least educated populace.

LMAO...we have a permanent aristocarcy NOW...and we are also going to have to disagree on what constitutes "education." If seminars on "fisting" and using "dental damns" is your idea of "education" than I guess you have a point.

And yet, your beef seems to be that this institution is teaching something you consider immoral.

Whether I considered it moral or immoral is immaterial. Education about sexual behavior, sexual morality and sexual attitudes should NOT be under the domain of the State, PERIOD. That is the most personal of issues for which the State has no business trying to instruct any children in.

Are you saying that no subjects that touch on morality can be taught, lest they inadvertently fail to express a negative view of something some parent might consider immoral?

I'm saying no subjects that touch on morality should be taught. Stick to the "three R's."

Or should we take a vote on what's immoral, and use that as a guideline.

How about you teach your kids what you believe is moral, I teach mine what I think is moral, and leave the State educational system out of it?

Here's where libertarianism is starting to crumble, and theocratic mob rule is sneaking in.

Good lord, your fear of "theocratic mob rule" is verging on paranoia. I can see how the morality of the 10 commandments and the principles that Jesus espoused would be so destructive to the social cohesion of society...as opposed to NOW where secular humanism is the ascendant paradigm and we now exist in a great utopia of human cooperation!

Homosexuality isn't "immoral" in any objective sense, its simply a Judeo-Christian religious taboo.

Whether it is or isn't is not the point. The point is we have a public education system, funded by tax payer moneys, in which ideas of morality are being imposed whether the parents whose taxes are paying for it agree or not. That is a form of ideologically imposed totalitarianism.

most people think homosexuality is wrong, therefore it mustn't be presented in a de-stygmatized fashion.

Oh please, There's a world of difference between presenting a de-stigmatized fashion vs. outright promotion as normative.

This makes me question whether you've ever met a gay person. Possibly the most hellish experience in American society is growing up gay with homphobic parents.

Nice way of trying to infer I'm a "homophobe." You couldn't be further from the truth, Adam. I know quite a few gay people. I have some gay men who are a part of my circle of social peers. I have had gay students in my martial arts class. I am no homophobe. But I'm not going to justify my own personal life and relationships with people I know and care about simply because I object to the State using the education system to impose a sexual morality on children no matter what the parents think.

I would prefer to begin with your acknowledgment of the factual errors of the article, and perhaps your response to the questions I posed.

My response was not due to you calling me a "libertarian" but rather how you tried to associate my opposition to the proponents of this action as a violation of my own libertarian principles...to which I derisively laughed as I remember you as the guy who proudly posted a picture of yourself holding up your voting stub, having voted for Obama as some historical, watershed moment...a blow to the Amerikkka of Bush!

Yet Obama has continued just about every meaningful policy that most of you folks objected to under Bush...

I believe what I have done is present what this organization is doing in a way that is more accurate than your article, which contains lies, or your response, which fails to address those lies.

I believe that what you have done was to call things in this article lies as a means to try and discredit the facts it presented. I also believe that you agree with what this organization is doing, you don't see anything subversive in it, and that anyone who opposes this is simply marginalized and branded as a "homophobe."

I suppose I am one of those people, yes. My family is egalitarian, not patriarchal, and far more emphasis is placed on extended than nuclear, compared to the ideal you seem to be espousing. Its a better model for raising children, its far more dominant in human history, and it seeks to reverse the perversion of denying matriarchal wisdom to children and society that is the peculiar disease of modernism (broadly defined). But thats simply what I do in my own house.

This has nothing to do with your personal situation and everything to do with the dramatic social changes regarding the structure of the nuclear family in the last 60 years or so. It is a huge topic worthy of it's own thread.

Suffice to say, I've studied the history of feminism, and the social engineering of society by cultural marxists determined to remake our country and our political system by attacking the foundation of society.

You speak of Patriarchy as if it were a net negative on society. You fail to realize that society itself and all of the advances we have experienced were the direct result of Patirarchy, and that the lies that women were oppressed under it were used to overthrow that paradigm, and we are currently in a very real decline of civilization precisely because of that.

I have not, nor do I, advocate for indoctrination of libertine sexual mores. Indeed, I argue for the opposite of indoctrination: the empowerment of knowledge.

Just because you call what this article exposes as "empowerment" doesn't make it any less indoctrination.

In reality, you can't force your gay kid to be straight, any more than I can force my homophobic kid to be tolerant. Children are still people, they have their own minds and ultimately will make their own decisions.

You know what Adam..I'm sick to death of people like you automatically assigning the opposition to anything being promoted by Gay Activists as "homophobic."

Furthermore, your entire premise rests on this notion that "GAY" children are born that way, and that the environment, diet, lifestyle and elder influences play no part in a child's developing sexual persona.

There is no scientifically provable basis that proves that homosexuality is "just" the way people are born.

Finally, from a strictly Darwinian point of view, homosexuality is a "natural" error. Sexual attraction is natures way of ensuring a species propagates. Being attracted to the same gender is a biological dead-end for propagating your DNA.

One does not need to be a "homophobe" to understand this basic biological reality.

I do not want my children to grow up gay, not because I am a homophobe, but because I want my genetic line to continue on.

I believe homosexuality is a biological error...a mis-wiring of the sexual impulses designed for humans to carry out the biological imperative to procreate. I don't hate Gay people anymore than I hate someone born with Downs Syndrome...but neither do I think it is "normal" to be Gay...and I certainly do not want an educational system teaching my children it's perfectly alright to be Gay, and that they should try it to.

Ironically though, your libertine sexual mores are nothing compared to this:

They are not the property of their parents, and raising children is a privilege, not a right.

Of course you believe this foolishness...afterall, you are advocating that parents shouldn't be outraged at all that a State education bureacracy is teaching sexual mores to their children, afterall, the Children are not their property! They are the property of the State....since you believe the State has a right to teach the children anything they want regardless of what the parents want.

In short, your beliefs make children the property of the State. That is PRECISELY what I mean by Cultural Marxism used to socially engineer society to overthrow the authority of the family in raising their own children.

Schools simply recognize the reality of what children are choosing to do, and educate them to be able to protect themselves and make informed choices. No amount of red-scare buzzwords can distort that into something sinister.

This is a complete whitewash of what is going on here.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Daruma, have you explained somewhere why patriarchy is a good thing?

Or do I just have a different definition of patriarchy?

http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=009053;p=0&r=nfx#000000
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 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 
"Libertarianism would allow people to decide for themselves what they're comfortable with, not have the government dictate to them it's all okay, go for it. "

Well, I think the dirty little truth underlying this is: libertarianism would allow parents to decide themselves how to indoctrinate their kids.

Daruma,

I don't really know what your deal is, but you are not a libertarian. You're just a near empty vessel that funnels through political talking points from reactionary pundits. You bitch about public schools, but on this thread you even said you wouldn't mind some school. What you fear isn't public school; you are afraid of knowledge. What will happen if kids know about fisting?!!? Well, who cares? A libertarian society demands honesty and knowledge.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't really know what your deal is, but you are not a libertarian. You're just a near empty vessel that funnels through political talking points from reactionary pundits.

No, I recognize gateway pundit is a variant of right wing talking points...but the underlying issue they are exposing here is in fact a very real problem to my libertarian belief system.

"libertarianism would allow parents to decide themselves how to indoctrinate their kids."

Libertarianism wouldn't ALLOW anything. They would recognize that the GOVERNMENT has no business indoctrinating children period.

You bitch about public schools, but on this thread you even said you wouldn't mind some school. What you fear isn't public school; you are afraid of knowledge.

LMAO. I didn't say I wouldn't mind some school...I absolutely want to abolish every single aspect of our current "education" system.

But I recognize that my wants are incompatible with what society wants.

Fine.

We will have a 'public education system' based on government coercion and funded by forcible taxation under the threat of imprisonment or violence if I chose not to participate, than at least let's keep the idea of education confined to pure academicsm, not the instruction in morality or sexual mores.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 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 
"I'm saying no subjects that touch on morality should be taught. Stick to the "three R's.""

Doesn't sound condemning to me.

"Don't eat that apple, children of Eden! Might be a worm in it..."

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks, Daruma.

It appears we do have different definitions of patriarchy, not to mention the nature of gender, sexuality and all sorts of related topics.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Finally, from a strictly Darwinian point of view, homosexuality is a "natural" error. Sexual attraction is natures way of ensuring a species propagates. Being attracted to the same gender is a biological dead-end for propagating your DNA.
Natural selection is a bit more nuanced than your thinking, Daruma. Don't use it as a justification for your beliefs.

Consider bees and ants. Huge colonies of infertile females all working together. How does their DNA propagate?

Through the queen, of course. Helping the queen breed and stay safe keeps "their" DNA from dying off. It is close enough to their DNA that it keeps any favorable mutation in the gene pool. IOW, it works.

Something similar could be occurring with homosexuality. (Note that I don't state that it is.) Being celebate may have the advantage of helping the survival of close family member DNA, which can be close enough to individual DNA as to constitute a survival advantage. I suspect that it may also be tied to large concentrations of population, as in cities, which could trigger the tendancy.

Whatever the reason, there very well may be survival advantages to homosexuality. You can't discount it just because of the obvious disadvantage.

quote:
I believe homosexuality is a biological error...a mis-wiring of the sexual impulses designed for humans to carry out the biological imperative to procreate. I don't hate Gay people anymore than I hate someone born with Downs Syndrome...but neither do I think it is "normal" to be Gay...and I certainly do not want an educational system teaching my children it's perfectly alright to be Gay, and that they should try it to.
In this one paragraph you state that you believe that homosexuality is a "mis-wiring of the sexual impulses" and can be taught. Is it one, the other, or both?

If it is an internal "mis-wiring" similar to Down's Syndrone, then whatever we teach about being gay will have practically no effect on those who are gay. It would be like teaching children it is not alright to have Down's Syndrome; it isn't going to change any child with the Syndrome, it won't make any child get the Syndrome, and at best it will just make those with the Syndrome more miserable, because they will believe they have something that is not "alright" to have!

Now I bet that homosexuality is a combination of nature (inherent DNA characteristics) and environment. Environmental factors may have some effect on whether a person turns out to be gay. But we have no idea what those factors are. They could psychological, but could also be related to diet, population density, and who knows what else. Until we have a full understanding of the process, we can't say for sure. But since it is a natural behavior in numerous other species (none of which has gone extinct because of it), it is hard to consider it as something bizzare and not normal.

It happens. It has always happened. It will always happen. Even if it is like Down's Syndrome, nothing you, me or society can do will stop it. Best we can do is try to understand it. And until we can control it (and truly know if it desirable to do so), the best we can do is accept it.

Biology does not give you justification for rejecting homosexuality.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heh. I was just going to quote this for truth:
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
Children are still people, they have their own minds and ultimately will make their own decisions. They are not the property of their parents, and raising children is a privilege, not a right.

But then you upped the ante by introducing this false dichotomy, and in so doing misrepresented Adam's position
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma:
Of course you believe this foolishness...afterall, you are advocating that parents shouldn't be outraged at all that a State education bureacracy is teaching sexual mores to their children, afterall, the Children are not their property! They are the property of the State....since you believe the State has a right to teach the children anything they want regardless of what the parents want.

Parents have responsibilities toward their children. We as a society have laso decided that The State (boogaboogabooga (bg)) has some responsibility for those not able to exercise personal sovereignty (including children). This does not mean either parents or the state owns the children. To deny parents ownership does not magically confer ownership to some third party, unless you consider children as chattel (which does go hand in hand with some forms of historical patriarchy, so maybe...)

The only question is what we as a society decide is the extent and limits of The State's (bg)responsibility. You seem to reject that The State (bg) has any responsibility toward your children. It is an interesting position.

BTW, I also disagree with this
quote:
Originally posted by Adam:
In short, schools needn't (and don't) take a position on whether certain practices are immoral or not. Schools simply recognize the reality of what children are choosing to do, and educate them to be able to protect themselves and make informed choices.

which is a pretty big generalization that gets in the way of the debate. Some, OK, but universally, and as if 'schools' are some kind of sentient being? Not quite.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Finally, from a strictly Darwinian point of view, homosexuality is a "natural" error. Sexual attraction is natures way of ensuring a species propagates. Being attracted to the same gender is a biological dead-end for propagating your DNA.
Natural selection is a bit more nuanced than your thinking, Daruma. Don't use it as a justification for your beliefs.

Consider bees and ants. Huge colonies of infertile females all working together. How does their DNA propagate?
Through the queen, of course. Helping the queen breed and stay safe keeps "their" DNA from dying off. It is close enough to their DNA that it keeps any favorable mutation in the gene pool. IOW, it works.

Something similar could be occurring with homosexuality. (Note that I don't state that it is.) Being celebate may have the advantage of helping the survival of close family member DNA, which can be close enough to individual DNA as to constitute a survival advantage. I suspect that it may also be tied to large concentrations of population, as in cities, which could trigger the tendancy.

Whatever the reason, there very well may be survival advantages to homosexuality. You can't discount it just because of the obvious disadvantage.

Oh come now Wayward - surely you should reconsider your fallacy of comparing apples to oranges here? Bees and ants are insects, who most definitely have a different biological imperative to propagate their species.

Try comparing primates or even just "Mammals."

If a mammal is not sexually attracted to an opposite gender of it's own species, it's own genetic line dies out when he or she dies. Where's the little nuances to mitigate such a basic point?

quote:
I believe homosexuality is a biological error...a mis-wiring of the sexual impulses designed for humans to carry out the biological imperative to procreate. I don't hate Gay people anymore than I hate someone born with Downs Syndrome...but neither do I think it is "normal" to be Gay...and I certainly do not want an educational system teaching my children it's perfectly alright to be Gay, and that they should try it to.
In this one paragraph you state that you believe that homosexuality is a "mis-wiring of the sexual impulses" and can be taught. Is it one, the other, or both?[/quote]

I personally believe through knowing many gay people and their personal stories, that most of them were most likely a product of their environment. But I do know some who insist that they have only known one way of feeling attraction since they could remember - so I say both.

But from a purely biological perspective, the base reason for the human being to experience sexual attraction is to propagate his or her DNA. It's funny to see secular humanists wrangle with the cognitive dissonance of squaring that biological reality with your ideological beliefs in homosexuality being "normal."

Now I bet that homosexuality is a combination of nature (inherent DNA characteristics) and environment. Environmental factors may have some effect on whether a person turns out to be gay. But we have no idea what those factors are.

They could psychological, but could also be related to diet, population density, and who knows what else. Until we have a full understanding of the process, we can't say for sure. But since it is a natural behavior in numerous other species (none of which has gone extinct because of it), it is hard to consider it as something bizzare and not normal.


I'm not saying it's bizzare. And I'm certainly not trying to stigmatize or exclude gay people for being gay. What I'm opposing here is an educational system being used by activist groups to impose their own belief system on children.

It happens. It has always happened. It will always happen. Even if it is like Down's Syndrome, nothing you, me or society can do will stop it. Best we can do is try to understand it. And until we can control it (and truly know if it desirable to do so), the best we can do is accept it.

There's a big difference between accepting it, or loving a homosexual person despite your own moral objections to their behavior...vs. a State bureaucracy subsidizing the indoctrination that Homosexuality is perfectly normal behavior, and to go into explicit details of homosexual activities, and to provide resources and material on how children could engage in it.

Biology does not give you justification for rejecting homosexuality.

Yes it does. Unfortunately, so many people have conflated rejecting homosexuality with rejecting, stigmatizing and hating homosexual individuals.

I do not hate gay people...at all. Just because I don't want want my children to grow up to be gay, and I don't want activist groups indoctrinating them via the education system that it's ok to be gay - "here's how you can practice it, and here some materials to give it try!" doesn't mean I'm a homophobe. At all.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure the two of you are using the the same definition of the word "rejecting", so the dispute may not be what you think it is.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

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