Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Senate Bill 48 brings gay history to schools

What local schools will teach about homosexuality remains unclear

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, August 20, 2011 12:00 am | Updated: 10:37 am, Sat Aug 20, 2011.

It remains a mystery how area schools will address a new state law that requires teachers to acknowledge contributions by gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people.

Gov. Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 48 on July 14, which requires classroom instruction about contributions by gays in American history all the way from kindergarten through 12th grade.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

You must login to view the full content on this page.

Thank you for reading 20 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 20 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription at this time and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 209-369-2761. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

More about

More about

More about

Reference Links

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

196 comments:

  • Kim Lee posted at 11:02 pm on Mon, Aug 29, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    I answered your question, Darrell. It's all on you if you don't like the answer, as my answer will not change just to suit you. Now, come up with a new line. Your shtick is getting old and boring.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:58 pm on Mon, Aug 29, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    I asked a question... you ignored it... from that point on.... there was no discussion

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 2:51 pm on Mon, Aug 29, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Obviously, Darrell, you are not interested in a respectful discussion or debate. I guess you'll have to talk to yourself. Bye.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:46 am on Mon, Aug 29, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    I did not assume... I read your response... you provided no info as to content... just a talking point as you normally do. You were free to provide all the provisions of the law that you find positive, but you did not. Instead, you play victim again... its getting old K Lee.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 2:30 pm on Sun, Aug 28, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Geez, Darrell... Again, you just assume and insult. Is that the only way you know how to address others with opposing views?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:29 am on Sun, Aug 28, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    For example,
    Charter schools are currently independent of state educational requirements... This Bill adds wording that addresses this... Do you like this provision? Why... Do you see a slippery slope that if the state does this that in the future they will do more which may result in no independence? Should charter schools be independent or not.
    SB 48
    SEC. 6. It is the intent of the Legislature that alternative and charter schools take notice of the provisions of this act in light of Section 235 of the Education Code, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability,gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or other specified characteristics in any aspect of the operation of alternative and charter schools.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:08 am on Sun, Aug 28, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    K Lee stated...Darrell: I support SB48. What part of that do you not understand...

    I have no question as you revealed what I was looking for. When I support a bill, I do not listen to what people tell me is in the bill... I get a copy of the bill and read every word in it. Many times the bill is much different than what is publicized.
    You obviously have not read the bill itself and put forth talking points that a less ambitious person would do.
    When you read the bill itself you will discover many things that will effect the world we live in. In the future, I will not ask you which provisions you liked as now I know you do not bother to read the real bill found at the secretary of state's website. How unfortunate that you or anyone would support any bill that is not read... sounds like the democrats who passed the Obamacare bill. You fit right in K Lee.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 1:54 pm on Sat, Aug 27, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell: I support SB48. What part of that do you not understand? I support the classroom instruction regarding contributions by gays in American history. Do you have a specific question you'd like to ask me about the bill? Feel free to ask me about my views on any particular part of the bill. Post a specific question.


     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:26 pm on Fri, Aug 26, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    sorry... I meant SB48

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:24 pm on Fri, Aug 26, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    K lee... you stated you support SB4... Normally, when someone reads the bill they support, they find provisions in it that causes them to support it...

    What provisions do you support ?

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 7:45 pm on Fri, Aug 26, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell: Acquiring knowledge is what I support.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:55 pm on Fri, Aug 26, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    K Lee... maybe you could articulate which specific provisions of the bill impresses you most... and why... or do you support it because it makes you " feel good". ?

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 10:58 am on Fri, Aug 26, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Knowledge is power and ignorance is not bliss. I support SB48. Obtaining knowledge is a good thing.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:42 pm on Thu, Aug 25, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    I agree K Lee... whatever

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 1:33 pm on Thu, Aug 25, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Sure, Darrell, whatever you say.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:29 am on Thu, Aug 25, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    K Lee... If someone disagrees with my opinion as you many times do, I respect that... However, My problem with you has never been in that category.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 9:21 am on Thu, Aug 25, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Chris Wallace wrote, "The truth is that people are already equal, regardless of who they want to have sex with."

    Chris: This is simply not true in our society or in our laws.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 9:19 am on Thu, Aug 25, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "My comment you posted was "only" a comment about you believing something to be true... which was appropriate."

    I know, Darrell. As long as you perceive that someone does not have conviction or passion about what they believe (or know to be true) then you are a-ok with it. God forbid that anyone differs in opinion from what you "believe". It seems that we always need to tread very lightly around you when we disagree with your "opinion".

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:39 am on Wed, Aug 24, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    http://www.sos.ca.gov/dpregistry/

    This link is available for anyone who wishes to register and record a domestic partnership so legal rights can be enforceable in court.

    The California Supreme Court decision issued on May 15, 2008, regarding same-sex marriages did not invalidate or change any of the Family Code statutes relating to registered domestic partners. Until a Notice of Termination of Domestic Partnership (Form NP/SF DP-2) is filed with our office, a registered domestic partnership will remain active on the California's Domestic Partnership Registry. This office will continue to process Declarations of Domestic Partnership, Notices of Termination of Domestic Partnership and other related filings as permitted by the domestic partnership law.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:35 am on Wed, Aug 24, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    K Lee posts are very good question that is important to discuss... Below is a list of rights gay people have in california as compared to people who are married.


    domestic partnerships most of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). Among these:
    Making health care decisions for each other in certain circumstances
    Hospital and jail visitation rights that were previously reserved for family members related by blood, adoption or marriage to the sick, injured or incarcerated person.
    Access to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7)
    Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..), this applies to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality Act (Cal. Ins. Code §381.5)
    Sick care and similar family leave
    Stepparent adoption procedures
    Presumption that both members of the partnership are the parents of a child born into the partnership
    Suing for wrongful death of a domestic partner
    Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and trusts
    The same property tax provisions otherwise available only to married couples (Cal. R&T Code §62p)
    Access to some survivor pension benefits
    Supervision of the Superior Court of California over dissolution and nullity proceedings
    The obligation to file state tax returns as a married couple (260k) commencing with the 2007 tax year (Cal R&T Code §18521d)
    The right for either partner to take the other partner's surname after registration
    Community property rights and responsibilities previously only available to married spouses
    The right to request partner support (alimony) upon dissolution of the partnership (divorce)
    The same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a marriage
    The right to claim inheritance rights as a putative partner (equivalent to the rights given to heterosexual couples under the putative spouse doctrine) when one partner believes himself or herself to have entered into a domestic partnership in good faith and is given legal rights as a result of his or her reliance upon this belief.[5]

    .

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:26 am on Wed, Aug 24, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    K Lee, you asked a hypothetical that is impossible to answer.... I believe that all people are capable of hurting children and capable of loving and caring for them as well...

    My comment you posted was "only" a comment about you believing something to be true... which was appropriate. I think Manuel and Warner inappropriately stated everything as a matter of fact when in reality it was a belief. You were accurate and appropriate in stating it was a belief and not a fact. I thought you appropriately corrected their error in perception. Thank you!

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 10:11 am on Wed, Aug 24, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Chris Wallace wrote, "The truth is that people are already equal, regardless of who they want to have sex with."

    Chris: This is simply not true in our society or in our laws.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 10:05 am on Wed, Aug 24, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "My compliments to K Lee... she "BELIEVES "... I also believe what she believes... unfortunately, Warren and Manuel do not believe it... they somehow know it to be fact. An absolute that has no room for debate and discussion. K Lee is more honest and intellectually sound in thinking. She “believes” '

    Darrell: Do you believe that pedophiles endanger children and that homosexuals endanger no one?


     
  • Kim Lee posted at 9:55 am on Wed, Aug 24, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Chris Wallace wrote, "Anyone who wants to keep pushing for so-called "gay rights" or "gay recognition" must not be content with equality."

    Chris: Please give me an example of where you believe that gay people are treated as, and have the same rights as, heterosexual people. I personally do not see where gay people have the same rights as everyone else.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:20 am on Tue, Aug 23, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Chris stated...Has anyone noticed that if you disagree with their position, then you are ignorant, a bigot, or both? Where is their open-mindedness (and proof of their own lack of bigotry).
    .


    Thank you Chris... my long winded rant accusing Warner of bigotry was simply a demonstration of what he does to others. He accused Kevin of being a bigot... and the beat goes on... Wouldn't it be refershing to have an honest dialogue without being called a bigot or other such name...

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 11:47 pm on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Good Points Chris. I don't know how the secular progressive movement slipped my mind. These proponents of it have established it in a way one could call it a religious movement. Not to disparage religion on my part.

     
  • Chris Wallace posted at 11:25 pm on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.

    Chris Wallace Posts: 32

    Has anyone noticed that if you disagree with their position, then you are ignorant, a bigot, or both? Where is their open-mindedness (and proof of their own lack of bigotry).
    .
    Hey, I'm down for attending some straight pride parades- how well do you think they will go over?
    .
    Anyone think a Tea Party parade will be embraced in San Francisco? Or Seattle?

     
  • Chris Wallace posted at 11:22 pm on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.

    Chris Wallace Posts: 32

    Actually Brian, you are partially correct; the religion of secular progressivism also would like to do away with any and all competition in regards of philosophy and ideology- especially religion.
    .
    I keep seeing this "gay rights" stuff, and wonder why these advocates believe it. I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is a movement that tries to equalte sexual conduct to ethnicity and it is a major fail!
    .
    The truth is that people are already equal, regardless of who they want to have sex with. 2 men cannot marry, and neither can 2 women. It mattern not if they practice homosexuality or heterosexuality. It is the definition of 'marriage" that is in question, not some false perception of discriminition that really isn't there.
    .
    Now, if you want to change marriage laws, then don't stop for just the same gender couples; better practice that "inclusion" and "equality" stuff you guys spout and change it for everyone- including cultures that practice multiple marriage partners. After all, you don't want to discriminate, do you?
    .
    As for recognizing gays in history, this is nothing more than the leftist progressive back door to using Government and law to enforce their own morality. Education is supposed to focus on facts and history- not who wanted to have sex with who.
    .
    Anyone who wants to keep pushing for so-called "gay rights" or "gay recognition" must not be content with equality.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 9:02 pm on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Joanne Bobin posted at 9:57 am on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.

    -Joanne,

    In this post of yours I noted above, you speak of these points in history as if they irk you. Why is that? Specificly why you would be irked by the Crusades since they were in response to the brutal expansion of Islam. And there is no evidence any other religion except Islam wanted then or presently to destroy all religions so they can have sole domination as a religion, a political, governmental, and financial. This is where Islam differs with all other religions.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:42 pm on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms Bobin... certainly you could not have missed the history of the Cretans and their significance...
    There was human oar power, often using slaves to man their ships... Galleys were used in the 3rd millennium BC by the Cretans. The Greeks later advanced these ships for use of killing their enemies by ramming ships powered by these slaves.... These slaves were savagely treated and led to an attitude that slavery was acceptable. I think if you study this phenomenon, you will discover something very important... just about as significant and relevant to the history lesson you posted.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:38 am on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    If you still conclude that Mr. Sunderson is a bigot, then I guess I'll just have to add him to my list of "corners" around which Lodi's bigots are slyly skulking.

    Now you have done it... I am smiling at something you said. thank you Ms Bobin...

    I now will imagine Mr Sunderson skulking around the corner you are peeping at. That is quite the image...

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:35 am on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms Bobin stated...The above may be way too much for you to absorb in one sitting, so I suggest that you re-read before flying off with comments that have nothing to do with my remarks.

    No problem Ms Bobin... it is very easy to respond to acts of Bigotry... but thank you for your concern.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:31 am on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms Bobin stated. I know that you are a bleeding heart liberal for all the polygamists world wide, who you claim to be such happy families

    Ms Bobin... Please do not characterize what I said or my intent faslsely.. I am not bleeding heart anything...
    I stated that loving caring relationships that foster goodness should not be discriminated against. That is the same argument that the homosexual community has been making for years. So in that spirit, shouldn't we be consistent? Why shouldn't I be able to make the same argument.
    If we go by the law of the land, as you suggest to do with polygamy, then I can understand your position. If so...then I think we should look at the law of the land in Iran.
    In Iran, homosexuality is a crime and is punished by death. Are you saying we should respect the law of the land? Or should be consider the humanity of the situation and protest this harsh cruel law of their land. People are people everywhere Ms Bobin. Why should Warner, Manuel and yourself discriminate and put down situations of loving caring relationships no matter where in the human race it exists?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:08 am on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    If a family unit is loving and caring Ms Bobin, it should not be discriminated against and subject to the wrath of bigots like Warner
    As far as the topic... topics can evolve MS Bobin. It is Warner that started the accusations of bigotry yet committs bigotry himself. Had Warner not accused others of this I think this tread would have 50 less posts.
    Personally, I cannot imagine myself in a relationship practicing polygomy. However, there are people in countries that do make it work and engage in loving relationships. I cannot control your narrow focus Ms Bobin. How sad that people who say they are advocates of anti discrimination practice discrimination themselves.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:57 am on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Perhaps Mr. Docktor missed the history lesson on the Crusades, wherein the Pope called for the destruction of Islam and the restoration of Christianity (not Judaism) in the Holy Land.

    Did you skip school the semester that the history of the Americas was taught? Somehow forgot about the Catholic domination over native Americans in South, Central and North America?

    Being a bit disingenuous, Mr. Docktor? Or are you just writing your own version?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:54 am on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Brian stated...I am curious why Manuel would not want to talk about the threat Islam poses on homosexuals

    II think if Manuel was concerned with the plight of this group ( and other relious groups)of people he would be outraged. Instead, he is silent which to me means he has political concerns and not human ones.

    One possible variable may be his atheism and his bigotry toward Christians. Maybe he sees Islam as a tool to achieve a religious end.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:46 am on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Baumbach wrote: "Ms Bobin... Mr. Sunderson accused Kevin of bigotry when in fact, Kevin is not a Bigot. Mr Sunderson puts down a group of people then attacks me as well... In my opinion, He is a bigot yet participates in this thread as if he is wearing a halo and has facts that are irrefutable."

    "A group of people?" Polygamists? Since this discussion is SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT instituting gay history in California classrooms, I believe that we should stick to the topic and consider the fact that polygamy is ILLEGAL in this state and in most US states it is constitutionally banned. Seems to me I even read something about a polygamist recently being convicted.

    I know that you are a bleeding heart liberal for all the polygamists world wide, who you claim to be such happy families, but I seriously doubt that your sociological and anthropological studies have gone beyond surface appearances. As Mr. Sunderson stated, polygamy is a cultural custom that is all about MALE control of females and the subjagation of the female sex. No different that a pride of lions with multiple females dominated by a single male.

    For Mr. Palia to compare polygamy and adultery to homosexuality is quite ludicrous as the first two are social constructs, while the last is not a lifestyle choice, no matter how much all of the contributors in this forum wish it to be (and at least one contributor believes firmly that it is infectious and can be transmitted by associating with homosexuals).

    Mr. Baumbach wrote: "Brian on the other hand did not accuse any group of bigotry."

    Correct - Mr. Docktor has expressed HIS BIGOTRY by continually pointing out his opposition to Islam and Islamic customs primarily because they include POLYGAMY and the subjugation of women, yet you have NEVER repeatedly accused him of bigotry for those comments.

    The above may be way too much for you to absorb in one sitting, so I suggest that you re-read before flying off with comments that have nothing to do with my remarks.

    If you still conclude that Mr. Sunderson is a bigot, then I guess I'll just have to add him to my list of "corners" around which Lodi's bigots are slyly skulking.


     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:41 am on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    I am courious why Manuel would not want to talk about the threat Islam poses on homosexuals. Perhaps I will have to write a letter covering this particular subject mattter because all the complaining we hear from the LGBT about their rights being violated is peanuts compared to what the LGBT in Islamic countries have to endure on a daily basis.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:25 am on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Fair enough Manuel. But, there is no evidence any other religion has aspired to want a monoploy as Islam does.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:15 am on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Its a shame that an important topic such as this can be diminished by someone as bigoted as Warner. People of all walks deserve respect and to be treated with kindness and love. Unfortunately, Warner and Manuel shows more interested in a political agenda that in doing the right thing. People's well being should be a higher priority.

    Kevin...thank you for making reasonable statements that address a concern that many have. People like Warner and Manuel who are antagonistic and vicious are not appropriate representatives of people anywhere. They pretend to be reasonable and thoughtful yet with malice misrepresent your position. They should be ashamed.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:31 am on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Warner stated...Now I understand that your (in reference to Kevin) passionate interest in this controversy was your advocacy for child molesters (and polygamists) and your wish that they too, be included in the history curriculum so that teenage pedophiles (and burgeoning polygamists) have role models and can feel some pride in themselves.

    No Warner.. it is not possible to set you straight ... your mind is set and have no ability to comprehend what Kevin stated. You attempt but failed to smear people on this thread that take a different legitimate position than you.... you are one insincere person. Kevin made no such claim as you are very disingenuous. Your bigotry is very clear. With a capital “B”

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 6:35 am on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    K. Lee and Manuel,
    Thanks for your kind words.

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 6:34 am on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Kevin Paglia, thank you for setting me straight. By the stridency of your arguments I was under the impression that you had some kind of prejudice against the LGBT community. I stand corrected and applaud your support of a minority struggling to achieve equal rights. Now I understand that your passionate interest in this controversy was your advocacy for child molesters (and polygamists) and your wish that they too, be included in the history curriculum so that teenage pedophiles (and burgeoning polygamists) have role models and can feel some pride in themselves.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:27 am on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Kevin articulated perfectly the position of a thoughtful person with no agenda. His positions are appropriate and does not attempt to distort Manuel and Warren's positions. I have three items to comment on from Kevin's last post...

    1. I concur that pedophilia is child abuse... of course... and the inference that Kevin approved of it was ludicrous and dishonest. It was only suggested as a means to put Kevin on the wrong side of the argument ( In the minds of Warner and Manuel). It was obvious.
    2. You keep saying polygamy is the subjugation of women. Kevin is right. While there are situations where polygamy is subjugation of woman, there are many situations where this form of relationship is loving and caring. As such, Warren and Manuel foist their bias and what they think is right on others... bigotry in motion.
    3. You say I am equating the LGBT community with criminals... This was a low blow and to draw this conclusion was disingenuous and dishonest.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 11:47 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    I'm done posting for this thread. I think I have made my point: Let the teachers teach about great Americans who did great things. If their sexual orientation is relevant to the teaching then include it, if not then why bother? Same as I said in the 5:13 sat. posting.

    I think some people on here need to examine why they hate some genetic minorities so much.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 11:42 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    Warner, please show me where I said I opposed equal rights. Quite the opposite, I have said since the beginning that we should teach about great Americans who did great things. Nowhere did I say great Americans who did great things but only if they were straight.

    I did point out that if the standard of "it's genetic same as eye color and skin" then we have to include all groups of people who have the similar genetic deviations (that is not a derogatory term, just the term used to indicate a change from one to another).

    And show me where I said we should purge the names of spouses unless they were famous from all books. I said if it is relevant teach it, if not don't. A far cry from purge from all books. Where a student gets their research material is up to them and anything is fair game.

    I concur that pedophilia is child abuse, but it is also a genetic condition http://www.science20.com/ptsd_navigating_mindfield/review_pedophilia_neuropsychological_evidence_encouraging_brain_network_perspective. So, per my original postings, why is one genetic condition acceptable to you and the other not?

    You keep saying polygamy is the subjugation of women. It is interesting that you do not include the women that have multiple husbands, is that more of your own bias showing up? But anyhow, please explain why you think polygamy is bad just for women. Cultures outside America that condone polygamy have one common rule, a man can only have as many wives as he can take care of. It is his responsibility to see to the needs of every single one of his wives. Seeing to the needs of is very different from subjugation.

    You say I am equating the LGBT community with criminals. I have not, I have pointed out that using the "I'm born this way" justification WILL open a can of worms. I have also showed that historically these "criminal" acts were embraced so our species would survive. After hundreds or thousands of years do you think just because a piece of paper now says it is illegal then the ancestral hard wiring will just poof and go away?

    You are right, being opposed to child abuse and the subjugation of women is not bigotry. It is, however, bigotry to have such strong prejudices for a small group of people who want the same rights you want using the same argument you are, they were born that way.

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 9:58 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Kevin, please be honest enough to state your reason(s) for opposing equal rights for the LGBT community. Is it religious?

    My opposition to child abuse and the subjugation of women is not bigotry by any definition. Slandering the LGBT community by equating them with criminals is shameful.

    As for my post at 6:06 pm, I was speaking about the law up for discussion. School districts purchase many kinds of textbooks for many different courses across many grade levels that address history. School libraries are stocked with books for student research as well. Your suggestion that these books be purged of basic biographical information mentioning the family status of all famous Americans who do not have famous spouses is impractical and silly.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:41 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Manuel Martinez posted at 9:13 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011...We addressed this thoroughly and it is sad that you have not aptly rebutted it.

    No Manuel... maybe if you and Warner addressed the bigotry that is underlining in your posts, truth can be achieved.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:16 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Kevin Paglia posted at 7:59 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011...in reference to Warner...i have not addressed your question about child abusers and predators because it is a bigoted question

    Kevin... I was hoping you would say this as I felt the same way. You are making so many good points that I do not want to take away or add anything to your points. I'm simply pointing out Warner's bigotry and his condescending attitude.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 9:13 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Kevin Paglia posted at 7:59 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.
    "i have not addressed your question about child abusers and predators because it is a bigoted question. It is interesting still that someone arguing for equal rights based on genetic, born this way arguments wants to dismiss others making the same claim."

    We addressed this thoroughly and it is sad that you have not aptly rebutted it.

    Manuel Martinez posted at 5:31 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.
    "Kevin, I can see your argument about treating the contributors to history as purely human without references to their immutable characteristics. I however, do need to point out that your last bit of reasoning is flawed. Neither pedophilia or polygamy are variants of sexual orientation. They are classified either as a paraphelia or social practice (taking more than one wife is not rooted in any form of predisposition, it is simply an alternative to monogamy)."

    Manuel Martinez posted at 9:20 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.
    "That an act occurred in the past is not an argument that it is a genetic predisposition. Polygamy is a societal/cultural practice that occurred at one point in our existence. It's use generally curbed in the western world when Christianity spread forth, unless you hold that christians can (maintaining their faith) engage in polygamy in contrast to their predecessors (as attributed in your holy text).

    The marriage between youth and adult is a societal construct as you claim, however, this is not an argument that it is related to a natural affinity for youth (comparable to orientation). We modified our social norms in regard to this matter because it harmed our youth and often occurred in the absence of their consent, their ability to consent and in some cases, with a transaction (bride price after all is in the bible)."


    There is an obvious distinction between a practice and a predisposition, as well as the strength of scientific research on these topics. If you have a handful of studies that has been peer reviewed and is reasonable, please present them so we can discuss this in greater detail.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:08 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    K Lee posted at 7:54 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011....Warner Sunderson wrote, "...homosexuality is NOT a predisposition. It is an immutable trait like eye or skin color, does not cause stress in and of itself, does not impair a person's ability to function in daily life, and does not endanger self or others. Pedophiles endanger children. Homosexuals endanger no one."

    Warner: I believe this to be true as well.

    My compliments to K Lee... she "BELIEVES "... I also believe what she believes... unfortunately, Warren and Manuel do not believe it... they somehow know it to be fact. An absolute that has no room for debate and discussion. K Lee is more honest and intellectually sound in thinking. She “believes”

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 8:48 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian Dockter posted at 8:07 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.
    "Islam is the only Religion and actually is the only religion to ever be intolerant of other religions to the point it wants sole domination of the world."

    Needless to say, this is not true and it is silly to argue that it is true. Diaspora, the crusades, numerous instances of pogroms, inquisition and witch hunts are enough to indict Christianity, Judaisim (excluding the pogroms) and nearly every religion that manged to exhibit it's influence on a large domain - kept on by dreams of spreading it's message to the farthest reaches of the globe.

    I'd rather that you write a letter to the editor so you could go into this in more detail without hijacking this topic for something else.

    Here's something to tide you over until then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRKXzER5AH8

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:46 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Manuel,

    I would never say you haven't presented reasonable points. But you keep on beshmirching. It's what you do.

     
  • roy bitz posted at 8:12 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    roy bitz Posts: 497

    Thanks for setting me straight Warner.
    Seem to me this bill contains so much "subjective lingo" it cannot be implemented----not even in the Twilight Zone---but it has been a hoot reading your rants.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:07 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Manuel wrote:

    Brian, given the chance, religion would assert it's role as a political system

    -i doubt that. Society has become sophisticated and civilized enough to prevent this from happening again. Even Political Islam has pretty much conceded defeat it can never reverse the process secularization has instilled on Europe, many parts of Asia,
    and the Americas. So, what you think could be so, falls flat on it's face. I suggest you check out Jihadwatch.com Islam is the only Religion and actually is the only religion to ever be intolerant of other religions to the point it wants sole domination of the world. With the likes of Hitchens and you I may have to concede you're more apt to send them back to their caves than all of the religious gurus of the world. But, ultimately, it will be the second coming of Christ to finish things off. You really didn't expect me to give you people all the credit.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 8:04 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    K Lee posted at 7:46 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    "Warner Sunderson: I have enjoyed reading your comments here."

    Ditto. Keep commenting. Even though you'll never get through to Darrell or Brian, there are others who read but don't actively comment. I'm sure they'll agree that you presented reasonable points, so keep it up. Cheers.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 7:59 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    Warner, the discussion has been about the state bill teaching history in school, not everywhere else. i have been commenting on the issue addressed in the letter, not ALL books related to history.

    i have not addressed your question about child abusers and predators because it is a bigoted question. It is interesting still that someone arguing for equal rights based on genetic, born this way arguments wants to dismiss others making the same claim.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 7:54 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Warner Sunderson wrote, "...homosexuality is NOT a predisposition. It is an immutable trait like eye or skin color, does not cause stress in and of itself, does not impair a person's ability to function in daily life, and does not endanger self or others. Pedophiles endanger children. Homosexuals endanger no one."

    Warner: I believe this to be true as well.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 7:46 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Warner Sunderson: I have enjoyed reading your comments here.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:46 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Mr. Sunderson wrote:

    Now you have changed course, seem to be advocating some kind of "equality" position,

    -I nearly fell of my chair in laughter when I read this. Point being, the whole LGBT
    agend is to achieve equality. That being said, I'm not sure if Mr Sunderson is even aware what he accuses Kevin of is actually some sort of admittance on Kevin's part that equality to a certain degree may not be that bad of an idea.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 7:45 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    I haven't read SB 48. I agree that it is important to teach students about such historical events like Harvey Milk's fight for Civil Rights. Harvey Milk, a gay man, fought for civil rights and was assassinated. These are important events to learn about and discuss.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:28 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Manuel stated...Darrell, I am sure that if you petitioned on behalf of a group that you feel had been left out, a bill would be introduced to include them

    I am sure you are very wrong Manuel.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:26 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Warner Sunderson posted at 7:03 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011...It's like the twilight zone in here..

    I disagree... not twilight zone... Its the denial zone... Warner thinks if he pretends he is not a bigot, that he then is not a bigot. ... Yes... this is the denial zone.

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 7:03 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    It's like the twilight zone in here.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 6:46 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Darrell, I am sure that if you petitioned on behalf of a group that you feel had been left out, a bill would be introduced to include them. Sometimes I think you just protest to increase your post count (3700?! Last time I was here (months) it was around 2500...)

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:25 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    This bill would revise the list of culturally and racially diverse
    groups to also include Pacific Islanders, lesbian, gay, bisexual,
    and transgender Americans, and other ethnic and cultural groups."

    So why discriminate against other groups... why only these groups

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:10 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms Bobin...Is anyone here surprised about the intensity of Mr. Baumbach's use of the word bigot towards Mr. Sunderson?
    Ms Bobin... Mr. Sunderson accused Kevin of bigotry when in fact, Kevin is not a Bigot. Mr Sunderson
    puts down a group of people then attacks me as well... In my opinion, He is a bigot yet participates in this thread as if he is wearing a halo and has facts that are irrefutable.

    Brian on the other hand did not accuse any group of bigotry.

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 6:06 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Kevin, you failed to answer my questions about why you were continually equating gays and lesbians to child abusers and sex predators. I am guessing that you know at least one gay person and feel uncomfortable about your earlier scurrilous arguments.

    Now you have changed course, seem to be advocating some kind of "equality" position, and only want to mention the relationship status of Americans who have famous partners. Let's explore how that would play out. As an example, you offer Martha Washington as the only presidents' wife worth mentioning because she did great things on her own. Like what? She was a rich widow when she snagged George and basically just fulfilled the standard duties of her position. She is not listed on any of the most accomplished or influential first ladies lists--you know her only because she was George's wife. You probably remember hearing something about Mary Todd Lincoln as well, mostly for her mental illness. Abigail Adams, Dolley Madison, Eleanor Roosevelt, Betty Ford, and most modern first ladies accomplished far more on their own. So based on your criteria, Martha Washington and Mary Todd Lincoln are out--so what that their husbands were our two most famous presidents. Students should not know about their families. Instead, let's add in William Rufus Devane King, a well known and accomplished diplomat, who was President James Buchanan's gay partner for decades. We can mention that Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas, famous authors, were a lesbian pair, but the family situations of Steinbeck and Hemingway are off limits. J. Edgar Hoover, Truman Capote, Jasper Johns, and Annie Leibowitz are IN because their partners were famous, but Harvey Milk, a pioneer in the LGBT rights movement cannot be mentioned as gay. Alas, his partners were nobodies. Think of all the library books (biographies) and encyclopedias that will have to be junked because they mention the nobodies so many famous Americans married.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 5:41 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian, given the chance, religion would assert it's role as a political system, as it had done so for centuries before the renaissance and the enlightenment curbed the power of religious institutions and solidified the wall between secular and religious institutions. If you argue that Sharia is a political system that enforces religious dictates than the solution is obvious:

    "Build up Mr. Jefferson's wall" - Christopher Hitchens

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 5:35 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Roy, to allay your fears, I'll post a link to the text of the bill. No one is required to state the sexual orientation of all historical figures. The bill is not even focused solely on the historical contributions of LGBT individuals. Here is the pertinent part:

    "Existing law requires that when adopting instructional materials
    for use in the schools, governing boards shall include materials that
    accurately portray the role and contribution of culturally and
    racially diverse groups including Native Americans, African
    Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, and European Americans
    to the total development of California and the United States.
    This bill would revise the list of culturally and racially diverse
    groups to also include Pacific Islanders, lesbian, gay, bisexual,
    and transgender Americans, and other ethnic and cultural groups."

    http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/74798

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 4:54 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Manuel,

    You seem to be a bright person. But when you make such ridiculous moral equivalences I begin to question your brightness.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 4:51 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Manuel,

    The FLDS Church has been renoounced by the Mormon Church for forcing women into polygamy. In any event, the FLDS is not a political system nor do these instances
    happen anywhere else but Colorado City, AZ. Last time I checked they weren't stoning women or putting them on the stretcher for not submitting. And Colorado City
    is but a remote wide spot in the road in Northern AZ. It's rather irrelevant what is going on there compared to the scale of how many people live under Sharia Law.

     
  • roy bitz posted at 4:50 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    roy bitz Posts: 497

    I scrolled down and read and read again the post Warner asked me to read. I even tried to read betweeen the lines but I cannot see an argument against what teacher Jamie Anaforian opines---that teachers should not be REQUIRED to state a historical figures sexual preference---that it does not seem appropriate, advantageous or relevant.
    No one is suggesting sextual preference should be kept in secret but like Ms Anoforian, I cannot see where it is appropriate, advantageous, or relevant.
    Warner asks "what is so threatening" about stating personal sexual preference?
    I see nothing threatinging about it---I just don't think it is appropriate, advantageous or relevant.
    I say again though---I see this as step in the wrong direction. What's next? Field trips to "in your face events" to see people behaving badly?

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 4:33 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Manuel wrote:

    Joanne, I haven't even witnessed Darrell take Brian to task for his railing against homosexuals in general...

    -Why would Darrell take me to task because he understands I oppose this lifestyle on the basis it has done major damage to the overall moral fabric of society?

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 4:29 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    umm...the FLDS church?

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 4:11 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Joanne,

    Clearly you don't understand the difference between polygamy and Sharia Law.
    That being said, Darrell my seem bitter to you for reasons much different than you realize.
    As far as I know there are no laws subjugating women to live a life of polygamy in any religion/political system other than Islam. So, please explain to us why he should have bitterness and consternation for me because I am opposed to the oppression and subjugation of women by a religion/political system?

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 4:09 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Joanne, I haven't even witnessed Darrell take Brian to task for his railing against homosexuals in general...

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 3:41 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Is anyone here surprised about the intensity of Mr. Baumbach's use of the word bigot towards Mr. Sunderson?

    I don't think that Mr. Baumbach has railed against Mr. Docktor for being a bigot because he opposes what he considers Islam's subjugation of women. But somehow the concept of Polygamy in this forum has caused quite some bitterness and consternation for him. Hmmmm......

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 2:57 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    Joanne: The bill is specifically for addressing the sexual orientations of HISTORICAL American figures. Hence my original statement, why can't we just each great accomplishments of great Americans?

    Warner: the reason we know Martha Washington is because she was a great American who did great things. After her, how many First ladies are discussed in American history classes through HS? Zero. How many historical figures are taught as being part of a couple to begin with. When I think back about great Americans and their great accomplishments I think of just a tiny percentage of their wives and that is usually because the wives (or husband) did something great in and of themselves. When I was learning the US presidents I did not also learn their wives. Most of the time the spouse of a great American is just a footnote on the web pages. If they are mentioned at all in the text books it is because they did something worth noting, which is the same standard I want ALL great Americans held to when taught.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:38 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Warner stated...Already stated my position on that, Roy. Scroll down to yesterday, 6 pm...Thats true Warner... but Im still waiting on that discussion concerning bigotry and what led you to partipate in it. I know its difficult to break out of denial, but you should at least give it a try.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 2:33 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Bitz: I can only recount my own experience within the learning community where sexual orientation is frequently discussed, and that is in American and English Literature classes. Since many of our prominent writers were/are either homosexual, bi-sexual, or had a large stable of opposite sex partners during their lifetimes, their practices often speak to their body of work and are often relevant to understanding literature. In no classroom have I ever heard an instructor delve into the minute details of these authors' sexual practices, and I seriously doubt that that will be the case under SB 48.

    I do think that it is relevant to reveal an individual's sexual orientation, i.e., as in the case of Harvey Milk, to understand "where they are coming from," and why they fought for certain principles. I seriously doubt that any teacher will be promoting homosexuality or any other alternative orientation in relation to a historical discussion.

    This is the same type of situation that prompts many in this forum to claim that "liberals are in control of the curriculum," and that is why our educational system is in such dire straits.

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 1:44 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Already stated my position on that, Roy. Scroll down to yesterday, 6 pm.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:15 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Manuel stated...*insert facepalming sigh while Darrell prattles on, accusing others of a superiority complex when all he's done is reject any appeal to evidence in favor of his own subjective opinion to the exclusion of the opinions of others ahhhhhh*

    Why thank you Manuel...facepalming been found in chimpanzees and other animals, suggesting that the action is as natural as a sigh or cough... Its good to know that you appreciate with enthusiasm my positions and points.

    And yes... since I always maintain that I make mistakes and am wrong many times, and whereas you maintain that your position is always well thought out and substantiated by science, reports and consensus, you do appear to have a superiority complex. Unfortunately, the science you use is selective and you ignore science that counters your positions.
    So I do not sigh.. I do not say you prattle on in a condescending dismissive manner ( like you insist on doing)... Instead, I say you could be right, but you are probably wrong.

     
  • roy bitz posted at 1:02 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    roy bitz Posts: 497

    I would like to hear some arguement against Tokay High teacher Jamie Anaforian's opinions on sb 48. She believes: teachers should not be required to state a historical figure's sexual preference. It doesn't seem appropriate, advantageous, or relevant.
    Warner---Manuel---anyone?

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 12:54 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Manuel,

    I can see why you may not have a problem admitting God(s) exist if they were queer
    based on your quote from this J.B.S. Haldane person.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 12:32 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Manuel wrote:

    I seriously did not think that people actually believe that the supposed creator of the universe blessed one country in particular. Something is seriously wrong with you...

    -Within your immediate circle of contacts outside of this blogg I can see why you would think there is something wrong with this position.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 12:20 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    *insert facepalming sigh while Darrell prattles on, accusing others of a superiority complex when all he's done is reject any appeal to evidence in favor of his own subjective opinion to the exclusion of the opinions of others ahhhhhh*

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 12:09 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Warner... if you really wanted a discussion, you would admit your bigotry and discuss what led you to become that way... You are in denial.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 12:03 pm on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Warner Sunderson posted at 11:49 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011. This discussion has gone from serious to amusing...

    I disagree... I think Mr Sunderson has not participated in a discussion... He lectures and expects others to agree with his position and what he considers facts. Therefore, it never has been serious. I think Warner thinking it is “amusing “ is amusing.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:53 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Warner Sunderson posted at 9:12 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011...
    Mr. Kindseth, I am not sure why you are posting a link to a propaganda website sponsored by a Canadian anti-abortion, socially conservative, fringe group. If you have some problem with affording equality to the LGBT community, you ought to state that upfront. In an honest discussion, we ought to stay on topic with verifiable facts, rather than resort to bias, slander, and fear.

    Mr Sunderson, I am not sure why you are using biased vocabulary that attempts to frame others as unreasonable and you as above it all.
    For example you selected anti-abortion instead of pro-life... you selected fringe group for the people you disagree with when in reality, you are there is no fringe group. You ought to state up front that you are bias and think people who sees reality differently that you are simply out of touch or ignorant. In an honest discussion, you should be more open and not assume what you consider to be facts are absolute. I have not seen any posts on this thread where you are open to discussion. You simply are saying “ I'm right... you are wrong.. Your opinions are facts and anything the contradicts your facts are wrong. You must teach... and others must listen... Its laughable that you consider what you do a discussion.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 11:51 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian Dockter posted at 11:29 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.
    "I would love to hear your take there is evidence loopholes exist in physics."

    It isn't relevant, I've been telling you it isn't relevant and your insistence on bringing up things that I have not argued contested or initially referred to is evidence that you need some form of attention inducing medication.

    Knowing that you or Darrell will exclaim "HA! Manuel doesn't want to answer my question or offer his opinion because he's a scaredy cat" (obviously indicative children), I'll simply say the words of J.B.S Haldane: "Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." There very well may be "loopholes" in the laws of physics, but this is not evidence of a god, and, to your dismay, could just as well be evidence that the universe is capable of creating itself if we are able to suppose something queerer than we can imagine.

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 11:49 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    This discussion has gone from serious to amusing.


    Brian, I don't think any biased sources, left or right, should be used as evidence in an honest exchange.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 11:35 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    I seriously did not think that people actually believe that the supposed creator of the universe blessed one country in particular. Something is seriously wrong with you...

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 11:31 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian Dockter posted at 11:19 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.
    "Manuel,
    Thank you for clarifying you think it's just a coincidence the U.S. is so blessed to be so prosperous and great."

    You mean with Barrack Obama? Sure, why not.

    *prepare for incoming...*

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 11:29 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Manuel,

    I would love to hear your take there is evidence loopholes exist in physics.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 11:24 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Chris,

    You make good points especially on the issue of the word gay being highjacked
    to the point where it's definition is now more derogatory than anything else. And of course you take the risk of being labeled gay if you wear anything or put anything on your car with a rainbow in it.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 11:19 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Manuel,

    Thank you for clarifying you think it's just a coincidence the U.S. is so blessed to be so prosperous and great.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 11:14 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Mr Sunderson wrote:

    Mr. Kindseth, I am not sure why you are posting a link to a propaganda website sponsored by a Canadian anti-abortion, socially conservative, fringe group.

    -Chuckle,

    Cut the crap Mr. S and just come out and say you'll cast aspersions on anyone
    posting links from socially conservative websites.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 11:10 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Mr. Sunderson,

    Darrell has narcissism? From your point of view? Perhaps. That being said, how can we conclude you AREN'T narcissistic about homosexuality?

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 10:44 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Chris, see my post from yesterday at 6 pm.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 9:35 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Chris, I don't think there will be much discussion about how many sexual partners one had or longed for. I would assume that this bill will introduce the LGBT rights movement into the curriculum (the Stonewall riots, the assassination of Harvey Milk, contemporary coverage of the harassment endured by LGBT students and adults in a heterosexist society, and so on.)

     
  • Chris Wallace posted at 9:26 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Chris Wallace Posts: 32

    So we desire to equate skin color with sexual behavior. Fail. People who practice homosexuality aren't any different than people who practice heterosexuality. So why does it seem important for kids- all the way down to Kindergaten - to know what kind of sex people in history wanted? How is it relevant to the signing of treaties... or the founder of mathematical formulas? Do we need to know if Abe Lincoln liked to be on the top or botom? So why do we need to know that this lady in history liked women more than men?
    This is also about education; maybe before discussing what kind of sex people wanted to have outside of relevancy, we should get back to the actual disctionary meaning of the word "gay". It doesn't mean homosexual. If a kid put that answer down on a test they should get a check mark for being wrong.
    Here's a fun topic: in LGBT, why doesn't the G come first? Would it be misogynistic?

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 9:12 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Mr. Kindseth, I am not sure why you are posting a link to a propaganda website sponsored by a Canadian anti-abortion, socially conservative, fringe group. If you have some problem with affording equality to the LGBT community, you ought to state that upfront. In an honest discussion, we ought to stay on topic with verifiable facts, rather than resort to bias, slander, and fear.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 8:52 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian Dockter posted at 8:13 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.
    "The thought has never crossed your mind God has had to step down to the level of Satan in order to make a point? Or do you consider God and Satan one in the same?"

    I think Warren covered this point nicely. If I were to assume that God(s) exists, this would not lead me to the conclusion that 'Satan' exists. An antagonist other than a flawed supreme being that acted immorally and yet demanded that we be moral is unnecessary.

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 8:43 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Brian, I know you addressed Manuel, but I don't it's overstepping to state that those of us who do not "believe" in God, do not see evidence for Satan, forest sprites, hobgoblins, or any other type of mythical or supernatural entity.

    Darrell, I think anyone, religious or not, can see in your posts a certain narcissistic approval of polygamous relationships where men control several women. There's really nothing more to say on the subject. If you claim to accept everyone's sexual arrangements, then I'm not sure why you would be opposed to the law in question.

     
  • roy bitz posted at 8:38 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    roy bitz Posts: 497

    I think sb 48 is step in the wrong direction. I can see a time when the cirriculum might include field trips to "in your face" events such as San Francisco's gay pride parade and the old bath houses to see people behaving badly.
    On a positive note---I see sb 48 as a boon to private schools and a blow to public education.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 8:35 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian Dockter posted at 8:03 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.
    "It all comes down to ones point of view. Neither you nor I can prove where God is or where God isn't. And there is no one, not even God(s) who totally understand physics.
    By you own admission, if God(s) do exist they must be flawed. I'll buy that on the notion no one completely understands Physics."

    I don't claim, nor have I claimed (nor has Christopher Hitchens claimed) that I/we can prove that there is no God. The sum of my argument is that there is no reason to believe that there is a god because the arguments put forth in favor of its existence are unconvincing. We, effectively, live on the assumption that something does not exist when there is no evidence for it, even though this is not the complete position (which is why we are more readily described as agnostic atheists - nonbelievers on the basis of our inability to procure evidence for objects or phenomenon posited by those who cannot possibly know in any sense).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxwBtfkv9ns

    To be clear, I've argued with strong explicit atheists who assert that there absolutely is/are no god(s) because we have a limit on knowledge. I must point out however, that those individuals are extremely rare and that the bulk of the atheist community are likely to be agnostic atheists.

    The difference between you and I, is that you believe that there is a god, assert that there is evidence in his favor, and yet assert that we cannot know. Which is it? If we have the ability to acknowledge that there is evidence in favor of the existence of god then we are saying that we know this observation can be attributed to a powerful being that we assert to be the creator of the universe.

    Onto a third point, which I find interesting. You say "...there is no one, not even God(s) who totally understand physics." What knowledge do you have to assume that an omniscient deity lacks a complete understanding of the physics he supposedly conjured? I'm not saying that he must understand (after all, omniscience is not a necessary component of a deity, it is just often attributed to the judeo-christian god), but you go further in making a positive statement that god does not understand physics.

    Moreover, by my statements (not admission, this would imply that I acknowledge the existence of god rather than my willingness to tackle a hypothetical), I assert a number of possibilities; not just that god may be flawed. A deity that gave us a moral code and then disobeyed it could be seen as tyrannical or incompetent, but this is not to say that your deity is the only one that could possibly exist, and thus, might not be responsible for our code of ethics; might not have inspired the writing of one or any number of holy books (and thus might not have violated their moral edicts); and might not have any concern for our moral compass. It is you however, who breaches the bounds of possible knowledge and assert that he does create, know, demand (that we abide) and decide (who has violated) our moral code. Thus, the ball remains squarely in your domain to offer evidence in favor of your beliefs.

     
  • John Kindseth posted at 8:27 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    John Kindseth Posts: 243

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/academic-conference-seeks-to-normalize-pedophilia

     
  • John Kindseth posted at 8:23 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    John Kindseth Posts: 243

    Review the reading, math, science and history test scores for students in California schools and then make an informed decision of what should be taught and emphasized.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:13 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    So Manuel,

    The thought has never crossed your mind God has had to step down to the level of Satan in order to make a point? Or do you consider God and Satan one in the same?

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:03 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Manuel,

    It all comes down to ones point of view. Neither you nor I can prove where God is or where God isn't. And there is no one, not even God(s) who totally understand physics.
    By you own admission, if God(s) do exist they must be flawed. I'll buy that on the notion no one completely understands Physics.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 7:49 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Darrell, why do you, on some occasions ask others to express their opinions and then on other occasions demand that they present evidence? Are you asking for an objective or subjective response?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:47 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    One thing I would like to say is that people should be treated kindly and with respect.
    It shouldn't matter what sexual orientation or preferences of life they choose to live. People are people and have feelings and love within that should be appreciated.

    I know I should be more tolerant of people like Warren who are bigoted, but when I see people hurt by people like him I try to confront their behavior and hope it will help someone.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:37 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405


    Warren stated...Homosexuality harms no one and can not be changed

    Warren said it. It must be true. I'm sure god consults with Warren before god makes any decisions.
    In the entire planet, it is not possible that one person is harmed by homosexuality. It is not possible for one person to be changed...I do not know the answer to that absolutely.

    Obviously Warren is Omnipotent... Warren said it. It must be true. I'm sure god consults with Warren before god makes any decisions.
    In the entire planet, in Warren's reality, it is not possible that one person is harmed by homosexuality. It is not possible for one person to be changed...I do not know the answer to that absolutely.

    Im sure Warren will claim science and studies have proven beyond doubt what he is saying is true... how absurd.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 7:34 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian Dockter posted at 7:06 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.
    "Hmm,

    Then please explain to me why lawmakers create loopholes in the laws they make
    in order to circumvent them? You know darn well every law has a loophole in it.
    Are you saying it is not wise to put loopholes in laws? Heck, I'll even go as far as saying the laws of physics have loopholes in them. Chew on that a while."

    This is odd, YOU of all people are arguing that loopholes in the law are a good thing? Usually, such a term has a negative connotation. One would assume that the reason lawmakers create loopholes is so they can exploit them for their own gain. Would this be the act of a wise benevolent god?

    It must also be pointed out that we are not talking about loopholes (exemptions would be a better term for morality), we are talking about outright violations of a moral code that your god supposedly foisted on us only to disobey it himself because of his title.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:23 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Warren stated...Darrell, it is not bigoted to be opposed to the abuse of children or the subjugation of women.

    That you draw a conclusion that I was talking about abused children or subjugation of woman is absurd and demonstrates how bigoted you are. I was talking about people who I have talked to and or observed in Asia who are caring and loving people. Polygamy is the practice of a person's making him/herself available for two or more spouses to mate with...
    That you have a problem with people that think differently than you about love is not acceptable. You should apologize to all the good people you just degradated and besmirched.
    Unfortunately, people who are as bigoted as you most likely will not be able to understand or perceive that what I am talking about makes any sense.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:15 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    http://newtonsloopholes.com/

    Empiricaly reliable concepts seem to build upon current empirical models, never completly replacing them.
    And thus, scientific change seems to be incremental, not absolute. THUS, "To what, extent was Newton or Einstein, right or wrong?" and NOT "Was Newton or Einstein, completely right or wrong?"
    Einstein, in has writtings seemed to think, it was impossible for anyone, including himself, to be Completely Right.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:12 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    http://newtonsloopholes.com/

    Until I made that comment below I really never ponderered there might be loopholes in physics.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:06 am on Sun, Aug 21, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Manuel wrote:

    They have every ability to break their own rules (if you posit omnipotence) but it would be irrational for a being to instil a code of morality, demand that we follow it and then violate it himself. It is tantamount to "do as I say and not as I do." Such a being would not have a shred of credibility as a wise lawgiver and with this, my case is made.

    Hmm,

    Then please explain to me why lawmakers create loopholes in the laws they make
    in order to circumvent them? You know darn well every law has a loophole in it.
    Are you saying it is not wise to put loopholes in laws? Heck, I'll even go as far as saying the laws of physics have loopholes in them. Chew on that a while.


     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 10:24 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Kevin, I think you are well able to understand that a significant percentage of people are born with an alternate sexual orientation which they can not change. You interact with them every day. They wait on you in restaurants and stores all over town, teach your children, fix your car, and if you get sick, will tend to you in the hospital. You KNOW these people are decent, law abiding citizens, and yet you continue to slander them by comparing them with child abusers. What is your motivation?

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 10:10 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Darrell, it is not bigoted to be opposed to the abuse of children or the subjugation of women.

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 10:06 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Kevin, equating love and commitment between two consenting adults with the molestation and abuse of children is abhorrent. Homosexuality is not polygamy (a practice which subjugates women), and it is not pedophilia (the abuse of children). There is no connection. None. Homosexuality harms no one and can not be changed. It is no different than eye color or race or gender. What exactly is at the root of your conflict with equal rights for the LGBT community? If it is ancient superstition and myth, you should state that upfront.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:25 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Kevin stated...Warner, do you realize you use the same arguments to discount polygamy and pedophilia as others do against homosexuality?

    I think Kevin made a very good point... This is why one can make a case Warner is bigoted.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 9:20 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    "Warner, do you realize you use the same arguments to discount polygamy and pedophilia as others do against homosexuality?

    Polygamy IS a genetic code. It is basic nature that was with mankind long before the advent of marriage. If you are going to argue homosexuality is natural you HAVE TO include polygamy.

    Pedophilia is a societal construct. For much of human culture men marrying very young girls was an acceptable act. It wasn't until the past few hundred years that society has began to look down on that behavior. there are many cultures who still have arranged marriages to very young children, to them it is natural.

    So, again, why is one genetic, natural behavior so horrible to you but homosexuality is perfectly acceptable and falls into the same realm?"

    That an act occurred in the past is not an argument that it is a genetic predisposition. Polygamy is a societal/cultural practice that occurred at one point in our existence. It's use generally curbed in the western world when Christianity spread forth, unless you hold that christians can (maintaining their faith) engage in polygamy in contrast to their predecessors (as attributed in your holy text).

    The marriage between youth and adult is a societal construct as you claim, however, this is not an argument that it is related to a natural affinity for youth (comparable to orientation). We modified our social norms in regard to this matter because it harmed our youth and often occurred in the absence of their consent, their ability to consent and in some cases, with a transaction (bride price after all is in the bible).

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 9:07 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    Warner, do you realize you use the same arguments to discount polygamy and pedophilia as others do against homosexuality?

    Polygamy IS a genetic code. It is basic nature that was with mankind long before the advent of marriage. If you are going to argue homosexuality is natural you HAVE TO include polygamy.

    Pedophilia is a societal construct. For much of human culture men marrying very young girls was an acceptable act. It wasn't until the past few hundred years that society has began to look down on that behavior. there are many cultures who still have arranged marriages to very young children, to them it is natural.

    So, again, why is one genetic, natural behavior so horrible to you but homosexuality is perfectly acceptable and falls into the same realm?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:44 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Warner stated...You (Robert) are indeed entitled to your own opinion; you are not, however, entitled to your own facts

    Warner... It is your pompous opinion that your facts are actually facts. Your facts are not absolute. . I'm still waiting for you to explain the facts of your bigotry.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 8:40 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian Dockter posted at 8:09 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.
    "Please spare us your hypthesis that Gods don't break their own laws and that is why
    you don't believe Gods exist. I know you are angry Gods could be so unfair if they did exist. Oh the beauty of diversity Gods blessed us with."

    They have every ability to break their own rules (if you posit omnipotence) but it would be irrational for a being to instil a code of morality, demand that we follow it and then violate it himself. It is tantamount to "do as I say and not as I do." Such a being would not have a shred of credibility as a wise lawgiver and with this, my case is made.

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 8:33 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Thank you for clarifying your position, Robert. You are indeed entitled to your own opinion; you are not, however, entitled to your own facts. I am always amazed that some people can hold such strident opinions without showing any interest in the pertinent facts. What exactly is this "agenda" you seem to think homosexuals are trying to foist upon you and how will you be adversely affected?

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 8:31 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    "I nailed him to a cross and now he wants to change the subject back to the original subject matter. How convenient."

    This I find most amusing. "I made a horrible argument that ignores his counter and the words of the source and he wants me to come back on track from my run of insanity. How convenient."

    I discussed Christopher Hitchens, explained that you ventured beyond the scope and sought to bring you back on track so we can continue this. Instead, you insist that I didn't discuss hitchens (which I have done for months on these boards) and dodged your fallacious points. Return to the fray or I have no need of you.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 8:28 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian Dockter posted at 8:14 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.
    "I see Manuel doesn't want to discuss what Hitchens said on youtube. To be expected.
    I nailed him to a cross and now he wants to change the subject back to the original subject matter. How convenient."

    I did it on 2 separate posts. Seriously.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 8:14 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    "I do believe in faeries...I do...I do."

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:14 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    I see Manuel doesn't want to discuss what Hitchens said on youtube. To be expected.
    I nailed him to a cross and now he wants to change the subject back to the original subject matter. How convenient.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 8:13 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian Dockter posted at 7:53 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.
    "Neither you nor Hitchens cannot disprove a moral code is evidence of the existence of God(s)"

    What? What form of logic is this?! You assert that it is evidence for the existence of god without explaining how or why and then go on to argue that it is on the shoulders of the unconvinced to disprove your claim. The onus is on you, not me. In fact, go back to the video you linked me because you missed his point entirely.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:09 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Manuel,

    Please spare us your hypthesis that Gods don't break their own laws and that is why
    you don't believe Gods exist. I know you are angry Gods could be so unfair if they did exist. Oh the beauty of diversity Gods blessed us with.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 8:08 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian, I know this vid, it is one of my favorites. You failed in 2 ways. One, you assume that the majority of atheists argue that there absolutely is no god (in fact, we are officially classed as agnostic atheists, asserting that there is no reason to believe that a deity exists until positive evidence has been verified to defend the claim.) and two, you ignore the remainder of the argument he put forth that the religious make claims that have not been aptly defended or imply that a god exists, that he intervenes in the course of creation, that he favors human beings, that he had a "son", that he sacrificed that son so that his favored creation could escape his initial condemnation of eventual death for consuming a fruit so that those redeemed can access a special plane of existence after they die...and so on.

    Return to the initial scope because this has become tiresome.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:59 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    So Manuel,

    I take it you don't even believe in nature spirits?

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:56 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    I always get a kick out of atheists. Their arrogance is so absolute they practically foam at the mouth.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:53 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Manuel,

    Neither you nor Hitchens cannot disprove a moral code is evidence of the existence of God(s)

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 7:49 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    To bring you back on track, the entire point of saying "religion is not the progenitor of morality" is to establish that individuals who lack your faith are every bit as moral as you (if not moreso given their abhorrence of certain scripture). Do not assert that we owe morality to a conceptual deity that consistently violated it. In short, I am curbing the discussion of the existence of god (since you decided to go off track and discuss the cosmological arguments) because these threads often become "god does/does not exist" debates and I tire of them, especially when I have them in person every other day. Return to the scope of homosexuality.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:49 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gQ829OTtI4

    Hitchens going so far as saying he cannot disprove a God exists. It's in the first few minutes, Manuel.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 7:46 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    WARNER, what I should have said was, I have NO problem with what OTHER people do in the privacy of their own homes. And I am NOT A LIAR, so don't call me one. Just because I have a different OPINION of the homosexual agenda in public schools than you do, does not make me a liar. I am sick and tired of the onslaught of homosexuals trying to force their agenda on everyone. That is MY OPINION and I am entitled to it just as you are your obvious pride in the homosexual lifestyle which is YOUR OPINION and you are entitled to it as well.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 7:26 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian Dockter posted at 6:32 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.
    "So where's your starting point? Nothing? You don't get something from nothing.
    Even if there was an collision from two universes that caused the big bang, some energy and or being caused it. Again, that's enough evidence for me we are not alone.
    What's it with people like you who can't fathom there is more than just what's on the surface?"

    You've branched beyond the bounds of morality to argue that a god exists using the standard argument of "you don't get something from nothing" (to the exclusion of the notion that a god is a something that requires a cause for it's own existence). If you are referring to the multiverse hypothesis, then the universe will have been created, not through intention but through collision resulting from an already existing membrane (to which might not have a beginning if your next argument is to state that your god had no beginning.)

    Again, you have not established that the existence of a moral code is evidence of the existence of a god.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:03 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826


    Manuel wrote:

    as Christopher Hitchens put it "created us sick and demanded that we be well...this is madness."

    -Chuckle,

    I seem to remember Hitchens admitting there will eventually be evidence God(s) exist, in so many words. I'm searching for the link now. Be back shortly.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:48 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Warner Sunderson posted at 6:08 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011....Robert, you are not a very good liar...

    Warner... you have no room to talk .... you display your bigotry towards an unjust law and people who o practice Polygamy .... You profess to be an advocate of people who are discriminated against but you practice discrimination yourself. Why should people have to live to your standard of morality?

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 6:42 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    I appreciate the many older traditional gays who prefer to keep their orientation low key.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 6:41 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian Dockter posted at 6:18 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.
    "Manuel, The very fact that we know the difference between right and wrong is enough evidence for me and millions of others God(s) exist."

    This is probably THE WORST argument I have ever heard. Not only is fallacious, it isn't even consistent. We're to believe that an omnipotent, omniscient being gave rise to our sense of morality only to violate it at every turn in the course of favoring (initially) one segment of one species of one planet, of one system, of one galaxy, of one cluster, and so on and on and on? This is insanely egotistic and shows what little thought the religious have put into their arguments.

    Your final bit of incoherence is downright comical. If we are to assume that this deity has a plan and that all things revolve around his will, then he is the one responsible for the "abnormality" in question, to which it is not the fault of the subject to have this "abnormality" as it was predetermined to occur in the course of his life by that very god who, as Christopher Hitchens put it "created us sick and demanded that we be well...this is madness."

    The existence of a form of morality is not evidence that a deity exists.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:38 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Manuel stated...I believe my case is complete...

    of course... back to the science you select as if that will get you closer to truth on this topic... it must be comforting to live in your world.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 6:38 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Mr. Sunderson wrote;


    Mentioning that Aaron Copeland, or Susan B. Anthony, or the Wright Brothers were gay does not require a sex talk.

    -Oh Contrare,

    I would say a fair amount of the students is a given class would take offense to them being mentioned along with their sexual orientation. Even in these times of moral decay we still have a fair amount of scruples.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 6:32 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Manuel,

    So where's your starting point? Nothing? You don't get something from nothing.
    Even if there was an collision from two universes that caused the big bang, some energy and or being caused it. Again, that's enough evidence for me we are not alone.
    What's it with people like you who can't fathom there is more than just what's on the surface?

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 6:20 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian continues to have problems when assuming that novelty is inherently malicious and has completely ignored my statements.

    Conclusion: irrelevant; dismissed.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 6:18 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Manuel,

    The very fact that we know the difference between right and wrong is enough evidence for me and millions of others God(s) exist. And for you to suggest that
    God(s) aren't aware humans may have to do the unthinkable from time to time
    pretty much puts your theory" we're all alone" to rest. It is because of God(s) tolerance and understanding abnormalities in nature will occur. So, you should thank God(s)
    you have been given a pass. We all fall short of the Grace of God(s). Even you.

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 6:08 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Robert, you are not a very good liar. First you said that you had no problem with homosexuality and then proceeded to say that it was nuts and abnormal. It seems quick clear that you have an enormous problem with understanding homosexuality.

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 6:00 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Kevin, you wanted me to answer some questions for you, and then you disregarded my response in your last post and continue to repeat the same fallacious statements without providing any evidence or even logic. Again, as Manuel reiterated, polygamy and pedophilia are not sexual orientations and not genetic.

    Your notion that we should not state the sexual orientation of any historical figure is impossible. When we talk about George Washington, must his marriage to Martha remain a secret? Just mentioning her would reveal his orientation. In the same way, when a gay person is mentioned, what is so threatening about stating that he or she was gay and that so-and-so was his/her lifelong partner? There is no sex teaching going on in a history class. When we mention George and Martha in the same sentence, we feel no compulsion to begin a discussion of the missionary position--it's a ridiculous notion. Mentioning that Aaron Copeland, or Susan B. Anthony, or the Wright Brothers were gay does not require a sex talk. Some boys like girls and some boys like boys. This is easy for even the smallest child to understand and accept. Millions of children around the world live in countries where this is a simple and accepted fact of life. There have been no adverse consequences.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 6:00 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian, your logic is flawed. I have not argued that naturally occurring abnormalities are an impossibility on the basis of the exclusion of homosexuality from said category.

    I can however argue it that your concept of abnormality is flawed in and of itself because our species evolves through the occurrence of mutations and the selective forces that promote or weed those variations from the gene pool. There is no right or wrong resultant from this natural process - it simply is a matter of what is.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 5:58 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=11500&mode=print

    First off, YTF, pointing out that homosexuality isn't normal doesn't wound me. While homosexuality is a naturally occurring abnormality, I'll cheerfully admit that it is an abnormality.

    -At least this gay man has the huevos to admit this.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 5:53 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian Dockter posted at 1:57 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    "Manuel,
    Our morals come from religon, not science. Now, if you're content with life without a moral code then you must be a proponent of no one held accountable for their actions."

    I cannot believe I missed this bit. Brian, over the course of a year on these forums, I have taken your concept of a deity to task and established that not only is there no evidence of his existence, the stories of him are so immoral that had he existed and done the things depicted in your holy book, he very well should be classified as an enemy of humanity for the promotion and facilitation of genocide, attempted infanticide, bigotry, mass murder, bodily mutilation and so forth - in essence, nearly everything that we as humans deplore and find as immoral.

    Religion is not the progenitor of morality, it is opposed to it. I suggest you avoid this argument lest it bury the primary purpose of this thread.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 5:44 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Manuel wrote:

    I would steadfastly oppose the characterization of homosexuality as an abnormality with severe consequences that needs "correction.

    -If we were to follow Manuel's logic then it is untrue there have always been and will always be naturally occuring abnormalities in nature.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 5:37 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Kevin wrote:

    So why is polygamy still illegal when homosexuality is gaining acceptance.

    It is this paradox that I am trying to get people to face: Why is the sexual preference of homosexuals when these other non-traditional sexual preferences, based on the same science, still tabooed?

    -Well Kevin,

    If you had numerous wives and numerous children would you be able to find the time to be an activist on polygamy? Unlike gays who are generally childless and have a lot of free time in their empty nest. I think you know where I am going. Take a look at the traction the polygamy lobby has, if there is such a lobby, compared to the gay lobby.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 5:31 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Kevin, I can see your argument about treating the contributors to history as purely human without references to their immutable characteristics. I however, do need to point out that your last bit of reasoning is flawed. Neither pedophilia or polygamy are variants of sexual orientation. They are classified either as a paraphelia or social practice (taking more than one wife is not rooted in any form of predisposition, it is simply an alternative to monogamy).

    btw, I don't think Steve posted here...

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 5:29 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Manuel,

    It's almost like you are saying we, being those who dare to take you to task on homosexuality, should give in to your positions on this issue or suffer the severe consequences.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 5:20 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    I have NO problem with form of sexuality one subscribes to, but I have a HUGE problem indoctrinating innocent children in our public schools. Bad enough EVERY situation comedy on primetime TV has it's "token" homosexual characters. I guess the whole idea is to flood the media and schools long enough and often enough to make this appear to be "normal" human behavior. And we wonder why the rest of the world thinks America is nuts, apparently we are.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 5:13 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    Robert, it doesn't matter if someone is hetero or homosexual when it comes to agreeing with me, they just need to realize i have a genetic predisposition towards being right ;-).

    Steve, Here is my official position on homosexuality: A persons sexual preference is their own. Hetero, homo, hyper, multi whatever. As long as sexual behaviors are not being taught as part of a school curriculum when the sexual behaviors have noting to do with the topic. (An example from my life told through my mommy's words: When I was a kid playing soccer the new season started. I would come home and tell my mom how fun the practice was and about this kid that played defense with me, together we made a great team. It went on like this until the first game. My mom showed up and saw he was Black. She was very proud that in three weeks of talking about this friend of mine, his race was a non issue. And it wasn't his race had noting to do with soccer. What does Ben Franklin's sexual preference have to do with what he has done in history?

    As I said before, if it is relevant to who the person was then include their orientation. If it is not important then why include it? Are we going to include the sexual preferences of every historical figure through out history, or are we going to discriminate and ONLY say if they were gay? When the kids study the presidents are they going to learn which of them were adulterers? I already showed that adultery is a genetic condition. Are we going to normalize adultery as well.

    How about Polygamy. yes it is illegal right now. But when we lived in caves polygamy meant the strongest passed on his genes to more children and the tribe got stronger and it helped make Homosapien the dominate species, after cockroaches. It is a sacrifice for mankind to go against his nature and have just one partner. It is a demonstration of love that goes against our survival instincts. So why is polygamy still illegal when homosexuality is gaining acceptance.

    It is this paradox that I am trying to get people to face: Why is the sexual preference of homosexuals when these other non-traditional sexual preferences, based on the same science, still tabooed?

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 5:07 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    I would steadfastly oppose the characterization of homosexuality as an abnormality with severe consequences that needs "correction"; the same goes with the vast majority of clinicians, psychologists and psychiatrists. In addition to Born Gay, I would recommend that you pick up the literature from the American Psychological Association on homosexuality and psychology because you have serious problems in correlating a novelty with a dangerous abnormality.

    To preempt an argument that I know is coming - be advised that you must distinguish sexual attraction (orientation) from sexual action (behavior), they are not one in the same and any consequences resultant from sexual behavior (of which are comparable regardless of the genders one interacts with) are not attributable to the affinity for one's sex.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 4:34 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    On the other thread about this subject matter I mentioned "the power of suggestion".
    The point is, the influence the gay community and it's activists groups has never been stronger. REPEAL SB 48!

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 4:28 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    I don't think Manuel would disagree with the fact one can be born with abnormalities
    that must be corrected or one will suffer the consequences of these abnormalities in some shape or form. Now, Manuel and others that share this line of thinking about how and when homosexuality develops may be right it is a trait one is born with. So, based on this, I don't know how one could conclude science has not proven abnormalities at birth can lead to disorders such as homosexuality. And let me be clear one of the definitions of a disorder is a chemical imbalance that can lead to a psychological disorder. In other words, I don't buy the crap that chemical imbalances
    have nothing to do with one becoming homosexual.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 3:26 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    I also must point out that you have diverted us away from my point (I hate being led by the nose); that Brian is mistaken is concluding that "science has proved that homosexuality is a psychological disorder."

    That is what I set out to disprove and since you have no argument against that point (instead opting to discuss the validity of science vs. subjective thought), than I believe my case is complete.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 3:24 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    I believe I already acknowledged that in my statement Darrell...the difference is, this form of truth allows itself to incorporate new forms of evidence and change the conclusion whereas the subjective forms of opinion are constant, and usually, hard-lined - resistant to change and hostile to evidential observation. That which is to be considered closer to truth must be objective, not subjective.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 3:16 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    So far as I know Robert, he knows. To this day, I had no inkling that Kevin had a problem with homosexuality...I'm saddened to be mistaken and hope that I am still on this perception.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:12 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Manuel... its all about opinions... it is an opinion to conclude science proves just about anything... when new variables present themselves, what was considered accepted truth changes... today, science says one thing... 100 years from now will most likely have different truths based on new scientific discoveries....

    That is why your perception of truth may or may not be true today.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 2:54 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Darrell, Brian made the claim that the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE had concluded that homosexuality is a psychological disorder. He presented his own personal opinion (again) and the catholic church's position. Neither of such are to be considered explications of scientific research or consensus.

    If Brian had initially said "The catholic church feels that homosexuality is wrong" we would then discuss our individual opinions (mine summing to the rather terse reply of "and I think you and your pontiff with a funny hat are nuts") and then you would have leave to say "Manuel is closed to 'alternative'[trademark that pls] thought," predictably, to the exclusion of treating Brian with the same scorn.

    You have our words, take them how you wish. I care not.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 2:48 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    KEVIN, you do realize that Manuel ;Martinez has admitted he is homosexual on a prior LNS post. So no matter what you offer as an argument, he isn't going to agree. Save time.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:40 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Manuel stated...Edicts of the catholic church are not scientific documents or studies ....

    then...In short, your post can be dismissed at first glance...

    Hummm.... classic closed minded response. I prefer to study what ever side presents itself.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:34 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Manuel and Warner have very interesting and thoughtful "opinions"... I enjoyed thinking about what they said. They may be right or wrong. However ,they perceive their opinions are absolute fact. In my opinion, that means they are not open to alternate thought .

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 2:00 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Edicts of the catholic church are not scientific documents or studies - certainly not those accepted by the scientific community or admissible in a discussion about what the comprehensive scientific view of homosexuality is.

    In short, your post can be dismissed at first glance.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 1:57 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Manuel,

    Our morals come from religon, not science. Now, if you're content with life without a moral code then you must be a proponent of no one held accountable for their actions.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 1:53 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    I believe that homosexuality is unnatural. If nature had intended for people of the same sex to be together, then nature would have provided people with the ability to procreate with members of the same sex. Of course, this is not the case. I also like to refer to the Roman Catholic point of view in that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357)

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 1:35 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian, science has done nothing of the kind, in fact, the American Psychological Association no longer lists homosexuality as a psychological disorder.

    I recommend Born Gay: The psychobiology of Sexual Orientation by Wilson and Rahman. It's a compendium and summary of the scientific studies into the question of how sexual orientation develops in individuals.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 1:25 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Warner, thank you for bringing sanity to these forums. I thought that battle had been lost...

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 1:12 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Mr. Sunderson,

    Science has proven pedophilia and homosexuality are psychological disorders. I don't see how one can be born with either of these psychological disorders. But I may have to retract my statement in the event you can prove you can tell a baby in the womb long enough they will be be born gay. Now, I don't know if we want to change the scope of this debate by including the power of suggestion.

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 12:44 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Finally, you ask if we are slaves to our "predispositions." I'm not sure how this relates to the discussion, as homosexuality is not something that some children are predisposed to. Either they are gay or they are not and it can not be changed according to all respected research on the subject. It's like asking if I am a slave to my European heritage or my blue eyes. It just makes no sense in this discussion.

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 12:40 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Pedophilia is indeed a psychiatric disorder. Homosexuality is not. You seem to be asking why. Psychiatric disorders are defined as a pattern of mental or behavioral symptoms that cause the person distress, impairs their ability to function in daily life, and puts them or others at risk. Also, while you are correct that some mental illness may have genetic predisposition, homosexuality is NOT a predisposition. It is an immutable trait like eye or skin color, does not cause stress in and of itself, does not impair a person's ability to function in daily life, and does not endanger self or others. Pedophiles endanger children. Homosexuals endanger no one.

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 12:30 pm on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    Kevin, you pose several very good questions which deserve thoughtful answers. This is the kind of discussion the topic deserves. I have many responsibilities today, so will attempt a quick response to each of your points. I'll check back this evening or tomorrow morning as time permits for further clarification.

    Polygamy is a cultural construct. No little girl is born wanting to share her husband with other women. Certainly, I have not heard this theme coming from my own daughter or her friends! In patriarchal societies, a man's wealth is often judged by the number of wives he is able to support. The women are all subservient as dictated by the religion or culture. Often the arrangement would also provide some shelter for unattached women in a society where there were few men (due to war casualties.) Those born into this culture may feel it is natural because it is what they have been inculcated to believe. In the end, it is up to a society to decide if they want to allow this. It has no genetic basis.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 11:24 am on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    Here is a question for the group related to my last. Do you believe we are slaves to our "genetic predispositions" or do we have free-will to be who we want and overcome genetically inspired tendencies?

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 11:22 am on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    Warner: I'll address you comments from the other thread here too so I don't post copy and paste comments.

    You say my prejudice is on display when I say that polygamy is as much a genetically determined sexual orientation as homosexuality. But you have not said why. Yes Polygamy is illegal (for now), not to long ago so was homosexuality. Those that live the life style say polygamy is more natural than monogamy. That monogamy is a construct of religion. It is interesting that you come out with the same hostility against polygamists as you abhor when displayed against homosexuality.

    On to pedophiles, and let me state that I am in no way supporting the horrendous act. Pedophilia is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults. A psychological disorder can have genetic attributes. So why is one genetic predisposition okay for you and the other not? If you are going to argue that because it is genetic it makes it okay then you have to accept that ALL genetic predispositions are okay. Otherwise you are discriminating.

    And Adultery (again not supporting in any way) has been linked to genetic variation, allele 334. Apparently men with two of these genes are much more likely to cheat on their spouses. Men with none are very unlikely to cheat. (there's a whole new level to what you want to know before you get married, "I love you honey, can you take this genetic marker test?).

    So if Homosexuality, as you argue, is a genetic predisposition and thus has to be accepted, why don't ALL genetic predispositions have to be accepted?

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 11:08 am on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    David: Why can't we just teach people the great achievements of great people? Why does race, sexual orientation or what their teeth were made of even need to be addressed? Great people should be celebrated and taught. If their sexual orientation is part of their achievement then by all means include it, but why does a kindergartener need to know the sexual orientation of every historical figure then study?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:04 am on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Warner Sunderson posted ...It's interesting that you equate homosexuality with illegal (polygamy) and marriage destroying (adultery) activities. Your prejudice is on display. That's what the bill is trying to correct.

    Mr Sunderson...I think it is you that has prejudice that is on display. I have met people who practice polygamy and thought they were very good people. Their marriage was not in danger at all. I think you are highly prejudice. Maybe the law should be changed to make it more appropriate. Unfortunately, people like you who show their bigotry toward others will prevent this law from being changed. May I ask, how long have you you practiced this bigotry?

     
  • Simon Birch posted at 10:20 am on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Simon Birch - Online Manager Posts: 159 Staff

    Everyone:
    Thanks for the good comments so far, and for staying on topic and keeping the debate civil.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 9:58 am on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    David,

    Can you give us an example of a heterosexual (theme based) faire on public streets where one could draw the conclusion it is a freak show?

     
  • David Diskin posted at 9:48 am on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    David Diskin Posts: 183

    Kevin (and Brian), using your logic we should also stop educating people on the merits of women, blacks, hispanics, and all of the other 'categories' tha we have shined a light on in the last twenty years. Are you in favor of that, as well?

    The reason the curriculum draws special attention to these groups of people, and now gays, is because the children who are in those minorities need to see that people just like are amazing, respected individuals who have contributed to society.

    Why do they need to see this? Because their neighbors are calling them freaks, AIDS-spreaders, and agenda-pushing... and that's just in today's LNS comments. We all know they suffer far more on a daily basis as school.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 9:46 am on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Mr. Sunderson wrote

    It's interesting that you equate homosexuality with illegal (polygamy) and marriage destroying (adultery) activities. Your prejudice is on display. That's what the bill is trying to correct.

    -Chuckle,

    Pot, Kettle, Black

     
  • Warner Sunderson posted at 9:37 am on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Warner Sunderson Posts: 53

    It's interesting that you equate homosexuality with illegal (polygamy) and marriage destroying (adultery) activities. Your prejudice is on display. That's what the bill is trying to correct.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 9:18 am on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Kevin,

    You took the words right out of my mouth. :)

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 8:49 am on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    Just a question? Why are we separating the contributions of great Americans by their sexual orientation? Are we going to have a section of history for the contributions of polygamists? Are adulterers going to get their own section in history classes too?

    Why can't we just teach about great Americans and their contributions without differentiating sexual orientation?

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:49 am on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826


    Couldn't agree with you more, Robert. And look where the money goes. A fair that promotes immorality ends up giving money to many moral causes.

    http://www.folsomstreetfair.com/fair-beneficiaries.php

    2011 Beneficiaries
    The board of directors of Folsom Street Events has selected the following roster of 501(c)(3) organizations below as our 2011 beneficiaries. This list represents organizations from both our "Major" and "Supporting" beneficiary categories. If your organization missed applying for a 2011 grant, there is still time to apply to be a "Beverage Partner" for the 2011 season.

    •AIDS Emergency Fund
    •AIDS Legal Referral Panel
    •Breast Cancer Emergency Fund
    •Castro Country Club / Baker Places
    •Central City Hospitality House
    •Dimensions Clinic / HIFY
    •Frameline
    •Mission Neighborhood Health Center
    •National AIDS Memorial Grove
    •Pets Are Wonderful Support
    •Positive Resource Center
    •Project Open Hand
    •San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus
    •St. James Infirmary
    •Stop AIDS Project
    •Transgender Law Center

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 8:44 am on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Chapman's claims of : "I don't much care if you are gay, straight or anything in between," is severely contradicted by his concern for "our moral compass."

    Too bad there's no Gay Taco Truck competition where we could round up all of these immoral people who are destroying your "compass," eh, Mr. Chapman?

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 7:24 am on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    Unbelievable....I never thought in my lifetime I would see a homosexual agenda forced on our children in public schools. I don't much care if you are gay, straight or anything in between, but teaching this in public classrooms is a pathetic example of just how far "politically correctness" has moved our moral compass.

     
Readers Choice Awards 2014

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists