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.
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 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.
Originally posted by Robtardfalse. 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.
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.
And the law is that they can't commit a "hate crime" by removing children from a class teaching homosexuality as a natural option.
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.
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.
Originally posted by inimalistyou 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'm a conservativeyou 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.
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.
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm a conservativeyou 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.
Originally posted by Robtardhttp://www.cde.ca.gov/ says in here it should be if homosexual marriage is allowed.
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.
homophobic=IRRATIONAL FEAR. i've posted plenty of reasons and logic as to why my beliefs are rational.
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.
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
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.
Originally posted by inimalist
lolya, 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.
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'.
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm a conservativeyou 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.
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.
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:
from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals#Lions
Both male and female lions have been seen to interact homosexually.[42][43] Male lions pair-bond for a number of days and initiate homosexual activity with affectionate nuzzling and caressing, leading to mounting and thrusting. About 8% of mountings have been observed to occur with other males. Pairings between females are held to be fairly common in captivity but have not been observed in the wild.
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