Jump to content

billms

Gay != Sex

Recommended Posts

There's more to the S&M lifestyle than just whips and chains; would a speech about that be appropriate in a 6th grade classroom?

Alexander the Great had sex with a lot of guys, should the school make parents fill out permission slips before their students hear about Alexander the Great?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You , along with Biff, are equating gay to sex and only sex. There is more to being gay than having gay sex.

Yeah but what does interior decorating have to do with this thread?

BTW, I think Biff is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not a first amendment issue. 6th graders shouldn't be allowed to give speeches on whatever they want with no rules or supervision. If the school said you can't give a speech on Harvey Milk, then you can't. What if the kid wanted to give a speech on how great James Earl Ray was for shooting Martin Luther King? I think a school should be able to tell it's students in certain circumstances whether their subject matter is appropriate. Actually, I think they should be able to do it in every circumstance.

I think what they did in this instance was silly and an overreaction. However, I certainly think they had the RIGHT to do it. So the ACLU is wrong on this one.

I agree with all of this, although I probably think the decision was less silly than Buddha does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think buddha nailed it early on - the school has wide latitude in deciding what kids in the 6th grade can talk about. it's probably an overreaction anyway, though, since kids these days seem to know more about sexuality than they did when i was in the sixth grade (cough)ty years ago.

i think harvey milk is a heroic figure and his life should be celebrated. i also normally agree with the aclu on things like this. i guess i don't have a problem with the girl being allowed to give her presentation only to kids whose parents have consented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alexander the Great had sex with a lot of guys, should the school make parents fill out permission slips before their students hear about Alexander the Great?

But was Alexander's main thing that he was known for is being a homosexual?

No.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But was Alexander's main thing that he was known for is being a homosexual?

No.

Thanks.

So was da VInci. When we study him I leave out that stuff and there are a few films about him that I don't use as they make a big deal about that aspect of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alexander the Great had sex with a lot of guys, should the school make parents fill out permission slips before their students hear about Alexander the Great?

Alexander the Great wasn't known almost exclusively for his sexual preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biff and Mark answered Buddha's question, which was off the mark, IMO. The real issue is what reasonably is expected to be discussed with pre-pubescent children.

Schools likely would discuss Sigmund Freud of Alexander Graham Bell without talking about their rampant cocaine use.

And if there was going to be a discussion of the FBI in the old days, I would expect an elementary school to leave out the part about J. Edgar Hoover crossdressing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think buddha nailed it early on - the school has wide latitude in deciding what kids in the 6th grade can talk about.

That's the problem. The parents should be able to decide what their children are going to discuss when issues like sexuality come up.

If a kid wanted to do a report about Xaviera Hollander, you could make the argument, "Well, yeah, she was a prostitute, but she did more than just turn tricks. She wrote a bestselling book, went on talk shows, and had a rich life outside the bedroom."

True. But you know exactly what makes Hollander the subject of discussion: She was a prostitute.

i think harvey milk is a heroic figure and his life should be celebrated. i also normally agree with the aclu on things like this. i guess i don't have a problem with the girl being allowed to give her presentation only to kids whose parents have consented.

When the subjects of school prayer or the Pledge of Allegance come up, liberals often argue, "But the kids who opt out of it are going to stand out as 'different' and get teased."

Does that argument not also fit here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What it comes down to is can you discuss Harvey Milk without discussing that he was gay? If you can, then no issue. Go ahead. If you can'tthen is the fact he was gay appropriate for 6th graders in a public school?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its kind of goofy that in 2009 that a 6th grader has to go through alot of trouble just to do a report on a homosexual politician/gay rights activist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think its kind of goofy that in 2009 that a 6th grader has to go through alot of trouble just to do a report on a homosexual politician/gay rights activist.

I think its kind of goofy that people bring up what year it is as if that has anything to do with child development. But to each his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think its kind of goofy that in 2009 that a 6th grader has to go through alot of trouble just to do a report on a homosexual politician/gay rights activist.

I think it is wise of the school administration to be extremely careful when discussing gay rights in a 6th grade classroom. No matter what year it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are they fighting for? I thought the crux of the gay and lesbian movement is equal treatment for those who are sexually attracted to the same sex. Is there even a movement without the sex part?

The (ahem) thrust of the gay rights fight at this point in history is not whether they have the right the legally have gay sex. That part -- sex part -- has been decided already.

The crux of the biscuit today is ensuring the people are not denied their basic civil and human rights because they are identified as homosexual. This is how it's not about the sex, even though these people are identified by whom they have sex with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T

The crux of the biscuit today is ensuring the people are not denied their basic civil and human rights because they are identified as homosexual. This is how it's not about the sex, even though these people are identified by whom they have sex with.

Gee, I wonder why.

http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=homosexual&search=search

Are you suggesting that the definition of homosexuality be changed?

And by the way, what basic civil and human rights are homosexuals being denied?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think its kind of goofy that people bring up what year it is as if that has anything to do with child development. But to each his own.

I don't see how learning about a gay rights activist would influence a child's development any different from a women's rights activist, or civil rights activist.

I think it is wise of the school administration to be extremely careful when discussing gay rights in a 6th grade classroom. No matter what year it is.

But it isn't as if discussing it is exposing children to some shocking secret. Kids are well aware of homosexuals probably in their own classroom in the 6th grade. It isn't some new shocking revelation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's funny parents actually that think talking or not talking about homosexuality would make a bit of difference in anything. Not only do I not see what possible difference it could make, but 6th graders all over the country are laughing their asses off at what they're pretending to be shielded from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see how learning about a gay rights activist would influence a child's development any different from a women's rights activist, or civil rights activist.

But it isn't as if discussing it is exposing children to some shocking secret. Kids are well aware of homosexuals probably in their own classroom in the 6th grade. It isn't some new shocking revelation.

Many parents feel as you do. They are very free to discuss homosexuality and what that means at home with their own eleven and twelve year old children.

My own daughter wasn't free to educate her kindergarten class on the nonexistence of Santa Clause, either. No ACLU lawsuit though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever witnessed a Gay Pride parade? I have, once in San Diego and again in San Francisco. All I can say is that "sex" was the theme, no doubt. They were hanging from the lamp posts baring themselves in public. Participants, namely Men were simulating sex, the women were a bit more civilized. The cross dressing was all about shocking the curbside viewers with lewd gestures.

Each to there own, but give me a break, if Heterosexuals would act this way in a public parade, they would be arrested. It's no wonder the California voters rejected marriage for Gay's.

If gays want respect, then they need to demonstrate that they are indeed respectable. There are those that do act respectable and wouldn't put on such a show in public and I do respect those individuals, but they need to step up and police their own, in order to really get the respect they want.

Note: I'm just a temporary admin here, working on the site. My opinion is in no way that of the management of this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: I'm just a temporary admin here, working on the site. My opinion is in no way that of the management of this site.

Hey!

Get back to work , slacker !

:silly:

:wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you ever witnessed a Gay Pride parade? I have, once in San Diego and again in San Francisco. All I can say is that "sex" was the theme, no doubt. They were hanging from the lamp posts baring themselves in public. Participants, namely Men were simulating sex, the women were a bit more civilized. The cross dressing was all about shocking the curbside viewers with lewd gestures.

Each to there own, but give me a break, if Heterosexuals would act this way in a public parade, they would be arrested. It's no wonder the California voters rejected marriage for Gay's.

If gays want respect, then they need to demonstrate that they are indeed respectable. There are those that do act respectable and wouldn't put on such a show in public and I do respect those individuals, but they need to step up and police their own, in order to really get the respect they want.

Note: I'm just a temporary admin here, working on the site. My opinion is in no way that of the management of this site.

Ever seen pictures of Mardi Gras? There's heterosexuals acting that way there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gee, I wonder why.

http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=homosexual&search=search

Are you suggesting that the definition of homosexuality be changed?

And by the way, what basic civil and human rights are homosexuals being denied?

Why are you trying (so lamely) to corner me in some way with your reply? Actually, I know why ...

I'm just describing what I understand to be the goals of the gay rights movement. As anyone -- even you -- can plainly see, I am not taking any position on it in my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The (ahem) thrust of the gay rights fight at this point in history is not whether they have the right the legally have gay sex. That part -- sex part -- has been decided already.

The crux of the biscuit today is ensuring the people are not denied their basic civil and human rights because they are identified as homosexual. This is how it's not about the sex, even though these people are identified by whom they have sex with.

I think if it was just a matter of ensuring people's basic human rights, there woudln't be a problem. For many "activists," though, it goes beyond simple rights -- they want people to accept and embrace their lifestyle, and change their way of thinking. And these folks are ready to label anyone who frowns on what they do a reactionary dinosaur.

For some folks, it isn't just a matter of live and let live. They want to force society to embrace their lifestyle, which is what ticks a lot of people off.

Here's an example: I think if gay people merely wanted to have the same rights as married people like sharing of benefits, etc. they could compromise and not call it "marriage," which to many people is a religious institution. They could simply call them "civil unions," and be done with it. They'd have all the same basic rights as married couples, only it wouldn't be called marriage.

But, no...these activists want to impose their agenda. They want SOCIETY to change its definition of marriage. That goes way beyond the simple quest for equality.

Edited by Tyrus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think if it was just a matter of ensuring people's basic human rights, there woudln't be a problem. For many "activists," though, it goes beyond simple rights -- they want people to accept and embrace their lifestyle, and change their way of thinking. And these folks are ready to label anyone who frowns on what they do a reactionary dinosaur.

For some folks, it isn't just a matter of live and let live. They want to force society to embrace their lifestyle, which is what ticks a lot of people off.

Here's an example: I think if gay people merely wanted to have the same rights as married people like sharing of benefits, etc. they could compromise and not call it "marriage," which to many people is a religious institution. They could simply call them "civil unions," and be done with it. They'd have all the same basic rights as married couples, only it wouldn't be called marriage.

But, no...these activists want to impose their agenda. They want SOCIETY to change its definition of marriage. That goes way beyond the simple quest for equality.

Isn't "marriage" a legal term? Lots of marriages take place outside of churches. For example, men and women get married by justices of the peace -- that's not a religious ceremony. But nobody objects to that being called a "wedding", and the resulting union a "marriage", right? So what if men and men get married by the same justice of the peace? Can we call that ceremony a "wedding", and the resulting union a "marriage", too? If not, why not? If the religious aspect is the core determinant, as you infer here, then how do we resolve this example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...