Illonois defeats "pro gay" bill

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
 

Tyler Perry:

No, the idea that it's OK to be gay (since one is born that way) is a fact.

Elcarsh:

No, fuck that. The idea that it's OK to be gay is the way it's supposed to be. It's right, anything else is wrong.

Stop bloody tolerating bigotry. Everyone should be standing up and going "No, that shit won't fly, you bigots can piss off!". Why don't you?

You know that one part that I put in parentheses? That wasn't done because I like typing, it was done as a preface to the comment you two are quoting. As I said before, that comment was typed with Nihilism in mind.

Helmholtz Watson:
So give me the fully lesson by providing me with the link.

The link to the Rolling Stone story has been posted multiple times in this thread. Hell, all you'd have to do is type "Rolling Stone gay teens" into Google and it will be the first link. Stop being lazy and get it your damn self.

Tyler Perry:

Helmholtz Watson:
So give me the fully lesson by providing me with the link.

The link to the Rolling Stone story has been posted multiple times in this thread. Hell, all you'd have to do is type "Rolling Stone gay teens" into Google and it will be the first link. Stop being lazy and get it your damn self.

I don't remember it being a Rolling Stones article.

Helmholtz Watson:

Tyler Perry:

No, the idea that it's OK to be gay (since one is born that way) is a fact.

Elcarsh:

No, fuck that. The idea that it's OK to be gay is the way it's supposed to be. It's right, anything else is wrong.

Stop bloody tolerating bigotry. Everyone should be standing up and going "No, that shit won't fly, you bigots can piss off!". Why don't you?

You know that one part that I put in parentheses? That wasn't done because I like typing, it was done as a preface to the comment you two are quoting. As I said before, that comment was typed with Nihilism in mind.

Oh, stop it. Who gives a fuck about nihilism? Now you're going to make thoroughly irrelevant comments based on a philosophy that virtually nobody on this forum adheres to? Is there ANY point to continued discussion with you?

Helmholtz Watson:

Tyler Perry:

Helmholtz Watson:
So give me the fully lesson by providing me with the link.

The link to the Rolling Stone story has been posted multiple times in this thread. Hell, all you'd have to do is type "Rolling Stone gay teens" into Google and it will be the first link. Stop being lazy and get it your damn self.

I don't remember it being a Rolling Stones article.

You might have if you had just read the damn thing in the first place. It's irrelevant. It's further back in the thread. Go get it.

Tyler Perry:

Oh, stop it. Who gives a fuck about nihilism?

I do and many other people do too. Its an interesting idea and outlook. Not sure if I agree with it, but it's interesting all the same.

Tyler Perry:
Now you're going to make thoroughly irrelevant comments based on a philosophy that virtually nobody on this forum adheres to?

Again with the mind reading powers of yours. I mean how else would you know if anybody on this forum adheres to? You would have to make a thread about morality to know.....which I did...and there are Nihilist on this thread.

Tyler Perry:
Is there ANY point to continued discussion with you?

You have a crush on Jason Lewis and love looking at my avatar? ;D

Tyler Perry:
You might have if you had just read the damn thing in the first place. It's irrelevant. It's further back in the thread. Go get it.

I rather have the good Doctor send me the link.

Conversation over. At this point, there is nothing to be gained from talking to someone who can't be bothered clicking back a couple of pages to look at links, and who keeps babbling on about "mind-reading powers." We're done. Welcome to ignore.

Tyler Perry:
Conversation over. At this point, there is nothing to be gained from talking to someone who can't be bothered clicking back a couple of pages to look at links, and who keeps babbling on about "mind-reading powers." We're done. Welcome to ignore.

Aww come on dude! You and I were having so much fun! You pretend to know what my feelings are based solely on text, and I call you out on it while trying to be humorous[1]! We had some good times, didn't we ol' Perry ol' buddy ol' pal?

[1] my comment about Nihilism was serious though...

Helmholtz Watson:
I am, I'm doing that by asking you for them.

No, you can get them yourself. I'm done pretending to be your mother. From this point on you either do the work yourself or you stop wasting my time.

No, I'm trying not to further derail this thread anymore than I already have. However, as I mentioned before, I would be more than willing to comment on the subject should you make a thread about it.

Or you can do it yourself.

The part where you say you have no sympathy for children who are misbehaving.

Ah, there we go. It's the language. It's always the language. I have no sympathy for those who believe that it's okay to victimize other human beings for being different. Yeah, they're kids, but that just emphasizes why you have to teach them the difference between right and wrong. Something you have repeatedly said you don't want to do because you're afraid of being perceived as thought police.

As for the parents who let their kids act like tiny savages, fuck 'em. If that's how they raise their kids, then they're not fit to be parents and I will not allow their incompetence to cause my child harm. The school will intervene and punish the bullies and tell the parents to stop being such goddamn failures and raise their children better or everyone involved will be speaking to my lawyer.

Or you could just provide me the link.

Again, get it yourself.

I have proved it, and I'm telling you I mean it.

How do I know that? I don't know you.

DrVornoff:

No, you can get them yourself. I'm done pretending to be your mother. From this point on you either do the work yourself or you stop wasting my time.

Your not my mother, your my study buddy, remember? I asked you for the cliff notes because I didn't read it and now I'm asking my study buddy for the book. :)

DrVornoff:

Or you can do it yourself.

Aww come on now! What kind of study buddy are you?

DrVornoff:

Ah, there we go. It's the language. It's always the language. I have no sympathy for those who believe that it's okay to victimize other human beings for being different. Yeah, they're kids, but that just emphasizes why you have to teach them the difference between right and wrong. Something you have repeatedly said you don't want to do because you're afraid of being perceived as thought police.

Wrong, I said that I agree that it is wrong to allow students to bully each other because your belief is that it is a sin. That said, I think the kind of punishment that is used should be taken into consideration when you know that your are disciplining a child.

DrVornoff:
As for the parents who let their kids act like tiny savages, fuck 'em. If that's how they raise their kids, then they're not fit to be parents and I will not allow their incompetence to cause my child harm. The school will intervene and punish the bullies and tell the parents to stop being such goddamn failures and raise their children better or everyone involved will be speaking to my lawyer.

Agreed, bullying should not be tolerated.

DrVornoff:

Again, get it yourself.

For a study buddy, you sure are stubborn.

DrVornoff:

How do I know that? I don't know you.

True, you'll just have to take my word for it.

Helmholtz Watson:
Your not my mother, your my study buddy, remember? I asked you for the cliff notes because I didn't read it and now I'm asking my study buddy for the book. :)

Aww come on now! What kind of study buddy are you?

You're wasting my time again. Click back a couple pages, get the link, read the article, come back to me when you're done and ready to stop wasting my time. Until then, we're done here.

DrVornoff:

Helmholtz Watson:
Your not my mother, your my study buddy, remember? I asked you for the cliff notes because I didn't read it and now I'm asking my study buddy for the book. :)

Aww come on now! What kind of study buddy are you?

You're wasting my time again. Click back a couple pages, get the link, read the article, come back to me when you're done and ready to stop wasting my time. Until then, we're done here.

Aww come on and be a pal. Please provide me with the link.

Tyler Perry:

Because, in his view, it's thought policing, and all opinions are just opinions and therefore are equal.

I prefer to let other people speak for themselves, thanks.

Helmholtz Watson:

What I feel is that schools should be able to tell religious students that they are not allowed to bully or discriminate against gay students because they are gay. Stopping students from bullying is not "promoting homosexuality", its stopping bullying.

Excellent, I am glad that we can agree on that.

However, (and this will address your question) I also feel that if it is possible (and I think it is) to not trample on someones religious beliefs in the process of stopping bullying, that should also be done. It isn't the schools place to tell religious students what is or isn't a sin, nor that they are "bad" for believing it is a sin. Religious students should be able to belief that homosexuality is a sin.

Unfortunately, this is where you are going to get another person disagreeing.

The following are some thoughts that I have had. It is a list of a few things that schools teach their students, yet they would contradict some core religious (or cultural) views the children may hold - which you have said above (as I have emphasised in bold) is not the school's place to say.

I feel they may come across as somewhat abrasive (particularly in light of the heated...discussion...you have having with other forum members). Please bear in mind when reading the following that I am not trying to antagonise you, but rather to follow through on your thought process. I hope that by showing them to you, and getting you to follow through, you may see why I, and other posters, disagree with you quite vehemently on this subject.


1) Why is it OK to teach the theory of evolution, if a child's religious beliefs state that all creatures were created, in their current form, by god?

2) Why is it OK to teach that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, if a child's religious beliefs state that the Earth is 6,000 years old?

3) Why is it OK to teach that religious intolerance is wrong, if a child's religious beliefs state that it is a sin to worship any other god than their own?

4) Why is it OK to teach a child that racism is wrong, if a child's religious beliefs state that black people are cursed by god and need to be made to suffer?

5) Why is it OK to teach that child abuse is wrong, if a child's religious/cultural beliefs state that child marriage (and the consummation thereof) is holy?

6) Why is it OK to teach that the Holocaust occurred, and that it was wrong, if a child's religious/cultural beliefs state that either the Holocaust did not occur, or that it was the correct thing to do?

7) Why is it OK to teach that the 2nd Amendment is a universal right, if a child's religious/cultural beliefs take issue with an armed populace?

Following your logic about the subject of homosexuality in schools, all of the above should not even be mentioned - it should be up to the parents, rather than the schools, to teach the children such things. Why is it that the above are accepted (to greater or lesser degrees depending on personal beliefs), yet for a school to say that "being gay is perfectly acceptable" is crossing some sort of moral line, or being out-of-place for an educational establishment?

I accept that 7 is a bit of a stretch, but the rest can be found in genuine religious doctrine. Some might argue with 6, but very perverse forms (as in: classified as militant-racist) of Asatru/Odinism do hold such beliefs within the religion, thus I believe it belongs on the list. The holocaust, denial thereof, and the matters of morality arising from it are key concepts to teaching our children about the history of the 20th century, and to some extent morality and modern thought in general.

However, as I have repeated, just because they believe it to be a sin, that does not give them the right to bully others. Its appalling and saddening that bullying has drove gay students to suicide.

Again, I can agree on that. Whilst I have no problem with your overall aim (as in, to eliminate the bullying of children over matters of sexuality), and I believe that no other poster debating with you does, I have a problem with the method you are endorsing.

My personal stance is that people should be free to hold whatever opinions they like - religious or otherwise. However, it is a school's place to be a safe learning environment for all children, and should be able to (and indeed, I would say must) teach facts that may be contrary to personally-held beliefs and opinions. As such, a school teaching that "being gay is OK" may run roughshod over a child's personal beliefs, but I have no problem with that - they are still free to believe what they like (just as I am free to ignore what I have been taught in maths, science, technology and everything else if I really want to - for example, schools are required to teach evolution, yet I could hypothetically believe in young-earth creationism/intelligent design regardless of the official stance of any educational establishment).

As kind of an aside, and a heading off of a potential counter-argument, children have limited rights in schools - this has been a fact for as long as schools have existed - so I do not feel that statutes such as the First Amendment offer any defence against blatant discrimination and hatred.

Superbeast:

[i]
1) Why is it OK to teach the theory of evolution, if a child's religious beliefs state that all creatures were created, in their current form, by god?

2) Why is it OK to teach that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, if a child's religious beliefs state that the Earth is 6,000 years old?

3) Why is it OK to teach that religious intolerance is wrong, if a child's religious beliefs state that it is a sin to worship any other god than their own?

I'm going to base the answers off my own personal life if that's ok with you. My school is a public school and not to many people were deeply religious, however that didn't stop our school from offering students permission slips to get out of learning about evolution. My teacher also said that "while there are alternative ideas on this subject" the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. As for religious tolerance, my school never commented on the subject. So perhaps that gives you an idea of why I feel that a school should be neutral.

Superbeast:

4) Why is it OK to teach a child that racism is wrong, if a child's religious beliefs state that black people are cursed by god and need to be made to suffer?

5) Why is it OK to teach that child abuse is wrong, if a child's religious/cultural beliefs state that child marriage (and the consummation thereof) is holy?

Hmmm...good points on four. As for five, I don't think that any children would be pushing for stricter punishment, so I'm going to call bs on that.

Superbeast:
6) Why is it OK to teach that the Holocaust occurred, and that it was wrong, if a child's religious/cultural beliefs state that either the Holocaust did not occur, or that it was the correct thing to do?

...what? What religion is so modern to even have any comments on something that happened less than 100 years ago?

Superbeast:
7) Why is it OK to teach that the 2nd Amendment is a universal right, if a child's religious/cultural beliefs take issue with an armed populace?

What religion is that?

Superbeast:

My personal stance is that people should be free to hold whatever opinions they like - religious or otherwise. However, it is a school's place to be a safe learning environment for all children, and should be able to (and indeed, I would say must) teach facts that may be contrary to personally-held beliefs and opinions. As such, a school teaching that "being gay is OK" may run roughshod over a child's personal beliefs, but I have no problem with that - they are still free to believe what they like

I think there is a line between saying that its ok(which it is, it's not some illness that you can catch) and saying its normal. I see your point and I would be fine with them saying that it is ok, just not them saying that it is normal.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked