Exposing perversity to children

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



UKR
I read that in Canada, kids in school will be brainwashed into being forced to accept homosexuals. Parents aren't allowed to pull their kids from class. This is easily the single worst thing I've ever heard of in my entire life. Discuss.

Roomy
Originally posted by UKR
I read that in Canada, kids in school will be brainwashed into being forced to accept homosexuals. Parents aren't allowed to pull their kids from class. This is easily the single worst thing I've ever heard of in my entire life. Discuss.
Link please.
If they are being brainwashed it is wrong, if they are being taught that homosexuals exist and have a right to do so then that is acceptable.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Roomy
Link please.
If they are being brainwashed it is wrong, if they are being taught that homosexuals exist and have a right to do so then that is acceptable.

You sir, are correct.

Bardock42
Originally posted by UKR
I read that in Canada, kids in school will be brainwashed into being forced to accept homosexuals. Parents aren't allowed to pull their kids from class. This is easily the single worst thing I've ever heard of in my entire life. Discuss. That and the holocaust.

Rogue Jedi
Not to mention Burger King raising the price on the Whopper.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Not to mention Burger King raising the price on the Whopper.

I do agree, that's the worst, but I didn't want to get out the big guns right away.

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by Bardock42
I do agree, that's the worst, but I didn't want to get out the big guns right away. Who mentioned penises?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Who mentioned penises?

I'd say it was a joint effort.

Rogue Jedi
Forgive me if I don't feel a chill of inspiration running up my spine.

Lord Knightfa11
California they would have forced children to learn about gay marriage. A group of children went to a lesbian wedding as a field trip. Parents had no right to pull their children from class because they didn't want their kids exposed to that at an early age either.

Robtard
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
California they would have forced children to learn about gay marriage. A group of children went to a lesbian wedding as a field trip. Parents had no right to pull their children from class because they didn't want their kids exposed to that at an early age either.

Parents must sign permission slips before their kids go on out-of-school outings. So you fail again.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Parents must sign permission slips before their kids go on out-of-school outings. So you fail again.

Indeed.


This type of fear-mongering was also perpetuated by the Mormon writers for the website for prop -8. I was so pissed that they typed idiocracy like. Mormons pride themselves on being "knowledgeable" and educated on current issues because we're encouraged to....it pissed me off that such stupidity was allowed.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Robtard
Parents must sign permission slips before their kids go on out-of-school outings. So you fail again.

Clearly they had the wedding in the school and then forced all the kids to watch gay monkeys have sex.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed.


This type of fear-mongering was also perpetuated by the Mormon writers for the website for prop -8. I was so pissed that they typed idiocracy like. Mormons pride themselves on being "knowledgeable" and educated on current issues because we're encouraged to....it pissed me off that such stupidity was allowed.

It wasn't so much "stupidity", but willful lying for the means of furthering an agenda. They know it has nothing to do with schools and the teachings of marriage, gay or otherwise.

Robtard
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Clearly they had the wedding in the school and then forced all the kids to watch gay monkeys have sex.

Monkeys can't be gay, they don't have free will and Jesus-God wouldn't create gays, because Jesus-God only creates good things. Duh!

Devil King
Originally posted by UKR
I read that in Canada, kids in school will be brainwashed into being forced to accept homosexuals. Parents aren't allowed to pull their kids from class. This is easily the single worst thing I've ever heard of in my entire life. Discuss.

Yeah? And this one day at band camp...

What the ****? Why has no one banned this troll?

inimalist
In Canada, even those who are against Gay marriage are against it becomming a national political issue

we love perversion up here.

Hell, BDSM comes 2 weeks after the gay class.

Robtard
Originally posted by Devil King
Yeah? And this one day at band camp...

What the ****? Why has no one banned this troll?

Because he has yet to do something as offense as to personally anger a Mod.

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
In Canada, even those who are against Gay marriage are against it becomming a national political issue

we love perversion up here.

Hell, BDSM comes 2 weeks after the gay class.

A friend of a friend's cousin told me that sodomy is the preferred sexual activity in Canada and there's legislation to make June 27th "Anal Day", a national holiday.

Devil King
Originally posted by Robtard
A friend of a friend's cousin told me that sodomy is the preferred sexual activity in Canada and there's legislation to make June 27th "Anal Day", a national holiday.

So sodomy does refer to anal sex, right? I had an argument with a friend who said it refered to all sex where intercourse of any kind is invovled.

inimalist
Originally posted by Robtard
A friend of a friend's cousin told me that sodomy is the preferred sexual activity in Canada and there's legislation to make June 27th "Anal Day", a national holiday.

Ya, the conservatives are holding up the legislation

they are all like "the government shouldn't have to be involved, people will do anal that day anyways"

people are too busy buggering eachother that no work gets done anyways. The whole idea of a holiday is just bloated beuracrats trying to get involved in the sex life of ordinary people, and not in the good way.

inimalist
Originally posted by Devil King
So sodomy does refer to anal sex, right? I had an argument with a friend who said it refered to all sex where intercourse of any kind is invovled.

colloquially, yes

biblically, no, it refers to all "sinful" sex, iirc

Devil King
I'm not worried about the bible. Just as long as I'm realistically and factually correct, that's all that matters.

inimalist
I think the word's use originates (probably not originates, but you know what I mean) from biblical reference.

That people like to put private parts in their mouths probably changed the definition over the years

Devil King
Bible thumpers must have the most boring of sex. I mean, do they even take their clothes off when they do it?

Robtard
Originally posted by Devil King
So sodomy does refer to anal sex, right? I had an argument with a friend who said it refered to all sex where intercourse of any kind is invovled.

Comes from the word Sodom, where if you interpret the bible a certain way, it was male-male sex, ie anal. It could also be sex of a sinful nature.

It has at times been expanded to include oral (hetero and homo) and bestiality. But in a general sense, sodomy refers to anal-sex.

Just like the word "bugger" comes from Bulgar, it comes from some monastary where the monks were charged with ass-****ing each other.

Edit: I see Inimalist basically said what I said.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
In Canada, even those who are against Gay marriage are against it becomming a national political issue

we love perversion up here.

Hell, BDSM comes 2 weeks after the gay class.

I imagine that would be far more awkward for most people than a class about homosexuality.

Devil King
Originally posted by Robtard
Bulgar, where the monks were charged with ass-****ing each other.

So the entire nation of Bulgaria are hot for ass sex?

Robtard
Originally posted by Devil King
So the entire nation of Bulgaria are hot for ass sex?

Sadly, no. Just those monks.

inimalist
Originally posted by Devil King
Bible thumpers must have the most boring of sex. I mean, do they even take their clothes off when they do it?

when Kinsey was doing research for his reports on human sexuality, he found (I forget the exact number. Probably not a large group, but enough that I know it caught me by surprise) a subset of people whose sexual knowledge was so poor that they mentioned their desire to have children and not understanding why they couldn't concieve one, even though the wife was still a virgin.

There is this really weird dichotomy in the American way of life. Such obsession with sexuality, in advertisements and pretty much everything else, yet the actual act of sex is taboo. Showing a nipple, national outrage. 2 clothed women rubbing against each other in ways only seen in pornography, put it on prime time.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I imagine that would be far more awkward for most people than a class about homosexuality.

indeed

I can't imagine there is an actual "class" about homosexuality for kids. I'm sure it just gets more mention in health ed or whatever.

In a lot of ways Canada is just as prudish as America. Accepting alternative lifestyles is not one of those ways. Thinking that informing people about their sexuality is bad, just happens to be.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I was introduced to BDSM though school. I did a bunch of papers on the Marquis de Sade for philosophy when I was like 15-16. Honestly, totally appropriate for that age, at least in my case.

BackFire
Parents have the legal right to pull their children from anything they want in school.

Robtard
Originally posted by Devil King
Bible thumpers must have the most boring of sex. I mean, do they even take their clothes off when they do it?

"Evangelicals have the best sex-lives!" -Ted Haggard

Devil King
Originally posted by inimalist
when Kinsey was doing research for his reports on human sexuality, he found (I forget the exact number. Probably not a large group, but enough that I know it caught me by surprise) a subset of people whose sexual knowledge was so poor that they mentioned their desire to have children and not understanding why they couldn't concieve one, even though the wife was still a virgin.

There is this really weird dichotomy in the American way of life. Such obsession with sexuality, in advertisements and pretty much everything else, yet the actual act of sex is taboo. Showing a nipple, national outrage. 2 clothed women rubbing against each other in ways only seen in pornography, put it on prime time.

So they don't take their clothes off when they do it.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Evangelicals have the best sex-lives!" -Ted Haggard

Well, they should know; they're neck deep in everyone else's sex lives that they must be comparison shopping. Right?

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Robtard
"Evangelicals have the best sex-lives!" -Ted Haggard

Because they are having it on crystal meth with male prostitutes.

Robtard
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because they are having it on crystal meth with male prostitutes.

To be fair, it really wasn't Ted who was snorting those lines and paying some strange man to **** him up the ass outside of his marriage, it was the Devil and his damn temptations. The good news, it only took two weeks of Jesus-therapy to cure Ted.

Deja~vu
Originally posted by Devil King
Bible thumpers must have the most boring of sex. I mean, do they even take their clothes off when they do it? They turn the light off and look away. sad

inimalist
Originally posted by Devil King
So they don't take their clothes off when they do it.

they might not even be doing it

Symmetric Chaos

Lord Knightfa11
Originally posted by Robtard
Parents must sign permission slips before their kids go on out-of-school outings. So you fail again. I didn't say the kids were forced to go, but the gay marriage would be in the classroom, and you aren't allowed to pull children from school for *ahem* "discriminatory" or "hate" reasons...

Devil King
Originally posted by inimalist
they might not even be doing it

Oh, they're doing it. Just look at my thread in the religion forum. They're over doing it.

Peach
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I didn't say the kids were forced to go, but the gay marriage would be in the classroom, and you aren't allowed to pull children from school for *ahem* "discriminatory" or "hate" reasons...

Do you have any links or sources for this?

Because the "gay marriage in the classroom" claim sounds like bullshit.

Lord Knightfa11
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 first of all, this makes you wonder why they even need marriage.



as for the source:
this book is an example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_&_King


anti-discrimination policies would force individuals and organizations to change their beliefs in the name of tolerance.

Peach
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 first of all, this makes you wonder why they even need marriage.



as for the source:
this book is an example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_&_King


anti-discrimination policies would force individuals and organizations to change their beliefs in the name of tolerance.

That wasn't what I was asking for, so I'm going to assume it was simply poor wording on your part. "I didn't say the kids were forced to go, but the gay marriage would be in the classroom" made it sound like they were actually getting married in the classroom.

And telling kids that this sort of thing exists is not forcing people to change their beliefs. Ignoring the topic of homosexuality will not make it go away, and it's not exactly a bad thing. Not in the least.

If it's the same thing, why not call it the same thing? Marriage is not defined by the Christian definition, you realize.

Lord Knightfa11
Originally posted by Peach

And telling kids that this sort of thing exists is not forcing people to change their beliefs. Ignoring the topic of homosexuality will not make it go away, and it's not exactly a bad thing. Not in the least.

If it's the same thing, why not call it the same thing? Marriage is not defined by the Christian definition, you realize.
1st laughing out loud at kids getting hitched in class lol.

telling them that it exists is like the birds and the bees. it should be up to the parents, not society.

And if they already have all of the benefits of marriage, why are we all fighting?

Red Nemesis
Just curious: is this what Prop8 just repealed? 'Cause, ya know, that'd really screw up your argument.

Lord Knightfa11
-.- no its not.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 first of all, this makes you wonder why they even need marriage.




Because they are treated differently than heterosexuals. Which the government shouldn't do.

Lord Knightfa11
Originally posted by Bardock42
Because they are treated differently than heterosexuals. Which the government shouldn't do. its because they are different than heterosexuals. pretty easy logic...

Bardock42
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
its because they are different than heterosexuals. pretty easy logic... Blacks are different to Whites. Yet they have the same rights. There's no reason to treat heterosexual couples any different than homosexual ones, as such the government shouldn't do it.

Devil King
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
anti-discrimination policies would force individuals and organizations to change their beliefs in the name of tolerance.

What a horrifying prospect! Tolerace becoming law? What's next; blacks and women being allowed to vote? See, folks who maintain your perspective like to reconcile their hate with federal mandate and socialism/fasciam/communism. This is where your prespective breaks down. What you're doing is saying that poor "Robb and Robin Wirthlin and David and Tonia Parker" are victims of irresponsible and overwhelming government, while ignoring the fact that supposedly the rights of "Robb and Robin Wirthlin and David and Tonia Parker" outweigh Adam and Steven to have their own life. "Rights" often come at the expense of those who theink they belong soley to them. *******, Queers, Ass-F**kers, sodomites, butt-pirates, etc, have just as many rights as do you. What you end up doing with such a transparent and laughable argument is only strengthening the justification for why you should have no rights. Folks like you profess that the founding fathers were all bible-thumping christians while ignoring the teachings of christ and making this a nation a where that ignorance is law. Sadly for you and happily for reality, you are wrong. Politicians and pundants have told you that you have the right to assume the responsability for the rights of others who are not you; but you don't. You just want to be Jesus, not worship him.

Besides, if you really did, you wouldn't have such a distaste for gays. After all, the man spent all his time in the company of 12 single men and one whore.

Robb and Robin...what a stupid name combination. I bet they name their kid Tommy Thompson.

Lord Knightfa11
I'm sorry, you are wrong. First of all, the main reason for gay marriage is so that they can get the same treatment as heterosexual marriage. The reasons that the government should not allow this are quite blatant.
1. Unlike blacks being allowed to vote, which is the popular analogy you seem so deft to take, Homosexuals chose the way that they are.
2. Now if you take away morals completely, you will find that homosexuality is still a grievous trespass against communities. First of all, it allows a homosexual to take his or her spouse on as a dependent. This means that the government would have to give him more of a tax return. It would also mean that, if in a government or other job that would give healthcare, these jobs would be forced to give healthcare to the spouse. Now this is fine in heterosexual marriages, because the social plan is that man+woman=children=citizens=taxes, so the government reaps what it sews in the long run. With Homosexual marriage, there are no children being produced, so this is already money just adding to the load on our tumbling economy's anvil. Furthermore, after homosexual sex, aids ensues and the two parties die. Now you have lost tax dollars, and citizens who could benefit society. That's why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

Lord Knightfa11
Originally posted by Devil King
Folks like you profess that the founding fathers were all bible-thumping christians while ignoring the teachings of christ and making this a nation a where that ignorance is law. first of all i am making my arguements from a totally secular point of view. Thank you. If you want me to argue bible thumping, yes, this country was forged by christians to be free. I think they did a good job.
Where did this come from. This is not the religion forum. If you want to argue that 'Lulz dey r in luffs so dey must marry' feel free. As for rights, they have the right to be gay, of course. I'm not denying them that right, but they are different, as marriage takes from the state and without the possibility of children, gives nothing back. If you want to say "lulz dey have same rites as u and sum pundant told you wrong" (what is a pundant anyway?) feel free. They have the same exact rights as me, and must take on the legal state of marriage as a joint effort to further our communities.

I don't have a distaste for gays. I know gays, I am freinds with a gay.

AND FINALLY. BLACK PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE. THEY ARE GOOD PEOPLE. THEY DIDN'T CHOSE TO BE BLACK, AND BLACK IS NOT A BAD THING. HOMOSEXUALITY IS DETRIMENTAL, IS A CHOICE, AND IS NOT A STATE OF BEING BUT AN ACTION.
? where did this come from? random shit?

Devil King
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I'm sorry, you are wrong. First of all, the main reason for gay marriage is so that they can get the same treatment as heterosexual marriage. The reasons that the government should not allow this are quite blatant.
1. Unlike blacks being allowed to vote, which is the popular analogy you seem so deft to take, Homosexuals chose the way that they are.
2. Now if you take away morals completely, you will find that homosexuality is still a grievous trespass against communities. First of all, it allows a homosexual to take his or her spouse on as a dependent. This means that the government would have to give him more of a tax return. It would also mean that, if in a government or other job that would give healthcare, these jobs would be forced to give healthcare to the spouse. Now this is fine in heterosexual marriages, because the social plan is that man+woman=children=citizens=taxes, so the government reaps what it sews in the long run. With Homosexual marriage, there are no children being produced, so this is already money just adding to the load on our tumbling economy's anvil. Furthermore, after homosexual sex, aids ensues and the two parties die. Now you have lost tax dollars, and citizens who could benefit society. That's why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

1)So when homosexuals choose to be straight, they're rejecting the idea of homosexuality: what more troll/sock position can be had?

2) What communities? Yours? Reality? History? Jesus? I like how you go on to answer the question by bringing in healthcare and the other managerie of stupidy that fail to answer the question into the "equation". Bottom line: you can't answer the question or come up with a viable excuse for why gay marriage should be illegal while your own herterosexual marriage is recognized. Only the dumb ass chooses tax money as their red herring, especially since straight, married couples pay less tax dollars than their gay counterparts. I do like how you think your marriage should cost less than the two people who live next to you that happen to be gay. Treasury department banality is a sad and sick place to hide when it comes to equal recognition under the law; especially since the loop holes and paper work are dismissable if two human beings are handled the same way straight couples are handled. What means something is the reality that you can love and respect and what ever all the other virtues of marriage, your partner in Kansas, but I can not. You know, there is a very real face to the laws you walk into the booth and vote away. It's your nephew or your neice and your cousin or your mother. These people are not strangers, they're you. Just because you were born an idiot, doesn't mean everyone in your life or family are just as repressed. I hope there's someone in your family that is gay and that you love, but are willing to deny them what you yourself have...

Homosexuals chose just as much as you did. You assume that **** did something wrong to become what they are, because you want to assure your ability to be inculpible in what you are. But you aren't. you can't say that you chose because you want to say that you are real and anyone who is different is reposnible because he or she is not. It's the position of a coward...of a person who is scared and a coward.

But you're willing to do so, because a baby in a book written 2000 years ago told you that you have a right to do so. And then this enlightened government came along and told you the same thing. Sadly, reality disagrees. You don't mean anything more than me to the system. You have the same value as a fa*got; I hope you realize that.

Do us all the favor of telling us the exact moment you chose to be attracted to women?

You can't? Then you're a ****ing liar and a hypocrit.

Lord Knightfa11
Originally posted by Devil King
1)So when homosexuals choose to be straight, they're rejecting the idea of homosexuality: what more troll/sock position can be had?

um..... ya....
I don't see a question.

Take your pill please. If you would take a class or two, i'm sure you would be able to read my reasons.

numbers, please.
the fact is, My children will grow up to be hard workers that will pay their income tax, actually giving the money more money then it costs to maintaing them... IMAGINE! You haven't refuted a single theory or reason i have listed for my conclusions.
um... they aren't "dismissable" (dismissible, don't you mean?). homosexuality is bad for the ideal community.
Marriage is a state of legality, nothing more, nothing less.
I take offense at your lack of logic skills, so that you would stoop to the base act of petty insults.
perfectly willing. if you want to go cry about how marriage is soooo beautiful, i suggest you go to a wedding. this is a place of logic and intelligent thinking, not of base hormonal emotions.
No, they have a right to be gay, but they do not have the right to take part in a legal three way agreement with the government that was designed for the betterment of society. so now you fall back to the "homophobic" line of defense. Well then, my fair and homosexual genius with the incredible spelling and logic skills, what am I meant to be afraid of? I will tell you. An america where kids die of aids, where we shovel out even more money to people who give nothing back, an america where you are forced by the thought police to accept everything and anything that they decide is appropriate and just. That's what I'm afraid of. What are you afraid of? not being able to take the next big step with your boyfreind?
I don't think that's the issue... my "enlightened government" is actually enlightened, and if you judge it as a system, homosexuality is bad for it.

With you.
You realized i have not used one slur against homosexuals. I have also not said they were less or better than me. I said that homosexuality is bad for society, yes, but homosexuality is an action. they as humans are just as important as you or me.

not the same. you fail, good sir. Being attracted to a woman is natural and hormonal and scientific.
Why don't you make a valid argument before such strong words and accusations?

You can't? Then your a ****ing moron and an idiot.

Devil King
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
not the same.

Tell me how it's not the same.

Lord Knightfa11
Male+female=natural and hormonal and something that is genetically destined to occur.

Male+male=/=natural and hormonal and genetically destined to occur.

ANYWAY that's not what I am arguing. you have every right to be attracted to a man and to sleep with that man.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Devil King
Tell me how it's not the same.


He did tell you the difference...the fact is you choose to become aroused when you do...its not like you even have hormones..................................

Land of the Free eh...

Lord Knightfa11
you guys seem to think that I'm arguing that homosexuality is bad. NO! I have no problem with homosexuality. Its forcing children to learn about it, forcing people to accept it, and forcing the government to sanction it that's wrong.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
you guys seem to think that I'm arguing that homosexuality is bad. NO! I have no problem with homosexuality. Its forcing children to learn about it, forcing people to accept it, and forcing the government to sanction it that's wrong.

Maybe forcing kids to learn about heterosexuality is wrong?

It isn't the government's place to make a moral judgement on this matter...

Devil King
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
He did tell you the difference...the fact is you choose to become aroused when you do...its not like you even have hormones..................................

Land of the Free eh...
Where are your hormones? Or did Baby Jesus not give you any?

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Devil King
Where are your hormones? Or did Baby Jesus not give you any?

I guess us celibates are in the same boat as you lot... equally unnatural.

Lord Knightfa11
Originally posted by Devil King
Where are your hormones? Or did Baby Jesus not give you any? Wow. I haven't mentioned anything pertaining to Christianity once in this whole thread.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Wow. I haven't mentioned anything pertaining to Christianity once in this whole thread.

He was talking to me and totally misjudged my sarcasm...

UKR
Originally posted by Roomy
Link please.
If they are being brainwashed it is wrong, if they are being taught that homosexuals exist and have a right to do so then that is acceptable.



Homosexuality is like religion, race and gender issues, it has no place in school or withing a hundred yards of any minor. I don't have a link to it, I read it in a newspaper. I don't have a scanner and this paper was from a few months ago.

Ushgarak
Personally the one important thing I think has no place in the classroom is parent power. Parents should have absolutely no damn say whatsoever in what their kids are taught. The childen are the 'customers' of the school, not the parents, and abput the only place to escape the entrenched views of your parents and learn to think for yourself is in the school environment.

Parents do more damage to schooling and schoolchildren than any sort of lesson ever does.

Lord Knightfa11
I actually have to disagree. I would say that what parents want their kids to know should take precedent. The child will think for himself, but the parents should have the option to want to know what their child is learning and make sure it doesn't conflict with their beliefs.

Ushgarak
Nope, that leads to an entirely crap society. If school is teaching something against the beliefs of the parents- good! That's half the bloody point. At home the parents can argue it, provide counters to it, try and persuade otherwise, but at absolutely no point should they have the power to stop their kids being taught it.

Lord Knightfa11
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nope, that leads to an entirely crap society. If school is teaching something against the beliefs of the parents- good! That's half the bloody point. At home the parents can argue it, provide counters to it, try and persuade otherwise, but at absolutely no point should they have the power to stop their kids being taught it. I don't think that's actually any part of the point of school. the point is to
a) educate them for jobs, etc.
b) give them the tools they need to survive.
c) Get them transferred off to college.

They question their parents enough as soon as they hit that magical age of 14-16. Teaching children that their parents are wrong purposefully would cause all sorts of domestic problems. The children are dependents of the parents, and as such, the parents have every right to teach them what's really up. Forcing parents to let their kids be brainwashed and patronized by the school is the last thing society needs.

Roomy
Originally posted by UKR
Homosexuality is like religion, race and gender issues, it has no place in school or withing a hundred yards of any minor. I don't have a link to it, I read it in a newspaper. I don't have a scanner and this paper was from a few months ago.

laughing Way to go.Iread a lot of stuff.Fortunately I can differentiate.

Lord Knightfa11
anyway, i'm off to bed. I may come back and be a homophobic conservative racist bastard.

Btw i talked with my black boss about his opinion, and he agreed with me. He said that if he was eligible for welfare, he would have lived in the shit forever. how does he know? his mother was eligible.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I don't think that's actually any part of the point of school. the point is to
a) educate them for jobs, etc.
b) give them the tools they need to survive.
c) Get them transferred off to college.


I will happily fight to destroy any system which turns education into a mere traning factory. It is FAR beyond that.

It's not treaching children that parents are wqrong- even though that would be a fair lesson to larn. It is simply advancing a point of view (incidentally, also a fair, rational and civilised one). If that conflcits with the views of the parents, tough titties on the parents.

Children may be dependent on the parents but the parents do NOT own them, no matter how much money or effort they put into raising them. They do not have the right to absolutely set their children's belief systems and it is a degenerate society that would allow such a thing. Potential parents shoudl be absolutely aware that they do not have such absolute rights over any children they want to have. They will, of course, have a massive influence over their children anyway; to effectively demand that influence to be raised to 100% is ludicrous. School provides the vital counterpoint.

Parents do FAR more brainwashing than schools ever do, and it is all the worse for it. School is compulsory for good reason; professionalised education is the best resource for developing children. The last thing society needs- the absolute DISASTER for society- is for children to be so under the control of the parents as you propose.

For an absolutel 100 certainty I will state- bad parenting and parents interfering in schooling are a FAR greater menace, by many orders of magnitude, than any sort of sex, equality, gender or lifestyle choice education could ever possibly be. And so before I'd even get into the argument of whether these things should be taught or not (though I think they all should), I would first say "I don't give a toss what the PARENTS think, for sure." My reasoning on whether such things should be on a syllabus would be focussed on the benefits to the child, not the egos of the parents.

silver_tears
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Personally the one important thing I think has no place in the classroom is parent power. Parents should have absolutely no damn say whatsoever in what their kids are taught. The childen are the 'customers' of the school, not the parents, and abput the only place to escape the entrenched views of your parents and learn to think for yourself is in the school environment.

Parents do more damage to schooling and schoolchildren than any sort of lesson ever does.

That's not entirely true. They're learning to think like their teachers do.

Ushgarak
No, they are being exposed to contrast, which actually enables them to brek out of a situation where all they do is copy the views of their elders as that is no longer possible.

Sadako of Girth
You favour "No say for the parents in what the kids were taught..."

What about a scenario where, lets say for an example, school taught creationalist science as a model for your kid's universe..?

Would you as a man presumably of logic, reason and actual science, not feel tempted to interject at least with commentary on what your kid is taught, especially in the face of such factual/intellectual effrontary..?

Just curious to see how you measure that against the "no parental say" principle.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
you guys seem to think that I'm arguing that homosexuality is bad. NO! I have no problem with homosexuality. Its forcing children to learn about it, forcing people to accept it, and forcing the government to sanction it that's wrong.

That argument can be applied to anything you learn in school. And doesn't really hold much water as such, besides, you are talking Canada, here, not the US, maybe try to tone down the US Constitution rhetoric, it doesn't apply to everyone.


As for homosexuals "choosing" to be gay. If you think you could "choose" to be homosexual, it is very likely that you actually are homosexual and try to ignore or avoid it. Actual heterosexuals, like me, for example, can not "choose" to be gay, which, basically means that homosexuals can not "choose" to be straight either, which takes away the basis of your ignorance. Either way, being human beings, they should be treated equally, and the institution of marriage discriminates against multiple groups from the outset, as such, should be banned. Besides, they do not hurt anyone at all, and being exposed to relevant concepts of our time, which might lead to tolerance of other people's non-harmful life styles is certainly not child abuse.

As an addition, I partly agree with Ush. In most countries, except for the US, I believe schooling is seen as an exposure to the grander world, as such the children should be, relatively neutrally, exposed to what happens in it. On the other hand there is the fact that teachers are humans as well, and they do have a position of power, for example when I was in 9th grade 14-15 at the time, I assume, we had an economics teacher who was a very strong supporter of a particular party, and he did include his own rants and ideals in basically everything he taught us, which at least turned the outspoken parts of my class into little clones, imo. Obviously I might only have disagreed because my parents believed different, but it is still pretty sickening to see everyone just follow in such a blatant way. Now, that teacher was actually not bad, and he tried to teach us, but I can see the problem that people have as School can be a very strong instrument in a child's life, and not everyone trusts their government, seeing as not every government has the best intentions.

But obviously no such brainwashing is attempted here, and it is ignorant, knee-jerking parents which have a problem with the idea of tolerance be taught. It's similar to not teaching evolution or teaching another silly "theory" next to it, another ridiculous thing, many of the people that condemn homosexuality argue for.

inimalist
In psychology, there is a condition known as a phantom limb. It occurs when a person has a limb removed, yet they can still feel pain or tension where the limb would have been. This is because the brain contains a map of the body that activates when you feel something, and the limb is never removed from there, only the body.

A majority of men who have their penis removed due to cancer report a "phantom penis" phenomena.

Interestingly, biological men who have underwent sex change surgery report (based on preliminary surveys) significantly less occurrence of phantom penis. The current interpretation of this (it was actually a prediction that spurred the survey) is that the body map of a woman born into a man's body is not male, but female, and thus, the penis is never properly represented, thus cannot have phantom pain.

This indicates that something like personal gender identity, something largely thought to be a social construct, may have very strong biological roots.

Lycanthrope
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I will happily fight to destroy any system which turns education into a mere traning factory. It is FAR beyond that.

It's not treaching children that parents are wqrong- even though that would be a fair lesson to larn. It is simply advancing a point of view (incidentally, also a fair, rational and civilised one). If that conflcits with the views of the parents, tough titties on the parents.

Children may be dependent on the parents but the parents do NOT own them, no matter how much money or effort they put into raising them. They do not have the right to absolutely set their children's belief systems and it is a degenerate society that would allow such a thing. Potential parents shoudl be absolutely aware that they do not have such absolute rights over any children they want to have. They will, of course, have a massive influence over their children anyway; to effectively demand that influence to be raised to 100% is ludicrous. School provides the vital counterpoint.

Parents do FAR more brainwashing than schools ever do, and it is all the worse for it. School is compulsory for good reason; professionalised education is the best resource for developing children. The last thing society needs- the absolute DISASTER for society- is for children to be so under the control of the parents as you propose.

For an absolutel 100 certainty I will state- bad parenting and parents interfering in schooling are a FAR greater menace, by many orders of magnitude, than any sort of sex, equality, gender or lifestyle choice education could ever possibly be. And so before I'd even get into the argument of whether these things should be taught or not (though I think they all should), I would first say "I don't give a toss what the PARENTS think, for sure." My reasoning on whether such things should be on a syllabus would be focussed on the benefits to the child, not the egos of the parents.

Yeah This was Adolf Hitlers idea as well. Weather the parents hated Jews or not the school curriculum involved the teaching of hatred toward the Juden. So I guess the Parents should have had no say huh? Seig Hiel! Only In a perfect world Ush.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Yeah This was Adolf Hitlers idea as well. Weather the parents hated Jews or not the school curriculum involved the teaching of hatred toward the Juden. So I guess the Parents should have had no say huh? Seig Hiel! Only In a perfect world Ush.

:L Godwin'd !

Wooooooooooo!

Lana would be proud

smile

Bardock42
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Seig Hiel!


Probably the funniest thing ever.

Peach
Originally posted by silver_tears
That's not entirely true. They're learning to think like their teachers do.

Yeah, if they only ever had one teacher their entire lives, or had all teachers that only ever thought the exact same thing.

inimalist
lol

does anyone actually think teachers and lessons are more influential on kids than, oh, I don't know, parents and peer groups?

Robtard
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I didn't say the kids were forced to go, but the gay marriage would be in the classroom, and you aren't allowed to pull children from school for *ahem* "discriminatory" or "hate" reasons...

Parents have the right to "pull" their child from a classroom or school. Learning about marriage, gay or otherwise isn't in the school curriculum, unless you mean a teacher in Massachusetts might say "gay-marriage is legal in this state", ie stating a fact. So you fail again.

Lord Knightfa11
Originally posted by Bardock42

But obviously no such brainwashing is attempted here, and it is ignorant, knee-jerking parents which have a problem with the idea of tolerance be taught. It's similar to not teaching evolution or teaching another silly "theory" next to it, another ridiculous thing, many of the people that condemn homosexuality argue for.
Being taught tolerance of other races, of each other, of deformities, of down syndrome patients, or of the sick, or of the mental is something I would have to agree with you on.

Being taught tolerance of the immoral, or the pedophile, or the homosexual is wrong. Its forcing your beliefs on everyone else when the majority has ruled that homosexuality is immoral and unconstitutional.

Tolerance should only go so far. If I don't want my children to learn about homosexuality at age seven, as children in Massachusetts did, **** anyone who gets in my way. If I hear that teachers are teaching my seven year old to disagree with me on political matters, **** anyone who gets in my way from getting my kid out of school. After all, the majority of teachers in the school system are liberal, and being ever so much bigger and smarter than a seven year old, and getting him for so much longer per day than I do, are going to get their shit ****ed up if they think they can teach him political opinions instead of fact and logic.

My children know about homosexuality. You want to know who told them? Me. With the command to love them like brothers, but don't let them force you to say "oh that's awesome, your gay, let me tolerate your immorality."

you can love a person and befriend a person without being forced to accept everything that person does. If my friend is a mental patient, I'm going to accept him as my friend, but not going to accept what he does in a insane mentality.

People shouldn't be forced to tolerate anything, period. People can be told someone else's opinions.
People can be loving and understanding of a homosexual, but they should not be forced to accept their actions.

Lord Knightfa11
Originally posted by Robtard
Parents have the right to "pull" their child from a classroom or school, at any time. Learning about marriage, gay or otherwise isn't in the school curriculum, unless you mean a teacher in Massachusetts might say "gay-marriage is legal in this state", ie stating a fact. So you fail again. false. classrooms are required to teach about marriage in the state of California (and massechusets i believe), and if gay union is called gay marriage, then this would be included.

And the law is that they can't commit a "hate crime" by removing children from a class teaching homosexuality as a natural option.

inimalist
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Being taught tolerance of other races, of each other, of deformities, of down syndrome patients, or of the sick, or of the mental is something I would have to agree with you on.

Being taught tolerance of the immoral, or the pedophile, or the homosexual is wrong. Its forcing your beliefs on everyone else when the majority has ruled that homosexuality is immoral and unconstitutional.

Tolerance should only go so far. If I don't want my children to learn about homosexuality at age seven, as children in Massachusetts did, **** anyone who gets in my way. If I hear that teachers are teaching my seven year old to disagree with me on political matters, **** anyone who gets in my way from getting my kid out of school. After all, the majority of teachers in the school system are liberal, and being ever so much bigger and smarter than a seven year old, and getting him for so much longer per day than I do, are going to get their shit ****ed up if they think they can teach him political opinions instead of fact and logic.

My children know about homosexuality. You want to know who told them? Me. With the command to love them like brothers, but don't let them force you to say "oh that's awesome, your gay, let me tolerate your immorality."

you can love a person and befriend a person without being forced to accept everything that person does. If my friend is a mental patient, I'm going to accept him as my friend, but not going to accept what he does in a insane mentality.

People shouldn't be forced to tolerate anything, period. People can be told someone else's opinions.
People can be loving and understanding of a homosexual, but they should not be forced to accept their actions.

clearly your children have more to worry about from your influence on them than any school's.

Lord Knightfa11
lol where are all the conservatives? am i the only one on this board?

inimalist
I'm a conservative

you mean moral fascists who want to use the government to enforce their view of a proper way of life. That is the opposite of conservative.

Robtard
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
false. classrooms are required to teach about marriage in the state of California (and massechusets i believe), and if gay union is called gay marriage, then this would be included.

And the law is that they can't commit a "hate crime" by removing children from a class teaching homosexuality as a natural option.

The California School Superintendent disagrees with you; I believe he is a greater authority on the subject than either of us. Which class do you think includes "marriage lessons"?

"Homosexuality as a natural option" isn't taught in schools. Sex Ed covers homosexuality, since homosexuals and homosexuality does exist, but that's just a fact.

Your homophobia is hilarious though.

Lord Knightfa11
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm a conservative

you mean moral fascists who want to use the government to enforce their view of a proper way of life. That is the opposite of conservative. you are the ones saying that the government should enforce tolerance, i'm saying they should not. who wants the government to enforce their view of a proper way of life? you.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Being taught tolerance of other races, of each other, of deformities, of down syndrome patients, or of the sick, or of the mental is something I would have to agree with you on.

Being taught tolerance of the immoral, or the pedophile, or the homosexual is wrong. Its forcing your beliefs on everyone else when the majority has ruled that homosexuality is immoral and unconstitutional.

Homosexuality is NOT unconstitutional. That is just a lie. As for Canada, apparently the majority there does not think that homosexuality is immoral, in Europe, similarly, it is hardly as big a deal. And again, homosexual do not have a choice. Being tolerant of them is the same as being tolerant of blacks, or of mentally handicapped. The fact also is that homosexuals do not harm anyone, so they should be tolerated.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Tolerance should only go so far. If I don't want my children to learn about homosexuality at age seven, as children in Massachusetts did, **** anyone who gets in my way. If I hear that teachers are teaching my seven year old to disagree with me on political matters, **** anyone who gets in my way from getting my kid out of school. After all, the majority of teachers in the school system are liberal, and being ever so much bigger and smarter than a seven year old, and getting him for so much longer per day than I do, are going to get their shit ****ed up if they think they can teach him political opinions instead of fact and logic.

That is a choice you can make as you are in the US, yes. In many countries of Europe, children are not thought of as property of the parents. As such the government ensures that the parents do not fill them with intolerant or contrary ideas as best as it can. What if a parent would not want their child to learn about Shakespeare's plays, or about Chemical Compounds, or about Beethoven's Sonatas? The right of the child to an unbiased and sufficient education is seen as outweighing the parents sense of property over their children. In theory, not actually that bad of an idea, as parents tend to not know as much as all teachers together, but even then, they can still discuss the information given to the children at home...

I guess what many fundamentalists are afraid of is that treating homosexuals decently is just such a very logical and sane concept that their children would choose it over the parent's bigotry.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
My children know about homosexuality. You want to know who told them? Me. With the command to love them like brothers, but don't let them force you to say "oh that's awesome, your gay, let me tolerate your immorality."

You don't understand homosexuality though. You don't know very much about the facts, so to have you as the sole source of information on the subject does injustice to your children, as they are not exposed to the truth.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
you can love a person and befriend a person without being forced to accept everything that person does. If my friend is a mental patient, I'm going to accept him as my friend, but not going to accept what he does in a insane mentality.

Sure, religious idiocy babble, I heard before. Really doesn't matter to anything.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
People shouldn't be forced to tolerate anything, period. People can be told someone else's opinions.
People can be loving and understanding of a homosexual, but they should not be forced to accept their actions.

No, they shouldn't be forced. Exposed to different believes, yes, they should be.

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm a conservative

you mean moral fascists who want to use the government to enforce their view of a proper way of life. That is the opposite of conservative.

Good answer.

My favourite rant of his, he is against people being forced to accept anything they disagree with, unless of course, that lesson is something he personally considers moral.

Lord Knightfa11
Originally posted by Robtard
The California School Superintendent disagrees with you; I believe he is a greater authority on the subject than either of us. Which class do you think includes "marriage lessons"?

"Homosexuality as a natural option" isn't taught in schools. Sex Ed covers homosexuality, since homosexuals and homosexuality does exist, but that's just a fact.

Your homophobia is hilarious though. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ says in here it should be if homosexual marriage is allowed.

homophobic=IRRATIONAL FEAR. i've posted plenty of reasons and logic as to why my beliefs are rational.

inimalist
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
you are the ones saying that the government should enforce tolerance, i'm saying they should not. who wants the government to enforce their view of a proper way of life? you.

I don't feel the government should be involved in marriage at all

however, given that it has arregated that power to itself, it must do so in a fair manner.

I have no interest in people's way of life, and generally support people's right to be homophobic.

Whether or not my view promotes a way of living, it is NOT using government power to do so. using the government to block gay marriages when heterosexual ones are sanctioned is an active use of government power to exclude what are considered immoral acts. That is NOT conservative. not using any government power and allowing people to live as they wish, that is conservative.

conservative. The conserve part refers to the size of government and its influence in people's lives. You can want to say gay people can't marry as much as you like. That is NOT a conservative point of view.

inimalist
Originally posted by Robtard
Good answer.

My favourite rant of his, he is against people being forced to accept anything they disagree with, unless of course, that lesson is something he personally considers moral.

lol

ya, I'm sure he'd be just as outraged if students had a class where homosexuality was called wrong and evil

I really like the point where he says stuff like "I dont want my 7 year old exposed to this..." as if the age of the kid is the issue, and not the fact that he is totally uncomfortable with his sexuality

Robtard
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ says in here it should be if homosexual marriage is allowed.

homophobic=IRRATIONAL FEAR. i've posted plenty of reasons and logic as to why my beliefs are rational.

Where does it say it exactly?

Yeah, because you dislike homosexuals, real rational.

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
lol

ya, I'm sure he'd be just as outraged if students had a class where homosexuality was called wrong and evil

I really like the point where he says stuff like "I dont want my 7 year old exposed to this..." as if the age of the kid is the issue, and not the fact that he is totally uncomfortable with his sexuality

Of course he would, his objectiveness is evident in every post.

Very true, people who are comfortable with their own sexuality, generally don't bash others on theirs.

I need to correct myself, that wasn't my favourite rant of his, it's the varies ones where he insist homosexuals created AIDS, ie HIV is created as a byproduct of gay-sex.

BackFire
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
false. classrooms are required to teach about marriage in the state of California (and massechusets i believe), and if gay union is called gay marriage, then this would be included.

And the law is that they can't commit a "hate crime" by removing children from a class teaching homosexuality as a natural option.

Absolute, utter lies.

There is no requirement in California to teach about Marriage nor would there be one to teach about gay marriage.

And Robtard is 100% right, a parent can pull their kid from any curriculum that they wish. There's nothing stopping them from simply calling the kid out sick on the day they teach homosexuality, that's not against the law. You are buying the horrid lies spewed by the Yes on Prop 8 people, which have been debunked all to hell, by no less than actual teachers who know far more than you or any other hatemonger who would compare homosexuality to pedophilia or to a mental illness and then idiotically claim to 'love homosexuals like brothers'.

Devil King
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm a conservative

you mean moral fascists who want to use the government to enforce their view of a proper way of life. That is the opposite of conservative.

That's an excellent point. I wish someone would explain that to the people in this country who call themselves conservatives.

Sadly, in America, it's pretty apparent that most people are fiscal conservatives and social liberals while being given only two realistic options to vote.

Lycanthrope
Originally posted by Bardock42
. And again, homosexual do not have a choice. Being tolerant of them is the same as being tolerant of blacks, or of mentally handicapped. The fact also is that homosexuals do not harm anyone, so they should be tolerated.



The thing that strikes me as Odd is...You say that Homosexuals do not have a choice? So your Brain is wired to like men? If you are saying its not a choice then you are mentally Deficient. Because the only purpose for sexuality is Procreation. Only Humans do it for fun. In Nature ,as we are all of nature, If a male Lion tried to give it to another male Lion in the A** the Lion would Kill the other. This is not a natural act. There would be no procreation. So Either you have a normal functioning brain and choose to be Gay or you do not have a normal functioning brain and have no choice. Before i get bombarded hear, I'm trying to make a rational point. I'm not a Homophobe and dont care. I have best friends who I love and would kill or die for.THE ONLY thing that makes me NOT gay is that i dont have sex with them. What ever people do behind closed doors (Euphemism for sexual activity) should never be impeded by a Govnt.. Marriage is a Religious institutional idea. Before organized religion people didnt get "Married" They stayed together out of necessity of survival. So under this auspice of Religion institute, which the U.S. Constitution clearly implies the Sanctioning of GOD of our Country. OUR Nation UNDER GOD.......IN GOD we trust...... A gay person has no right to be married. You have the right to have sex with a man, but to be sanctified in Marriage or have the same benefits no. "Tolerated as Blacks, or mentally Hadicapped" as you say.....Yes the should.

inimalist
1) actually, according to mental health experts, scientists, doctors and generally people who would know about these things, homosexuality is considered part of the natural variance in human sexuality.

2) If the only sex that is natural is for procreation, you must also take a stance against sex for pleasure, sex involving contraceptives, sex by people who are sterile, sex by people who have had a vasectomy or their tubes tied, oral sex, anal sex, etc.

3) lions:

glWQSM7DIFM
tl8VLG8hwJQ

from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals#Lions



4) a rational point would indicate you have some rational for what you are saying. There is 0 evidence that homosexuality is a mental disorder, sex is only for procreation in the most literal of biological descriptions, and homosexuality is rife in the animal kingdom. So, going by "ration", you are wrong. Now, if you are making the moral point that you think gays are sinners, which the rest of your rant alludes to, fine. your point is not close to rational though

inimalist
Lycanthorpe:

I'd also like you to comment on this, in light of the fact you think homosexuality is a choice:

Originally posted by inimalist
In psychology, there is a condition known as a phantom limb. It occurs when a person has a limb removed, yet they can still feel pain or tension where the limb would have been. This is because the brain contains a map of the body that activates when you feel something, and the limb is never removed from there, only the body.

A majority of men who have their penis removed due to cancer report a "phantom penis" phenomena.

Interestingly, biological men who have underwent sex change surgery report (based on preliminary surveys) significantly less occurrence of phantom penis. The current interpretation of this (it was actually a prediction that spurred the survey) is that the body map of a woman born into a man's body is not male, but female, and thus, the penis is never properly represented, thus cannot have phantom pain.

This indicates that something like personal gender identity, something largely thought to be a social construct, may have very strong biological roots.

Lycanthrope
Originally posted by inimalist
1)



4) a rational point would indicate you have some rational for what you are saying. There is 0 evidence that homosexuality is a mental disorder, sex is only for procreation in the most literal of biological descriptions, and homosexuality is rife in the animal kingdom. So, going by "ration", you are wrong. Now, if you are making the moral point that you think gays are sinners, which the rest of your rant alludes to, fine. your point is not close to rational though

Male Lions in captivity with no females? Are you saying they didn't have a choice and that they would not prefer females? I didn't say sex was only for procreation. I said this was the point of sex. Are you saying we are just lucky that humans perpetuated, that children are a byproduct of our enjoyment of intercourse? Because if it were not the natural order of things there would be very few people. By the way ,since you are in the know, what is the % of the population that is gay? You talk about Doctors and psychologist who would KNow. Well for your info there are Psychologist or "People who would KNow" who would disagree with that theory. So that point is moot. I am interested on where you got your info about male lions that copulate in the wild ,seriously, that is perplexing. Actually i had it coming using animals i mean, my dog humps the couch. So touche

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
In psychology, there is a condition known as a phantom limb. It occurs when a person has a limb removed, yet they can still feel pain or tension where the limb would have been. This is because the brain contains a map of the body that activates when you feel something, and the limb is never removed from there, only the body.

A majority of men who have their penis removed due to cancer report a "phantom penis" phenomena.

Interestingly, biological men who have underwent sex change surgery report (based on preliminary surveys) significantly less occurrence of phantom penis. The current interpretation of this (it was actually a prediction that spurred the survey) is that the body map of a woman born into a man's body is not male, but female, and thus, the penis is never properly represented, thus cannot have phantom pain.

This indicates that something like personal gender identity, something largely thought to be a social construct, may have very strong biological roots.


Wow!

That's so cool!


But that makes me think. How much of your brain map is psychological to begin with, if at all? The brain is a very dynamic organ. Is it possible that the individual actually has the ability to change how their brain reacts? I've proposed this before. If the person is so very set on thinking that they are female, is it possible that they could actually facilitate the rapid change in brain reaction to sensory stimuli and even facilitate the transition over from phantom pains?

Depending on how this data was collected, is it possible that the trans-gender people actually feel the phantom pains but deny them because of their strong belief in their gender identity? Acknowledging the pains would have a psychological influence or origin, in my opinion. Then again, I'm weak on psychology. Maybe you could shed light on this.


Very interesting, though. Any time I bring up more science, when it concerns homosexuality, to Christians, they deny it and rationalize it every which way except the correct way. They do it so severely that it is hard for me not to laugh at their stupidity.



On another note, I remember reading about a dude's brain that rewired itself after decades of not having an appendage. I think it was his hand. The brain very quickly rewired itself to accommodate the "new" hand. Could that be related to the topic on hand in any way?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
You talk about Doctors and psychologist who would KNow. Well for your info there are Psychologist or "People who would KNow" who would disagree with that theory. So that point is moot.

I know "scientists" who believe that shooting hydrogen at extremely dense metals creates cold fusion. That fact that they exist doesn't make argument that their work is unscientific moot, in fact the existance of far far more people who disagree makes them virtually meaningless. So while there are psychologists who think homosexuality is a choice or evil or unnatural it doesn't matter because they're ignoring actual science from their field.

Robtard
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
The thing that strikes me as Odd is...You say that Homosexuals do not have a choice? So your Brain is wired to like men? If you are saying its not a choice then you are mentally Deficient. Because the only purpose for sexuality is Procreation. Only Humans do it for fun. In Nature ,as we are all of nature, If a male Lion tried to give it to another male Lion in the A** the Lion would Kill the other. This is not a natural act. There would be no procreation. So Either you have a normal functioning brain and choose to be Gay or you do not have a normal functioning brain and have no choice. Before i get bombarded hear, I'm trying to make a rational point. I'm not a Homophobe and dont care. I have best friends who I love and would kill or die for.THE ONLY thing that makes me NOT gay is that i dont have sex with them. What ever people do behind closed doors (Euphemism for sexual activity) should never be impeded by a Govnt.. Marriage is a Religious institutional idea. Before organized religion people didnt get "Married" They stayed together out of necessity of survival. So under this auspice of Religion institute, which the U.S. Constitution clearly implies the Sanctioning of GOD of our Country. OUR Nation UNDER GOD.......IN GOD we trust...... A gay person has no right to be married. You have the right to have sex with a man, but to be sanctified in Marriage or have the same benefits no. "Tolerated as Blacks, or mentally Hadicapped" as you say.....Yes the should.

How exactly does "In God We Trust" (This is on US currency) & "OUR Nation UNDER GOD" (are you referring to the pledge of allegiance?) correlate to "homosexuals do not have the right to get married/equal rights"?

When answering, please keep in mind that from a legal standpoint, marriage has nothing to do with God or religion. The state issues the marriage certificates and if you want a divorce, it's done through the courts, ie the church really has nothing to do with marriage, legally.

Also, "God" isn't mentioned in the US Constitution, with the exception at the very end in the signatory, ie "in the year of our lord". So you're wrong about that.

Jack Daniels
kids should not be exposed to this and gay dudes should stay in the closet...as much as I like bi babes kids should not be exposed to that either...their brains are not developed...sick $hit

Red Nemesis
Originally posted by Jack Daniels
kids should not be exposed to this and gay dudes should stay in the closet...as much as I like bi babes kids should not be exposed to that either...their brains are not developed...sick $hit

Yet another open minded and insightful comment. I especially liked where the opinion was backed up by fact!

Devil King
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I guess us celibates are in the same boat as you lot... equally unnatural.

If denying your god-given urges were natural, we would never have delveoped the word unatural to deny it. I'm just saying that you can be a priest and profess the message of Jesus without denying your humanity or his. I know you think Jesus was divine and above humanity, but god sent himself to live in our world as one of us in an effort to apprently better understand a creation he created in his own image. If that implies a need to deny one's self to better understand and spread the word of a god who made himself man in an effort to better understand us, then he, again, missed the mark; because we are no less sexual and primal than we are divine and intellectual. There's no aspect of a divine human considtion that can be discovered by denying yourself a base and realistic aspect of that condition. For Christ's sake, that's the whole aspect behind his words, his ministry and his mission on Earth. Pun intended.

Lycanthrope
I am not against gay marriage. I thought I had solid points of precedence to make as to why it shouldn't be.I stand corrected on some But, all this begs the question, for me....What is the point of marriage.

Devil King
Originally posted by Jack Daniels
gay dudes should stay in the closet...

So should dumb ass straight people who think that it's cool to suck face on the subway and dare to have the audacity to be themeslves in front of a crowd. Perhaps straight couples should be run over or shot or hanged or mutilated because of their audacity of presumption; the same way straights presume. Don't worry, I'm just as bad as you. I see a straight couple holding hands or publically loving each other or praying over their coffee and biscuit and I think they should be doused with acid and murdered. But, where we disagree is that you think simply being straight involves some measure of normality while being gay and doing the exact same thing implies abnormality. As soon as the straight couple doesn't feel a turn in their stomach and get up and leave when they see the exact same behavior for a gay couple, then we'll have no problems. Therein lies the difference. I don't want to see you all go away or burn or die. I just want you to accept that your perspective isn't the only one. Maybe to do that involves setting you on fire or killing your loved ones or pounding you into submission. But it doesn't have to. The choice is yours when it comes down to it.

inimalist
quite poetic DK

dadudemon
Originally posted by Devil King
So should dumb ass straight people who think that it's cool to suck face on the subway and dare to have the audacity to be themeslves in front of a crowd. Perhaps straight couples should be run over or shot or hanged or mutilated because of their audacity of presumption; the same way straights presume. Don't worry, I'm just as bad as you. I see a straight couple holding hands or publically loving each other or praying over their coffee and biscuit and I think they should be doused with acid and murdered. But, where we disagree is that you think simply being straight involves some measure of normality while being gay and doing the exact same thing implies abnormality. As soon as the straight couple doesn't feel a turn in their stomach and get up and leave when they see the exact same behavior for a gay couple, then we'll have no problems. Therein lies the difference. I don't want to see you all go away or burn or die. I just want you to accept that your perspective isn't the only one. Maybe to do that involves setting you on fire or killing your loved ones or pounding you into submission. But it doesn't have to. The choice is yours when it comes down to it.

This is very much on the thread's topic and this post reminded me of it.

I was speaking with a person who is strongly opposed to homosexuality. (I won't name them no expression )

They asked me if I thought it was okay to stumble upon two f**s feeling each other up and making out in a store while I was shopping with my children. I replied that I would be just as pissed about it if I saw a heterosexual couple doing the same. I told this person that it doesn't ****ing matter who's doing it, you should do that shit in the proper place.

Granted, I make sure the coast is clear before I grab my wife's bewbz. doped

djgag
edit

Captain REX
I agree, it shouldn't matter who is doing the grabbing (so long as its consensual!), but where.

I for one feel that maybe certain things shouldn't be revealed to kids until they're "old enough." For example, telling kids about homosexuality doesn't necessarily mean saying 'They get their kicks through anal sex, my seven-year-old son! Let me explain with this diagram.'

Robtard
There are more straight people who get their "kicks" through anal-sex, than there are homosexual. Just a thought.

Captain REX
Very true. Which just bothers me more that people feel they need to bring it up when they're only talking about homosexuals instead of what they did that one night.

Robtard
Originally posted by Jack Daniels
kids should not be exposed to this and gay dudes should stay in the closet...as much as I like bi babes kids should not be exposed to that either...their brains are not developed...sick $hit

You equate homosexuality to a mental deficiency, yet you admittedly enjoy watching (and masturbating to) women having gay-sex. Didn't think that one through, did ya, genius.

Lycanthrope
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I know "scientists" who believe that shooting hydrogen at extremely dense metals creates cold fusion. That fact that they exist doesn't make argument that their work is unscientific moot, in fact the existance of far far more people who disagree makes them virtually meaningless. So while there are psychologists who think homosexuality is a choice or evil or unnatural it doesn't matter because they're ignoring actual science from their field.

Ok Lets say Homosexuality Is not a mental deficiency and, even say its natural to be gay. Why does it disturb me to see , IN public or anywhere, men kissing? Please dont just come back with I'm a homophobe or closet gay. I have a girlfriend and 2 children and I am very attracted to women. It just turns my stomach. Now some of you will just say I'm a NAZI and gay hater but I'm really not. Like i said the only thing that makes someone Gay is what they do in bed. I do the same things with my friends a gay person would , just not in the bed. So why is there such an aversion to witnessing gay activity to the Majority of the populace ? I'm not arguing here. I would appreciate greatly if any one could explain this (scientifically as Chaos puts it) like they have on the other points i tried to make. Because i assumed, because of my personal reaction, that it was unnatural. Ive since been proved wrong and I would like to know what it is that makes it seem so wrong to me.(The seeing of it; not the being gay)

Bardock42
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Ok Lets say Homosexuality Is not a mental deficiency and, even say its natural to be gay. Why does it disturb me to see , IN public or anywhere, men kissing? Please dont just come back with I'm a homophobe or closet gay. I have a girlfriend and 2 children and I am very attracted to women. It just turns my stomach. Now some of you will just say I'm a NAZI and gay hater but I'm really not. Like i said the only thing that makes someone Gay is what they do in bed. I do the same things with my friends a gay person would , just not in the bed. So why is there such an aversion to witnessing gay activity to the Majority of the populace ? I'm not arguing here. I would appreciate greatly if any one could explain this (scientifically as Chaos puts it) like they have on the other points i tried to make. Because i assumed, because of my personal reaction, that it was unnatural. Ive since been proved wrong and I would like to know what it is that makes it seem so wrong to me.(The seeing of it; not the being gay)

Conditioning and imagination, I would assume.

When you were younger you were taught that a man and a woman marry, that only those should also kiss. Maybe you were even taught that homosexuality is bad, who knows. Either way in your mind it is different, and different things strike us as odd. On top of it, you being heterosexual, do not want to kiss a man, you find the idea, when relating to yourself, distasteful (probably like kissing a really, really ugly girl ), so when you see it, you probably put yourself into their shoes, subconsciously, which, since you are heterosexual, you obviously won't enjoy and maybe even find sickening. I'd assume that's where it comes from. Again, like seeing two really, really ugly people make out...I don't know about you, but that kinda disgusts me.

And, of course, not saying that you are one, but there are secretly gay or at least bisexual people, who were taught how wrong it is, and when they (maybe even just subconsciously) find such actions attractive, they react much stronger in the opposite way due to the conditioning.

Finally there's obviously things as peer pressure, etc. But I think the first part probably explains why you find it sickening.

lord xyz
Does Devil King get disgusted by girls kissing?

Master Crimzon
This thread is scary. I simply cannot believe that there are still people in the 'civilized' world who do not believe that every person should be granted the same rights and liberties.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
Does Devil King get disgusted by girls kissing?

Does Lycanthrope get disgusted by girls kissing?

lord xyz
Ask him.

My question was relevant to your post.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
Ask him.

My question was relevant to your post. But not answerable by me. I have no knowledge over DK's disgust.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Devil King
So should dumb ass straight people who think that it's cool to suck face on the subway and dare to have the audacity to be themeslves in front of a crowd. Perhaps straight couples should be run over or shot or hanged or mutilated because of their audacity of presumption; the same way straights presume. Don't worry, I'm just as bad as you. I see a straight couple holding hands or publically loving each other or praying over their coffee and biscuit and I think they should be doused with acid and murdered. But, where we disagree is that you think simply being straight involves some measure of normality while being gay and doing the exact same thing implies abnormality. As soon as the straight couple doesn't feel a turn in their stomach and get up and leave when they see the exact same behavior for a gay couple, then we'll have no problems. Therein lies the difference. I don't want to see you all go away or burn or die. I just want you to accept that your perspective isn't the only one. Maybe to do that involves setting you on fire or killing your loved ones or pounding you into submission. But it doesn't have to. The choice is yours when it comes down to it.

Perhaps, but thats not how it is, is it?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Perhaps, but thats not how it is, is it? What's not how what is?

Lycanthrope
Originally posted by Bardock42
Does Lycanthrope get disgusted by girls kissing?

Actually I find girls kissing very enjoyable , if they are hot big grin ,and i guess i would have to agree with your point that its no more disgusting to see men, as seeing two really ugly girls ,kissing but I can not agree with the conditioning part. I was never taught to hate or find homosexuals repulsive. I had a very "Hippie",product of the 60's love everyone, type family. So my conditioning was to tolerate all peoples, of which Im thankful. My argument was of a natural sense because of my personal feeling. But i can understand, objectively, that whats unattractive to the individual is subjective. I still wish they would not through it in my face. "We are here,We are queer, Get used to it" I mean, i dont join Hetero parades and say "Im not a wussy, i like pussy get used to it" smokin' rolling on floor laughing

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wow!

That's so cool!

for sure, v s ramachandran is one of the most interesting people in psychology/cognitive neuroscience.

http://cbc.ucsd.edu/ramabio.html

http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs_15_1.html#rama

(can't find a copy of the paper sad)

Originally posted by dadudemon
But that makes me think. How much of your brain map is psychological to begin with, if at all? The brain is a very dynamic organ. Is it possible that the individual actually has the ability to change how their brain reacts? I've proposed this before. If the person is so very set on thinking that they are female, is it possible that they could actually facilitate the rapid change in brain reaction to sensory stimuli and even facilitate the transition over from phantom pains?

The "body map" being talked about is called the "somatosensory cortex". It develops very early, probably starting in the womb, and is relatively more plastic to incoming stimuli rather than the other way around. Ummm, like, for instance, if a person "wills" themselves to not feel pain, they aren't affecting the activation of the somatosensory cortex, but rather later, more frontal parts of the brain that are responsible for conscious experience. Its activation precedes consciousness.

To me, at least, it seems that the development of the cortex to the incoming stimuli from a very early age would dictate the later conscious development of a gender identity, rather than the other way around. Otherwise, you are supposing that children are subjectively defining their gender identity before they have developed, say, the concept of object impermanence (the knowledge that something is the same thing if it leaves the child's vision then returns), or before they know that other people have thinking and feeling minds inside of them the same way they do (Theory of Mind).

I get the suspicion you mean, what if someone chose they wanted to be a different gender, which would most likely work like pain. They might be able to try to not feel their penis, and they might be able to to some degree, but think of the mental training it takes someone not to be able to feel intense pain, and their are always limits to that (though the monk who burnt himself alive is a rather extreme case ). Even then, however, it doesn't seem to be what you might be describing. You wouldn't be molding your "body map".

(also note, the abstract posted above says that 60% of female-to-male transgenders reported having a phantom penis sensation)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Depending on how this data was collected, is it possible that the trans-gender people actually feel the phantom pains but deny them because of their strong belief in their gender identity? Acknowledging the pains would have a psychological influence or origin, in my opinion. Then again, I'm weak on psychology. Maybe you could shed light on this.

Phantom pain is not psychological in origin.

Unless you mean to say people are deliberately lying on the survey, then no, it really isn't likely.

The research is very preliminary, there has been no functional MRI done, just self report stuff that indicates there might be some merit to it. Whether it pans out or not will be interesting, but it certainly points to the idea that a mismatch between body gender and brain gender might underlie people who feel born into the wrong body.

Like, try to make yourself feel like you have breasts?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Very interesting, though. Any time I bring up more science, when it concerns homosexuality, to Christians, they deny it and rationalize it every which way except the correct way. They do it so severely that it is hard for me not to laugh at their stupidity.

it's not a scientific issue to them, and most rational people don't want to admit that they are taking a stance deliberately anti-science, because, well, science has the benefit of working.

Originally posted by dadudemon
On another note, I remember reading about a dude's brain that rewired itself after decades of not having an appendage. I think it was his hand. The brain very quickly rewired itself to accommodate the "new" hand. Could that be related to the topic on hand in any way?

I'd have to look at it more, but that would likely be motor cortex rather than somatosensory. I'm a vision guy, so I can't say too much without reading the research, but I'd hazard that the adaptation was the ability of the "new" hand to respond to motor signals coming from the brain, and not the adaptation of the brain to signals coming from the arm.

(though, there are some REALLY funky studies about hooking up chips that can initiate action potentials in neurons. Without being able to crack the neuro map to some significant degree it is useless in its ability to shape a brain, just very cool)

Lycanthrope
Originally posted by Robtard
How exactly does "In God We Trust" (This is on US currency) & "OUR Nation UNDER GOD" (are you referring to the pledge of allegiance?) correlate to "homosexuals do not have the right to get married/equal rights"?

When answering, please keep in mind that from a legal standpoint, marriage has nothing to do with God or religion. The state issues the marriage certificates and if you want a divorce, it's done through the courts, ie the church really has nothing to do with marriage, legally.

Also, "God" isn't mentioned in the US Constitution, with the exception at the very end in the signatory, ie "in the year of our lord". So you're wrong about that.

My point was this Countries foundation was of Religious fundamentals. I am a proponent of the Constitution which gives the individual States the right to have their own legislature. You can be gay and get married in Massachusetts because the people voted in the people who appointed the State Supreme Courts who voted it legal. The State should be afforded that right. To lobby the Federal Govt. to make it legal is trying to supersede the Constitution.

Robtard
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
My point was this Countries foundation was of Religious fundamentals. I am a proponent of the Constitution which gives the individual States the right to have their own legislature. You can be gay and get married in Massachusetts because the people voted in the people who appointed the State Supreme Courts who voted it legal. The State should be afforded that right. To lobby the Federal Govt. to make it legal is trying to supersede the Constitution.

Actually, there is various literature that pretty much paints many of the founding fathers as not religious to outright anti-religion. Jefferson wrote his own Bible, where he took out the mysticism, for one. So "America founded on religious fundamentals", just isn't so.

Bush (probably on behalf of the religious Right) tried to amend the Constitution to define marriage, so not sure "the gays" are to blame with trying to rewrite Constitutional law in regards to marriage.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
for sure, v s ramachandran is one of the most interesting people in psychology/cognitive neuroscience.

http://cbc.ucsd.edu/ramabio.html

http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs_15_1.html#rama

(can't find a copy of the paper sad)


First of all. Thanks a bunch for taking the time to find all of this and talk about it with me about it. I know you're busy lately, but I was interested in it.



Originally posted by inimalist
The "body map" being talked about is called the "somatosensory cortex". It develops very early, probably starting in the womb, and is relatively more plastic to incoming stimuli rather than the other way around. Ummm, like, for instance, if a person "wills" themselves to not feel pain, they aren't affecting the activation of the somatosensory cortex, but rather later, more frontal parts of the brain that are responsible for conscious experience. Its activation precedes consciousness.

I am really stabbing in the dark on this. I was seriously dead set on becoming a Neurologist/brain surgeon...but I quit it once I found out the residency is 8 years (at least the neurosurgeons I was looking into doing a residency under). I couldn't wait that long because we were getting very poor (my wife and one kid).

Despite that, I know very little about brain anatomy (relative to other areas of medical study). Seriously. Any information like this stuff is brand new to me and very interesting.

So, anyway, I told you that so you could understand the type of person you were dealing with. I notice that you already did a lot of defining on some of the "jargon" associated with the discussion.




What I was referring to was the brain's ability to remap itself in very drastic ways in relatively short time. Some people do report phantom pain for a decade or more after missing a limb. Still, others who get transplants (like that dude I was talking about who got a new hand) have brains that literally remap themselves to "non-standard" positions meaning different parts of the brain are working to make use of the new limb.

I was thinking that a person (I REALLY believe in holism) could facilitate that transition away from phantom pains faster if they really wanted it. I know that sounds quack and I promise (other than Mormonism lol) that this is one of the very few things I believe that comes off as quack. You seem to have a better grasp on the brain than I do....so I may seem just plain ignorant to you.



Originally posted by inimalist
To me, at least, it seems that the development of the cortex to the incoming stimuli from a very early age would dictate the later conscious development of a gender identity, rather than the other way around. Otherwise, you are supposing that children are subjectively defining their gender identity before they have developed, say, the concept of object impermanence (the knowledge that something is the same thing if it leaves the child's vision then returns), or before they know that other people have thinking and feeling minds inside of them the same way they do (Theory of Mind).

Actually, it is the environment coupled with genetics, I believe, that molds perception of self-gender. I hadn't, as of yet, stated anything about children and gender development. I was referring only to those post trans-gender operation, well after self-gender is quite solid in the mind.

Originally posted by inimalist
I get the suspicion you mean, what if someone chose they wanted to be a different gender, which would most likely work like pain. They might be able to try to not feel their penis, and they might be able to to some degree, but think of the mental training it takes someone not to be able to feel intense pain, and their are always limits to that (though the monk who burnt himself alive is a rather extreme case ). Even then, however, it doesn't seem to be what you might be describing. You wouldn't be molding your "body map".

(also note, the abstract posted above says that 60% of female-to-male transgenders reported having a phantom penis sensation)

I was referring to a state-of-mind or self-identification actually affecting the how the brain interprets "stimuli." (In this instance, I was speculating on how the brain produces(or how the person interprets) phantom pains.)



Originally posted by inimalist
Phantom pain is not psychological in origin.

Unless you mean to say people are deliberately lying on the survey, then no, it really isn't likely.

The research is very preliminary, there has been no functional MRI done, just self report stuff that indicates there might be some merit to it. Whether it pans out or not will be interesting, but it certainly points to the idea that a mismatch between body gender and brain gender might underlie people who feel born into the wrong body.

Like, try to make yourself feel like you have breasts?

I fully agree that it is not psychological in origin. My original post to you should indicate as much. I was thinking that the transition away from phantom pain could be facilitated by the person.


Also, yes; spot on. I was referring to the subjects just straight up lying about phantom pain. It makes perfect sense that a trans-gender would feel shame, doubt, frustration, or even be in denial when they've felt so strongly about their gender. Admitting that out loud or on paper, even anonymously would be like admitting to a type of defeat. Feeling a penis that isn't there that they do not believe that should have had in the first place would be very hard, imo, to try and cope with.



Originally posted by inimalist
it's not a scientific issue to them, and most rational people don't want to admit that they are taking a stance deliberately anti-science, because, well, science has the benefit of working.

Indeed. Some times I feel like Galileo Galilei or Copernicus.


Originally posted by inimalist
I'd have to look at it more, but that would likely be motor cortex rather than somatosensory. I'm a vision guy, so I can't say too much without reading the research, but I'd hazard that the adaptation was the ability of the "new" hand to respond to motor signals coming from the brain, and not the adaptation of the brain to signals coming from the arm.

From what I remember, the brain actually rewired itself to use another part of the brain to start making use of the hand. It took place over a few months.

Originally posted by inimalist
(though, there are some REALLY funky studies about hooking up chips that can initiate action potentials in neurons. Without being able to crack the neuro map to some significant degree it is useless in its ability to shape a brain, just very cool)

That was the primary reason I originally got into neuroscience and almost made a career out of it. I was going to study neuroscience (neurosurgeon) and also do medical electronics. (I forgot what the eff that title was called...they are those guys who make electronics for the human body such as pacemakers.) I'm still quite certain that cybernetics will be the future for humanity. (for at least another 50 or so years.)

Lycanthrope
Originally posted by Robtard
Actually, there is various literature that pretty much paints many of the founding fathers as not religious to outright anti-religion. Jefferson wrote his own Bible, where he took out the mysticism, for one. So "America founded on religious fundamentals", just isn't so.

Bush (probably on behalf of the religious Right) tried to amend the Constitution to define marriage, so not sure "the gays" are to blame with trying to rewrite Constitutional law in regards to marriage.

Despite your "Claim" to various literature that "Pretty Much" paints founding fathers as anti-religios. There is no getting around the fact that they believed in Davine Providence to validate our Sovereignty. "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" that's very clear man, So YOU FAIL!!!!

And , for your information , The President does not have the power to amend the Constitution. The Senate has to have a majority vote and in the House of representatives 3/4 of the STATES have to vote in favor as well To advocate an Amendment.
So Again YOU FAIL!!!

Robtard
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Despite your "Claim" to various literature that "Pretty Much" paints founding fathers as anti-religios. There is no getting around the fact that they believed in Davine Providence to validate our Sovereignty. "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" that's very clear man, So YOU FAIL!!!!

And , for your information , The President does not have the power to amend the Constitution. The Senate has to have a majority vote and in the House of representatives 3/4 of the STATES have to vote in favor as well To advocate an Amendment.
So Again YOU FAIL!!!

Here you go again with this "One Nation Under God" nonsense. That is part of the Pledge of Alligence and it was added in 1952. So attributing it to the founding fathers and to the founding principlies of America is just plain wrong. Reread above, I already told you that "God" really isn't in the Constitution, which should really tell you something about the founding fathers and the religious motives thye had for this country.

I said "Bush tried", which he did; not "Bush amended the Constitution", brush up on your reading comprehension, it's lacking. You don't remember seeing Bush on TV saying "we need to amend the Constitional and make marriage a union for a man and woman only" (not verbatim)?

Do keep trying, maybe you'll get one fact right someday.

Edit: I'll take Red's word, it was added in 1954; not 1952 as I wrote. Either way, that proves you don't know what you're ranting about in regards to America, religion and the founding fathers.

Red Nemesis
This post was a lot more belligerent than the previous ones. What happened?

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Despite your "Claim" to various literature that "Pretty Much" paints founding fathers as anti-religios.
This is a sentence fragment. Also, the word "claim" is not an exaggeration or falsehood (he did make that claim) so it should not be in quotation marks.
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
There is no getting around the fact that they believed in Davine Providence to validate our Sovereignty. "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" that's very clear man
You misspelled "divine" in the noun phrase "divine providence." Also, your assertion that the presence of the words "under god" implies a Christian moral code for the Founding Fathers is erroneous. The words "One Nation, Under God..." were added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954.


I'm not sure where the added animosity came from, but I suggest that you ease up on your caps lock key, take a deep breath and think about what you intend to say before you write anything. Your performance drops significantly when you are upset. Raise your game.



Edit: Robtard got here first.

Edit 2: The date was 1954, not 1952.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Ok Lets say Homosexuality Is not a mental deficiency and, even say its natural to be gay.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
I don't think you understand what the word deficiency means.
Like i said the only thing that makes someone Gay is what they do in bed. I do the same things with my friends a gay person would , just not in the bed.

You enjoy having man on man sex . . . just never in a bed?

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
So why is there such an aversion to witnessing gay activity to the Majority of the populace ?

Sociology. You're brought up to accept certain things and not others. Religious upbringing plays a very large part when it comes to homosexuality in particular, that's why you don't see me campaigning to "fix" people who eat Sloppy Joes. Just because something disgusts you doesn't mean it's wrong on any level.

chithappens
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos



Sociology. You're brought up to accept certain things and not others. Religious upbringing plays a very large part when it comes to homosexuality in particular, that's why you don't see me campaigning to "fix" people who eat Sloppy Joes. Just because something disgusts you doesn't mean it's wrong on any level.

You mean to say wrong on an objective level, I suppose.

Robtard
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You enjoy having man on man sex . . . just never in a bed?

He thinks sexuality is strictly sex, or in his words "what they do in bed." E.G., he doesn't understand that a gay man is sexually attracted to another man, which is what really makes him a homosexual; the gay-sex being the lesser contributing factor.

That or he's gay and just won't accept it, because that "I do the same things with my friends a gay person would , just not in the bed", tells me that he may find his male friends sexually attractive, but never has pursued it on a physical level and in his mind that makes it not homosexual, somehow.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
That and the holocaust. Pssh, just because your father never made general.

Symmetric Chaos
Question: why isn't this thread titled "exposing children to perversity"?

BigRed
I find it laughable when these people that are anti-homosexuals denounce homosexuals raising children for fear of brainwashing and the sort.

Uh...'brainwashing' can happen to any child from any kind of parent (heterosexual, homosexual, white, black, male, female, etc).

And I'd say if a child learns to be tolerant and you know, look at all humans as equal regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation, they will be far better off than the generations of past and present.

Martian_mind
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Question: why isn't this thread titled "exposing children to perversity"?

Perversity is the lesser of two evils?

Devil King
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Ok Lets say Homosexuality Is not a mental deficiency and, even say its natural to be gay. Why does it disturb me to see , IN public or anywhere, men kissing? Please dont just come back with I'm a homophobe or closet gay. I have a girlfriend and 2 children and I am very attracted to women. It just turns my stomach. Now some of you will just say I'm a NAZI and gay hater but I'm really not. Like i said the only thing that makes someone Gay is what they do in bed. I do the same things with my friends a gay person would , just not in the bed. So why is there such an aversion to witnessing gay activity to the Majority of the populace ? I'm not arguing here. I would appreciate greatly if any one could explain this (scientifically as Chaos puts it) like they have on the other points i tried to make. Because i assumed, because of my personal reaction, that it was unnatural. Ive since been proved wrong and I would like to know what it is that makes it seem so wrong to me.(The seeing of it; not the being gay)

No, let's not say it isn't. I simply isn't. Period, en d of your stupidity. You have a girlf ried and 2 children, therefore you have already broken more of gods rules than have I. And if you want to ascribe the validity of your perspective to something other than god, then you are pissing down a dry well. You're not a Nazi. I'm much more a Nazi than you likely ever will be; especially since I know what it means to be a Nazi than you or anyone who professes to be a Nazi ever will. You are arguing,...actually. You assume it's unatural for ev ery reason you've used and assumed it was natural. You can't divorce the seeing it from the social conditioning you've spent your entire life subscribing to. As I said, there was a time when I felt guilty over the disgust I felt at seeing a man pray over his cup of Wendy's chilli. I felt conflicted about my reaction to that sight. The reason is that I felt he had every right to do so in the face of every emotion it illicited in me. I no longer feel that way. I still feel every bit as much sympathy for him as I'm sure his christian ideals tell him he's supposed to feel for me. But he doesn't. My sympathy and regret are only outweighed by his ignorant disgust of me and anyone like me who dares to be openly gay in his presence. I felt a twinge of guilt over hating him. He doesn't. That's the difference.

Devil King
Originally posted by lord xyz
Does Devil King get disgusted by girls kissing?

That depends on if they're kissing me.


But even then; no, I don't. These days it's typically innocent. I might be ten flaming sheets to the wind when it comes to this forum, but I've gotten more chick ass than most of the members of this forum who actually seek it out.

Besides, wouldn't it be terribly hypocritical of me to react with disgust to two chicks kissing? I spend a lot of time passing an empty glass over two chicks kissing to get a refill on my drink at the bar than any straight man. In fact, that might be my only reason for disliking them; they hold up the line at the bar.

Devil King
Originally posted by Captain REX
I agree, it shouldn't matter who is doing the grabbing (so long as its consensual!), but where.

I for one feel that maybe certain things shouldn't be revealed to kids until they're "old enough." For example, telling kids about homosexuality doesn't necessarily mean saying 'They get their kicks through anal sex, my seven-year-old son! Let me explain with this diagram.'

You're assuming I'm talking about near-full-on making out. I'm not talking about that. I'm not talking about location so much as I am the audacity of exclusivness. I like to see the odd straight couple kiss on the subway; good for them. But when a gay couple does it in Chicago or Dallas, it mustn't come with a measure of public outrage or disgust, and certainly without rebuke for the assumption of audacity. I'm not brave for leaning over and kissing my boyfriend; I'm typical of any two people in a relationship. The odd straight couple doesn't have to consider where they are before a moment of expression strikes, and such should be the case with gay couples. To say that one group should have that thought bubble over their head before they react is the problem. Maybe I just shared a moment or a perverse joke or a smart ass remark with my "significant other". The straight couple doesn't have to ask themselves where they are to react to it, but the gay couple might depending on their geography.

Basically, I'm saying that hate crimes should apply to gay's reaction to an event the same way it does now to a heterosexual's reaction to the opposite. Maybe a few caved in skulls on the other side of the asile, for no good reason, would serve as a warning to so many who cave in a skull for what is, esentially, the same reason in reverse.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Devil King
You're assuming I'm talking about near-full-on making out. I'm not talking about that. I'm not talking about location so much as I am the audacity of exclusivness. I like to see the odd straight couple kiss on the subway; good for them. But when a gay couple does it in Chicago or Dallas, it mustn't come with a measure of public outrage or disgust, and certainly without rebuke for the assumption of audacity. I'm not brave for leaning over and kissing my boyfriend; I'm typical of any two people in a relationship. The odd straight couple doesn't have to consider where they are before a moment of expression strikes, and such should be the case with gay couples. To say that one group should have that thought bubble over their head before they react is the problem. Maybe I just shared a moment or a perverse joke or a smart ass remark with my "significant other". The straight couple doesn't have to ask themselves where they are to react to it, but the gay couple might depending on their geography.

Basically, I'm saying that hate crimes should apply to gay's reaction to an event the same way it does now to a heterosexual's reaction to the opposite. Maybe a few caved in skulls on the other side of the asile, for no good reason, would serve as a warning to so many who cave in a skull for what is, esentially, the same reason in reverse.

If people find it unsual or disgusting that is how they will react- give them time.

BigRed
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
If people find it unsual or disgusting that is how they will react- give them time.
That's the true reason behind people being against homosexuals. Forget the Bible BS or other moral reasons. It all comes down to them thinking it is 'disgusting'.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by BigRed
That's the true reason behind people being against homosexuals. Forget the Bible BS or other moral reasons. It all comes down to them thinking it is 'disgusting'.

Pretty much yeah.

Lycanthrope
Originally posted by Robtard
He thinks sexuality is strictly sex, or in his words "what they do in bed." E.G., he doesn't understand that a gay man is sexually attracted to another man, which is what really makes him a homosexual; the gay-sex being the lesser contributing factor.

That or he's gay and just won't accept it, because that "I do the same things with my friends a gay person would , just not in the bed", tells me that he may find his male friends sexually attractive, but never has pursued it on a physical level and in his mind that makes it not homosexual, somehow.

My point was I do the same things with my close friends. I embrace them. I tell them i love them, which i do. I have even cooked food for them on the grill at a BBQ.We go to the movies etc. the only difference is I don't tongue kiss them or take it or give it to them in their A**. So what does a gay man do that's different other then the sexual activity.


As far as my point about the Constitution and our Forefathers ,you keep saying "God" does not appear in the Constitution and," One nation under God" was not Introduced until 1954 therefore trying to make a point that our Forefathers were not influenced by religion. I claimed they were and to go farther it was an essential part of it. You want Facts? OK How about this.

George Washington's first Proclamation as President made this abundantly clear. On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, they called on Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. A week and a day later the President's opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . ."2 The words "to obey His will" are fatal to any suggestion that George Washington and the framers of our Constitution believed in "secularism."

The word "God" dose not appear in the U.S. Constitution. (There is reason for it and if i must i will go into that but, it doesn't diminish my point) It does appear, in some form in the State Constitutions .
For example, the word "God" appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the "Supreme Ruler of the Universe" is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is "Almighty God." This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions. In some states, there is no preamble. In these cases, a divine reference can be found in the religion clauses in the bill of rights. There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words "Almighty God" appear in the state religion clauses.

I believe these Facts proves my point.

Robtard
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
My point was I do the same things with my close friends. I embrace them. I tell them i love them, which i do. I have even cooked food for them on the grill at a BBQ.We go to the movies etc. the only difference is I don't tongue kiss them or take it or give it to them in their A**. So what does a gay man do that's different other then the sexual activity.


As far as my point about the Constitution and our Forefathers ,you keep saying "God" does not appear in the Constitution and," One nation under God" was not Introduced until 1954 therefore trying to make a point that our Forefathers were not influenced by religion. I claimed they were and to go farther it was an essential part of it. You want Facts? OK How about this.

George Washington's first Proclamation as President made this abundantly clear. On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, they called on Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. A week and a day later the President's opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . ."2 The words "to obey His will" are fatal to any suggestion that George Washington and the framers of our Constitution believed in "secularism."

The word "God" dose not appear in the U.S. Constitution. (There is reason for it and if i must i will go into that but, it doesn't diminish my point) It does appear, in some form in the State Constitutions .
For example, the word "God" appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the "Supreme Ruler of the Universe" is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is "Almighty God." This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions. In some states, there is no preamble. In these cases, a divine reference can be found in the religion clauses in the bill of rights. There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words "Almighty God" appear in the state religion clauses.

I believe these Facts proves my point.

Do you find them sexually attractive? Do you look at a man and it sexually excites you? Have you met a man you'd like to spend and share your life with? "Tongue kiss them or take it or give it to them in their A**", as you say, is the physical aspect of homosexuality, physical.

Politicians incite the word "God" all the time, there is also a large amount of literature that shows many (ie not all) of the forefathers as being non-religious to outright anti-religious, mant saw it as another controlling factor. George Washington was also most likely a Deists, as was Franklin. Paine was believed to be an Atheist and Jefferson, well he rewrote the bible to his own liking and took out much of the nonsense superstition, though some will argue he was really an Atheist too.

Did a quick search, as I know anything that disagrees with your POV will fall on deaf ears, but here are some quotes back at you:

"The story of the redemption will not stand examination. That man should redeem himself from the sin of eating an apple by committing a murder on Jesus Christ, is the strangest system of religion ever set up." - Thomas Paine

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." - Benjamin Franklin

"Civil governments function with complete success by the total separation of the church from the state." - James Madison


The US Constitution is the "supreme law of the land", you'd think if the founding fathers wanted God to be an integral part of this country, they would have included it there, no?

Na, you don't know what you're ranting on about, again.

Lycanthrope
What ever you say man. The Fact is that the country was founded on Religious ideals and Moral code. You are more interested in being seen as the genius boy on this Forum than understanding why gay people are not allowed to get married. I was Just stating a reason why. The populace is against it or there would be more States legalizing it.

GOD BLESS AMERICA big grin

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>