I agree with you think on that. No dave I am not going to answer you, Instead I will ask the administor to read through all your posts. I could be wrong, but I do feel some of your remarks about gays is bashing. Stayed tuned, if I am wrong, I have no problem with sorry.
Gay advocates fight churches' charity status
- Thread starter Jo Canadian
- Start date
Re: RE: Gay advocates fight c
Great to know, yer set in your ways. Ignorance is a wunnerful thing. Besides it makes a wonderful mate with Arrogance. Here I see both. I'm not saying I'm 100% right either but I try see things from the others point of view before I like to make my own opinion...in this case I can post the surgeon generals issue on education and sex but I'll be kicking a dead horse anyways.
Soooooooooooo.
dave s said:What comprehensive sex ed program in texas do they have to compair it to? Oh right. None.
We don't even get a chance to try the alternative.
Heres my own research.
In middle school I was friends with 5 girls. They recieved NO sex ed except for the bull program at school. My mom taught me about why wehave sex (pleasure and procreation) about birth control, about testing, and about what to do if pregnancy occurs.
2 of those friends have children and arnt even 20 yet.
one has been treated for syphillus twice.
One is std and baby free and recieved comprhensive sex ed from me.
and one is a virgin.
Looks like its working :/
That speaks volumes, maybe a proof read before you paste.
Soooooooooooo.
Now here goes Pea with more politically correct ridiculousness.
Why debate facts when you can accuse others of offending people eh Pea? ... I mean, the guy clearly wants a rational discussion at this point.
I think not said:
Agreed, sex ed is needed but have you seen the waste of time that the teachers spew today.
I have a very good friend that teaches middle school and the stuff he tells me blows my mind. Most of it is teachers being lazy and not caring about what they do.
Now don't go and start saying I’m a teacher basher too, but I’m hearing this first hand from younger teachers that have a fire still lit.
There are many good teachers in Ontario but they do need to be evaluated every once in a while as does everybody.
dave s said:
I hear your point on the teachers, but I think that is a different matter to tackle. Kids need direction more than the "birds and the bees".
I'll also agree most of them know plenty even before they get to school, but I think they need to learn in school also. They may not have been taught correctly on the "street".
Education is the cornerstone of tolerance and understanding.
dave s said:
Ok Dave ... I tried to sit this one out because you can only state the obvious in so many ways and I think I've pretty much covered it, but you're starting to annoy me.
I am a dyke. I assume you are not one of those men who think homosexual women are fine but homosexual men are bad, right? Not one of the guys who just wanna watch? Ok, let's assume you are above that. As a dyke, I can speak to this issue first hand. It is not abstract theory for me.
First of all, in school kids are taught the existance of sex. It is a way to counteract the "facts" we all learn in whispers from our more "sophisticated" friends.
Including homosexuality in that teaching poses no indecency. Nobody is talking about who is doing what to who in graphic terms. Or at least I hope they are not! Not straight sex, nor gay sex. Sex ed is aimed at explaining what the hell is happening in those poor hormone ridden pubuscent bodies. Physiologically, the same stuff occurs no matter what orientation. All kids deserve an equal explanation.
I was taught (back in the stone ages) that there was only hetersexuality. Talk about confusing. It did not explain to me why I was more interested in playing doctor with the girl next door than her brother, or why I had a crush on my grade 8 female teacher. All sex ed did was teach me where babies came from (being raised with farm animals it wasn't news) and confuse me about my own feelings.
What do you propose we do with the kids that are gay? Ignore them? Continue to pretend that they don't exist, that some magic fairy dust hits them at a certain age and suddenly the feelings appear? Do you have any idea of the statistics of teen suicide related to sexual orientation? If you wish, I will look it up and post it for you. It's appalling. It's far more objectionable to me than the "shitstorm" you referred to that teaching real sex ed caused.
No kid should be subject to information beyond their ability to comprehend it. I do not advocate teaching grade 2's about intercourse, straight or gay. I do not support teaching kids anything beyond their years. And at no time do I endorse teaching school kids specifics of sex ... beyond what is required to teach them about safer sex. Ya gotta know how to put a condom on to use one, gay or straight.
What I do advocate is teaching children that while the majority of families consist of parents of two genders, that some families have parents of the same gender. That being gay is not something to be ashamed of. Being ashamed of my orientation is like being ashamed of my green eyes. There's not a damn thing I can do about it. Trust me, Dave, I tried. I'd rather have life easier, but hey, I am what I am. Shame don't change it.
Unless you are homosexual, I suggest you are speaking strictly from theory and that your opinions are exactly that: Opinion. Not fact. I've been there, done that, got the t-shirt and I think that qualifies me to state what would have been helpful to me in my formative years.
To say my marriage as a lesbian in any way harms your heterosexual marriage is the height of absurdity. If straight marriage is that precarious, there is something intrinsically wrong with the institution. The problem does not lie in who else shares the tradition, but in why anyone outside your relationship can weaken it. Figure out your own shit before you start trying to tell me how to live.
I think that everyone is entitled to an opinion, right or wrong. I just don't think you have the right to be sanctimonious about it.
Comments like that give me goose bumps because they are so true!!! ... Thank you for that.
Yet so many people fail to perceive the reality that a higher standard of education in this country, and the elimination of all obstacles in the way of everyone living up to that standard, is imperative.
Cosmo:
Angry Muslim parents complained that their religious beliefs were getting less respect from the board than gay rights and demanded that their children be excluded on religious grounds from similar presentations in the future.
How do you feel about that ^^^^^
See the problem as I stated "when it’s against your faith’s tenets what do you do about that. Just ignore it and or them."
A Mexican standoff?
Some people’s religion is a law to them. And that’s fine but when you’re forced to do something against it makes it the same as the SSM deal. NO?
Angry Muslim parents complained that their religious beliefs were getting less respect from the board than gay rights and demanded that their children be excluded on religious grounds from similar presentations in the future.
How do you feel about that ^^^^^
See the problem as I stated "when it’s against your faith’s tenets what do you do about that. Just ignore it and or them."
A Mexican standoff?
Some people’s religion is a law to them. And that’s fine but when you’re forced to do something against it makes it the same as the SSM deal. NO?
Re: RE: Gay advocates fight churches' charity status
I hate to say this
but its in the benefit of the elites not to educate the masses. Gawd I hate it when Karl was right 8O
Gordon J Torture said:
I hate to say this
but its in the benefit of the elites not to educate the masses. Gawd I hate it when Karl was right 8O And certain religions are outraged at the idea of standing in respect for a National Anthem. So much so, in schools the child will actually leave the classroom during the song and sit in the hallway. Does this mean we should get rid of our Anthem?
I know the feeling. I even tried not to believe in Karl Marx's philosophies and ideas at first, but when you really look deep into things, he was right about almost everything he said. He simply had flaws in his ideas on how to correct the problem, which we could fix by learning from the past attempts at correcting it.
Gordon J Torture said:
Honestly? I think it's a load of crap. I think it's just one more way to separate homosexuals from the mainstream. It's a patronizing attempt to quiet those pesky queers who want rights. Why would we settle for anything less than the entire package?
I'm not interested in half measures. Either we are equal or we are not. I will not be placated by a pat on the head and some consolation prize. My relationship is as valid as any hetero relationship and to call it anything but marriage is simply a way of making it different and lesser.
I figure that the government needs the cajones to either accept gay marriage or to stand up and say no, queers are a bunch of second class citizens and that's just how the legislation goes. Don't play politically correct games around the issue. I have no respect for that.
It's not about religion, but about legalities. Marriage is a legal contract. Even when you're married in a church, the papers all have to be processed by the government, so trying to equate religion and marriage is misdirection.
You asked.
Because what you call "the entire package" is just as contradicting as when the "Christains" were burning people alive they accused as being "witches". Here we were with a religion supposedly based on passive forgiveness, and they were burning people alive for not being one of them.
To change the meaning of a word to benefit a particular group is not about freedom, it's blatant dictatorship.
Also, the "virtuous union" would not be just for homosexuals. It would also be appealing to athiests who wish to celebrate a long term commitment in the form of a large ceremony without contradicting their beliefs. The word "marriage" in itself exists because of religious doctrine which may or may not have been written based on pre-religious beliefs which we know nothing about. Whether one chooses to acknowledge it or not, most athiests will not get married simply because the word "marriage" is contradicting to their beliefs.
There are allot of athiests in this Country today that would never get "married", yet would really consider a "virtuous union" ... It would become popular whether homosexuals believed it was designed to "quiet pesky queers" or not.
I honestly thought it up as the only fair solution I could think of. What you ask for I do not see as logical or fair, nor do I see what Dave wants as fair once so ever.
ok, then, since it is in the bible that stealing is wrong, and I do not think it is wrong, then I guess I should get the government to change the rules of an entire religion because I perceive stealing to not always be wrong.
For me to be equal, churches and entire religions must change their beliefs damnit!
Seriously, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. Let them have theirs, that's all you can do. It is just a word, and by changing the name of that type of union you may get all the rights as everyone else.