Oh oh...2 Controversial Questions to Ask

1. No
2. No

 

it's my preference to date humans of my own gender. why is your "choice" to exclude certain partners more vaild than mine?

and this matters becase? does actually having sex define sexuality? were you not heterosexual before you lost your virginity?

 

You did go out with Deidre Babe.

Oh wait.. you said 250 lbs, not 450....

 

Yes
No*

Essentially ditto FranchiseBlade's explanations plus:

Regarding #1, there are countless ways gays are discriminated by both currently and in the past. History of discrimination based on race, gender and sexual orientation should all be taught IMO.

Regarding #2, just because someone only has dated within their race doesn't mean they are racist (after all maybe they live in a place where 99% of the people are of the same background--they may not have had other opportunities). However, someone who "prefers" to date within their own race--I am not saying conclusively, but that sure seems to suggest some prejudice/ignorance is underlying that. Aside from Rimbaud's and Baqui's important points, personally I think if you find someone of any race/ethnicity, nationality, and/or religion that you groove with (want to spend your lives with) you are pretty lucky, so why limit your options (try to grow out of your prejudices or expand your horizons if you will). Granted being physically attracted to and speaking the same language are close to essential ingredients for a partner as there are, but why limit the rest????

 

1. I agree with what davo said on this, I think children should be taught tolerance towards all people not just one group.

2. no that does not make you a racist, but like many have said it really limits your options.


my question to rm95 on this whole gay/ skinney fat thing is, what if the fat person lost weight and the skinny gained weight. that would really mess that up huh. I mean what if someone changed, I know it would never happen but what if it did.

 

1. You know my take on this, Manny. I don't really know why people are saying kids should be taught tolerance for ALL groups, not just gays/lesbians. I mean, of course they should. Did someone say they should be taught ONLY about gays? I think the question arises because gays/lesbians are the ONLY group who are controversial in this arena. And this thing of "as long as they're not endorsing" gayness is a red herring. This argument of not teaching tolerance because it will promote homosexuality has long been used by the far right. It is a spurious argument. No one has ever suggested that straights should be converted to homosexuality in school. They have only suggested that tolerance should be taught.

2. I don't think a preference of dating within one's race is racist. Your comments in the puppet thread, where you said you slipped up by admitting that you found something wrong with a black man dating a white man is troubling here, though.

Rimbaud:

I think I've got you matched.

White
Black
Latino (Argentinian and Mexican)
Indian
Pakistani
Asian (Phillipino, Korean)
Native American
And if we're including one night stuff, Lesbian (I know it's not a race, but how else was I going to improve on rimbaud's record?)

I've also dated in just about every religion and political persuasion. Even a religious Christian. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

1. I think the #1 thing about gays in school is the lack of documented history. I also view it as a lifestyle. Also it goes back to the sex in school issue for me. You cannot explain, teach about the rise in the rights of homosexuals without explaining homosexuality. It would be like explaining equal rights for Wixels to people. the 1st question is. . . WHAT'S A WIXEL?

2. no . . not racist. . . .just finicky

Rocket River

 

1. Yes, if only because there is no way in hell it could happen. You're asking waaaaay too much of middle-class America. Personally, I don't mind; but is this subject really meant for the schools? Depends on how it's approached, but it would get shot down long before it could come to fruition, especially in a "liberal hotbed" (re: facetious) like Texas.

2. No, not racist. I was engaged to a Japanese woman for awhile (time and distance eventually killed the relationship). Me, I'm not generally attracted to blue-eyed blonde-haired no-assed women (I mean, they look good, I'll LOOK, but I prefer brown hair brown eyes), and I'm amazed that so many guys go ga-ga for the type, but these are preferences, not necessarily racism.

 

Batman,

I think it is a 'red herring' to imply only the 'Far Right' is against homosexuality being included in education. Many issues and interests intersect and certainly conflict, so to use broad strokes to label opposition as 'spurious' is oversimplistic at best. Tolerance can be taught, as far as I can tell, without ever mentioning sexuality period, much less championing the struggle of a particular group. In my daughters school they have incorporated curriculum involving the exploration of other cultures, anti-hate campaigns, and tolerance is relfected in plays and many other projects. Specific inclusion for homosexuality does in many respects serve as an endorsement. How could it not?

And i'm not really sure how dependable 'science' is in trying to establish the legitimacy of the point. Homosexuality could be genetic, or it could be environment. We don't know. Some argue it would be good if we found it was genetic, since that would legitimize the view that you can't influence someone to be gay, either they are or they are not. Some say it would be bad, because if we isolate the gene then it can be reversed or screened or prevented. Who knows? The bottom line is that there are concerns over the appropriateness of inclusion when dealing with minors, and that shouldn't be laughed off. We know that people certainly CAN be influenced by what they see and experience (reference violence, p*rnography etc), and if its not genetic, isn't is possible you could influence someone who already is going through massive physical and mental adjustments? Seems plausible to a lot of people.

I don't think homosexuals should fear retribution of any sort for whichever it is: being genetically coded gay or choosing it. But teaching tolerance of those not necessarily 'like us' is different than endorsing that lifestyle. I can say I respect someone's right to choose their lifestyle, say as a coke snorting wild cavorting rock star, and still not endorse in any way, that lifestyle. Personally I think it self evident that nature has made those who are/choose homosexuality a dead ender, as far as continuing past their own lifetimes, so it seems pointless to promote it. BUT, as I said above I don't think that means homosexuals deserve to be treated with any less dignity or to be excluded from opportunity.

 

Again people, homosexuality is foremost not about sex, nor is it best defined through a specific sex act.

Homosexuality is most defined by a person who identifies with same-gender relationships, is attracted to those of the same gender, and wants their most intimate relations and/or comittments with those of the same gender. No where does any specific sex act have to be a part of describing it--nor would a specific sex act be "endorsed", or any sex acts even discussed to teach history on discrimination toward lesbians and gays.

If you define homosexuality or heterosexuality solely by a sex act than by that logic celibit nuns and young boys who just havn't gotten any or Manny for that matter (since he himself says he hasn't had sex) are what? ASEXUAL?? Maybe MONOSEXUALS(not that anyone wants to hear about your habits Manny)?? No, I don't think so, homosexuality, like heterosexuality (which Manny identifies with), is about your identity and who you are attracted to/want to be close to/committed to, etc., not whatever your most current sexual activity is. Got it folks???

 

HayesStreet:

In an ideal world I would agree with you. We don't live in one. The whole point of the "I Have Two Mommies" books, or whatever they were called, is that some kids do have two mommies, and they are ostracized in school. The books were written with great sensitivity not to offend even people who are blatantly anti-gay. Their entire point was to promote tolerance of a child whose parents were gay. But they still met with ferocious opposition from those on the right.

I really think that any gay person would be offended to hear that it would ideal if we could isolate the gene so it could be reversed. What gay people want is to be treated like normal human beings. Straight people don't have sex in public. Gays don't want that right either. They want to:

Not get fired for who they love
Not be denied military service for who they love
Not be denied the right to marry
Not be denied the right to adopt children
Not be denied the right to work with children (as in the Boy Scouts)
Not be denied the basic dignity that is enjoyed by straights but in so many cases is not by gays

I really don't understand how any of this, including the two mommies books, infringes on anyone else's rights, unless they truly feel the need to reserve the right to discriminate based on sexual (or let's even put this differently, romantic) preference.

Comparing an ingrained, (for gays) natural attraction to their own sex to snorting coke highlights your prejudice. You seem to think it is not just a lifestyle choice, but an unhealthy, destructive one. It just isn't.

And the fact that gays can't procreate just isn't a meaningful argument against them enjoying the same rights, free from shame, free from scorn, free from ridicule that us straight folk take for granted. In fact, there are a whole lot of unwanted orphans who could be adopted by loving, gay parents, if only people would accept that being gay doesn't make you a child molester and it doesn't make you a bad parent.

I repeat, and I will continue to repeat, gays aren't trying to turn you gay. Why do you feel the need to turn them straight? And they're not trying to force you to closet your sexuality, or more clearly who you love, so why are people so intent on doing that to them?

It's uncool, it's unfair and, by the way, it's un-Christian. Every one of us has a plank of wood in our eyes. If you can't find it, look harder. And never mind your neighbor's splinter.

 

By the same token, DS, why is inclusion of homosexuality necessary for a discussion on oppression or tolerance? To stand up in a classroom and champion homosexual rights IS to endorse homosexuality. Not sure how you think that could be avoided. As for a specific sex act, you would certainly be saying that sex with your own gender is ok. This is not math, where there are no normative judgement calls. In such a course children would learn about how homosexuals are/were oppressed (which would have to include the question 'what is a homosexual'), how horrific it is/was, and how homosexuality is really 'normal.' Well, the bottom line is that many people disagree with that for a variety of reasons. Some think its against the will of God. Some think you risk influencing (let's say) teenagers, who are already confused and imbalanced and questioning what their own sexuality means (certainly one would have to deny environment as a factor to deny this). Being homosexual is not normal. Doesn't mean you're deranged or a pedophile, but Nature is the ultimate arbiter and it says homosexual genes go no further, unless through the mechanations of social constructs.

 

who's mudslinging? I was asking a legitimate question based on your comments in this and other threads. You've made your feelings on this matter quite plain so there is no need for me to assume anything.

 

Easy Street,

We been through all this before in other threads. Are you bald? Is anyone you know? Are they unnatural? Is anyone really tall? Is Yao unnatural? Does anyone have a foot fetish? Not like onions? You know, there are a lot of damn people on this earth. Some would say too many. The logic that dictates because people don't procreate makes them unnatural offends me to the core. It is unnatural to drive a damn car, AND it's bad for the continuation of our species. Among all the weak arguments as to why we should shove homosexuals back into the closet, this is arguably the weakest.

See my above thread on the education issue. There are legitimate reasons to teach this tolerance. Kids with gay parents (there are some -- please PRAY for them) are suffering now.

 

I didn't deny that the Right is part of the opposition. I merely am pointing out that the Far Right is NOT the complete composition of the opposition, as you continue to insinuate.

Must not have been clear on the point. The homosexual community itself is split on whether to say being gay is genetic or chosen. Some fear it being genetic because then it would be a genetic mutation/defect that 'could' be correctable. Some want it to be genetic because they feel it will have a legitimizing effect for the community, as homosexuality would not be some 'deviant' choice in the eyes of the public.

Yeah, to use your words, in a perfect world. I think your examples will help me differentiate what I mean. 'Not get fired'....no problem. 'Not be denied in the military'...no problem. 'Not be denied the right to marry'....not sure about the state symbolically or otherwise endorsing same sex marriages. If, as DS has stated, the core of homosexuality is the emphasis on same gender relationships, then I probably wouldn't want a homosexual man taking Boy Scouts on overnight camping trips, anymore than I'd want a male coach in my daughters dressing room at camp. If homosexuality is genetic, then there is no problem with homosexual parents I guess. If its a choice, and a result of environment, then NO I don't think its a good idea.

Basic dignity like straights? Don't have a problem up to a point. Homosexuals shouldn't have to endure physical or mental abuse.

Yeah, well I don't see how you can fail to understand the opposition. Some people's religion says being gay is not moral. Teaching their children in a public school that being homosexual in ok would seem to be the State contradicting thier religion. Not an unheard of experience of course, but usually there is alleged reasonable justification, such as with 'evolution' being taught in schools. However, there is reasonable scientific data suggesting that evolution is true. There is no scientific consensus on whether you are born or choose to be gay. Which means you cannot rule out an environment that symbolically or otherwise endorses/condones/legitimizes affecting those exposed. This is not just about your romantic preference.

First, you assume I think snorting coke is a bad thing. Next you assume its ingrained, and there is no scientific consensus to support this. It could easily turn out to be environmental pressures that lead to homosexuality. Third, I picked a lifestyle that was easy to picture some people disagreeing with. Personally I think it would be cool to be a rock star, although I've slowed down too much these days to be a coke head. Finally, you seem to oscillate between choice and genes, which only highlights how little fact goes into your opinion. How could you possibly conclude there is nothing unhealthy or at least abnormal when you have no idea how someone gets to be a homosexual?

No doubt scorn and shame are undesirable. Procreation comes in when we are evaluating whether homosexuality is desirable. You think it is self evident that there is no downside to homosexuality. I disagree. Nature prevents homosexuals from reproducing. Homosexuals cannot participate in the NORMAL natural base experience of humanity, the birth of the next generation and the evolution of the species. Each generation some percentage of the population is gay, but then they are removed from the gene pool (and yes, some gays are in 'heterosexual marriages' where they have children. but in the 'perfect world' those homosexuals wouldn't take the route with the front family while they keep in the closet).

I don't think homosexuals are more disposed to molesting their kids, or being a bad parent. If homosexuality is not genetic though, then you are potentially influencing those children to be gay. Although I will admit that being in an orphanage already puts you in a pretty bad spot, so...

You just are completely missing the point. No one (except maybe the Far Right) is worried about roving bands of homosexual enforcers ramming it home against our will. But that doesn't address the issue of whether or not you can INFLUENCE someone to be gay or whether its genetic, and whether espousing rhetoric that normatively legitimizies homosexuality as you do has an effect.

Hmmm, there are people on the board way more qualified than me to answer whether or not being homosexual is consistent with Christianity. However, as I said before, you can teach tolerance of all people without ever stepping in this debate.

 

Marge: He prefers the company of men.
Homer: Who doesn't?

 

Being bald is cosmetic, and the rest of your examples are really kind of silly. Should we make sure each classroom has a "its ok to have a bald daddy" or a "its ok if daddy sucks mommy's toes in the livingroom" book?

I never said we should shove homosexuals back in the closet. I never said they shouldn't be treated with dignity. I never said they should fear hate crime or public ridicule. But facts are facts. As a homosexual you are part of a small minority. A minority who sexuality is diametrically the opposite of all other human being except for your specific minority. Sorry, bud, but that won't meet any definition of 'normal.' And the last rant about weak arguments is nonresponsive. I repeat, I never said to push them back in the closet.

 

What you say would be true if the some of a person was their sexual preference. However, if someone is completely normal and prefers the same sex then they are normal, accept in that one aspect.

I don't think the sum of a person is their sexual preference. A person generally has other aspects to their character. Are they loyal, charitable, uninterested, nice, mean, ethical, racist, kind funny, dull etc.? A person's sexual preference can categorize them as a minority or part of the majority only in reference to that one aspect.

I think a person can still be 'normal' and be in the minority with their sexual preference.

 

Hydra,

my boss in Charleston used to say, usually after a tirade about some girl.. "shouldn't we just have sex with the people that we normally get along with?", with a nice wink (oooh, and other stuff *hot*).

1) I don't remember the phrase of your question, but I'll say 'teach it'. I assuming you're not trying to shock my 2-4 year old... i.e. high school kids, correct? I think it would be beneficial for those kids to learn about the horrors of gay bashing at the same time they're learning about nazi germany (hell, the nazis persecuted gays, should we omit that part of wwII education?).

2) Mmmmm.... women *drool*. Colors? Shades? What the hell are you talking about? mmmm.... women What was the question? Where's my wet?

now how are my blatant masturbatory jokes less disturbing than homosexual pdas? Actually that question might be naive... mmmmm, women. *drool*