1
   

Pushing the Gay Agenda

 
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 10:49 am
Lightwizard wrote:
And if you don't like the soup, wait until you see the entree.


Could I just skip straight to dessert?

I'll have the flambe'.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 10:56 am
That would be Crepes Suzette with lots of cherries on top.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 11:17 am
Finn,

The main point you make is ridiculous. Freedom should be supreme in cases where no unwilling participant is harmed.

By law (and by common sense) there is no such such thing as a mutally consensual relationship between a pedophile and a child. (Don't try to argue that a child can consent.)

You may argue that there is a mutually consensual act of cannibalism, but this seems a bit ludicrous. I suppose if you wanted to eat someone (who wanted to be eaten) after they died of natural caused.

Actually one of the core rituals of Christianity uses vivld symbolic cannibalistic imagery where believers eat the flesh and drink the blood of the messiah. Come to think of it, my kids were taught about these beliefs in a respectful way in public school. But I digress...

This doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality where it is clearly a mutually consentual relationship that harms no one (any more than interracial marriage anyway).
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 01:04 pm
I suggest we initiate a research program to study the gene that causes heterosexuality. Then perhaps we can understand whether individuals like Baldimo "choose" to be straight, or if it's just a lifestyle he has been forced to embrace due to:

a) Peer Pressure
b) NASCAR
c) Janet Jackson's breast
d) All of the above
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 01:09 pm
I think there outta be a law preventing heterosexuals from marrying. They are supporting too many lawyers in the divorce proceedings.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 01:15 pm
They also beat their wives and their children on a much grander scale than homosexuals.

Those damned homosexuals are giving marriage such a bad name. How dare they...
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 01:19 pm
Gee, wouldn't Bush's tort reform benefit from less heterosexual marriages?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 03:43 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
I think there outta be a law preventing heterosexuals from marrying. They are supporting too many lawyers in the divorce proceedings.


The constant push to destroy the American family because it doesn't conform to your self-prescribed worldview of the way things should be.

Funny how you mention lawyers, because they happen to be like teachers in their majority support for Liberals. Get rid of divorce and the libs will miss a major part of their funding base.
0 Replies
 
theantibuddha
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 03:54 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Get rid of divorce and the libs will miss a major part of their funding base.


The left-wing has funding now?
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 04:04 pm
Geez, Baldimo, don't you ever lighten up once in a while?

Aren't there many more STRAIGHT parents beating their kids than there are homosexual parents? I guess that the idea of marriage to these heterosexual parents doesn't quite conform to your self-prescribed worldview of the way things should be, eh?

And thank god there were lawyers around to help Bush win the 2000 election. What would you have done without them?

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 06:01 pm
Again, conservative humor: an oxymoron. Leave off the oxy and you might actually have a proper description.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 06:32 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
Geez, Baldimo, don't you ever lighten up once in a while?

Aren't there many more STRAIGHT parents beating their kids than there are homosexual parents? I guess that the idea of marriage to these heterosexual parents doesn't quite conform to your self-prescribed worldview of the way things should be, eh?

And thank god there were lawyers around to help Bush win the 2000 election. What would you have done without them?

Laughing


If it wasn't for lawyers, we would have had a better election and saved taxpayer money!

Your going to cry about 2000 and 2004 for the rest of your life aren't you?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 07:04 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Finn,

The main point you make is ridiculous. Freedom should be supreme in cases where no unwilling participant is harmed.

By law (and by common sense) there is no such such thing as a mutally consensual relationship between a pedophile and a child. (Don't try to argue that a child can consent.)

You may argue that there is a mutually consensual act of cannibalism, but this seems a bit ludicrous. I suppose if you wanted to eat someone (who wanted to be eaten) after they died of natural caused.

Actually one of the core rituals of Christianity uses vivld symbolic cannibalistic imagery where believers eat the flesh and drink the blood of the messiah. Come to think of it, my kids were taught about these beliefs in a respectful way in public school. But I digress...

This doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality where it is clearly a mutually consentual relationship that harms no one (any more than interracial marriage anyway).


I made a number of points, all of which you seem reluctant to address.

In any case, you have clearly missed my "main" point which is that in the 2nd bullet of your agenda (manifesto is perhaps more apt a description), you declare that the moral judgements of others have no place in public institutions, and yet your entire agenda, which you would wish to see incorporated in the affairs of public institutions, flows from your own personal moral judgements.

Either you are too dense to recognize this inherent contradiction in your agenda or you believe your personal moral judgements are unquestionable.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 07:35 pm
I didn't think there were any other points you made that were even worth responding to.

Are you talking about your "not making a moral judgement is a moral judgement" argument?

I feel confident in saying that the fact we live in a pluralistic democracy is a pretty good thing. Picking out one group because of beliefs or behavior that doesn't hurt anyone who is not involved is not "making a moral judgement" in the same way as opposing blacks or gays or catholics or Jews.

The fact is you are:
1) Keeping one segment of society from having a right that is afforded to the rest of society.

2) Insisting that public schools either teach kids that these people is "immoral" or made to ignore them all togther. This is in spite of the fact that this segment is part of the community.

Tuis, your position is wrong in any pluralistic democracy.

My agenda does neither of these things (and is compatible with a pluralistic democracy). I don't insist on denying any civil right to any group. And, I will oppose any group being denigrated in public schools.

There is no contradiction in my agenda... inherent or otherwise.

BTW Finn. What do you think about interracial marriages?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 07:57 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Finn,

The main point you make is ridiculous. Freedom should be supreme in cases where no unwilling participant is harmed.

By law (and by common sense) there is no such such thing as a mutally consensual relationship between a pedophile and a child. (Don't try to argue that a child can consent.)

You may argue that there is a mutually consensual act of cannibalism, but this seems a bit ludicrous. I suppose if you wanted to eat someone (who wanted to be eaten) after they died of natural caused.

Actually one of the core rituals of Christianity uses vivld symbolic cannibalistic imagery where believers eat the flesh and drink the blood of the messiah. Come to think of it, my kids were taught about these beliefs in a respectful way in public school. But I digress...

This doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality where it is clearly a mutually consentual relationship that harms no one (any more than interracial marriage anyway).


I made a number of points, all of which you seem reluctant to address.

In any case, you have clearly missed my "main" point which is that in the 2nd bullet of your agenda (manifesto is perhaps more apt a description), you declare that the moral judgements of others have no place in public institutions, and yet your entire agenda, which you would wish to see incorporated in the affairs of public institutions, flows from your own personal moral judgements.

Either you are too dense to recognize this inherent contradiction in your agenda or you believe your personal moral judgements are unquestionable.


Hey Finn he is blind. He doesn't see his agenda as a moral argument and does want it enforced.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 07:58 pm
blatham wrote:
Quote:
Only because you have made the moral judgement that homosexuals are "equal" as human beings and citizens. It is amusing how blithely you dismiss the religious prohibitions against homosexuality.


How blithely do you dismiss the common animist injunction to thank the plant or animal before consuming it? Or Hindu and Judaic prohibitions on eating meat? Do you invoke Tore before hunting as the Bushmen must? Do you avoid working on the land on Thursdays in keeping with ashanti prohibition? What prohibitions do you think valid, finn? Why?

Considering that I have not attempted to declare the validity of these practices and beliefs while I, at the same time, dismiss them out of hand, your question is irrelevant.

It is a moral judgement that homosexuality is perverse and a moral judgement that it is just fine. "We hold that all men are created equal" is a moral claim too, or a statement of a moral principle based on the claim that all in the community have the right to equality and liberty. I make the moral judgement that blacks and chicanos are equal as human beings and citizens. I make the moral judgement that Hindus and Christians are equal, along with non-worshippers. I make the moral judgement that people who have sex before marriage are equal to people who do not.

Which moral notion wins and which does not? Does a vote establish what is morally best? Had America continued to allow, by consensus, a policy of slavery, would that be morally best? Does the vote in a Hell's Angel's clubhouse establish a best morality for that community?

This is an excellent question and at the core of my argument to ebrown. Clearly he believes that his moral judgement wins, and that opposing moral
judgements have no place in our public institutions.

A vote on what is moral and what is not is only problematic from a philosophical standpoint. If you prefer, call it a vote on what are socially acceptable practices and what are not. Certainly there will be times when what I consider immoral practices will be deemed socially acceptable, and times when what you deem to be a moral practice will be deemed socially unacceptable. There are no institutions or forums for reaching concrete decisions on questions of morality. There are, however, institutions and forums for determining with certainty questions of social acceptance.

While it is certainly possible and very unfortunate that immoral practices can be socially accepted, only social acceptance can be determine through a process of institutionalized governance, not morality. In time we can hope (as has been the case) that social acceptance will align with morality and such practices as slavery will be outlawed and others like women's suffrage will be allowed. I'm sure those who find abortion to be an immoral practice are hoping for an alignment with social acceptance that outlaws it as much as those who believe there is nothing immoral about same sex marriage hope that an alignment with social acceptance will result in its legalization.

If one chooses to work toward such an alignment, one has an agenda.


And you should probably clarify what you think the proper role of community education might be. Does it teach math but avoid all discussion or content on moral questions? Is it appropriate or not to have students increase their understanding of other cultures? If there is a large influx of Chinese people into a town in Montana, and as a consequence the community witnesses bullying and slandering and bigotry towards these new community members, would it be ok for a teacher to add a lesson on China and Chinese culture to increase the local kids appreciation of how these folks are human too?

I'm not sure that ebrown has been clear enough to support either of our assumptions about his agenda for community education.

I could be wrong but I don't interpret his agenda to include discussions of the morality of homosexual life styles as a part of community education. If I am and this is all he seeks, I agree with him that it is a worthy goal, providing that the stage of the education institution, and it's director, the teacher, remain neutral on the issue and allow a free exchange among the students.

Instead I believe that what he really wants is for community education to teach the conclusion that he has, himself, reached --- not that homosexuals exist (who is claiming otherwise?) but that their lifestyle should not be subjected to moral questioning.

A recent PBS children's show caused something of a firestorm recently by depicting parents of an otherwise ordinary family as being both females. The issue of their same sex union was never highlighted or addressed beyond their childrens introducing them to the other kids as their "Moms."
Let's be honest, the producers of this show introduced a same sex couple into the story, not to stimulate a debate among the 5 year olds who watch the show, but as a way of desensitizing young children to same sex unions.

Even if one believes there is nothing immoral or socially unacceptable about same sex marriages, one should question this method of education.

I've given the issue a lot of thought and come to the opinion that same sex marriages should be socially acceptable. I'm afraid, though, that I do not equate the feelings of those who do not agree with me to bigotry or homophobia. I feel they should allow a free exchange of thought on the subject but I do not equate classroom lessons on homosexual practices and culture with the those on the culture and practices of the Chinese.



0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 05:43 am
Lightwizard wrote:
That would be Crepes Suzette with lots of cherries on top.


I was hoping for Bananas Foster, or absent that, just plain old fruit cup doused in rum.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 09:33 am
You're making me hungry.

If it weren't for lawyers we'd have no Congress or Senate.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 09:54 am
Hungry? I'll get you a Barney Frankfurter.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 09:58 am
Sorry, but I don't think I want anything you've been sitting on.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/06/2021 at 12:57:53