Mass 2ndgrade teacher reads 'gay marriage' book (diversity)

[rincewind]

like i said, people love a good fight. i'm in the middle, so my comments go largely unnoticed. i feel i've made it pretty clear i don't have a major problem w/ it. i just don't agree w/ it. doesn't make me a bigot.

that one is too easy. take it to the cage. :cool:

I really didn't mean that first 'Major' as an actual slight against you. I was going to use the word anyway, so i figured i'd capitilize it and make a joke at your exspense. Sorry its what i do.

[Major Harris]

Re: The perpetual "It's a choice" debate

1) IMO, the only people who think "it's a choice" is important are people who want to discriminate against gays, but who think discrimination is wrong, so they need a reason to say that discrimination is OK.

well, you're entitled to your opinion, even if it reeks of :pooh: .

[rincewind]

(The drawback with that line of reasoning is: Very few people were killed last year by people Driving While Gay.)

I heard Rosie O'Donnell got a DWG the other day. :doh:

[gbear]

I didn't have a chance to respond earlier. I saw somebody make the point that it's like eating and being fat, ie that it is a choice and one can just choose not to do it. Personally, if I have to equate chosing to be gay to "chosing" something, I would think being gay was a lot closer to having "chosing" to have high cholesterol (and personally, I think the they just choose that lifestyle arguement a bit weak because I never picked one way or the other, nor did anybody else I've ever talked to, and nobody I have spoken to thinks they could pick to the other way).

Yes, there are things I can do to lower my cholesterol. Heck I do them. I run 3 miles a day, I rarely eat red meat, etc. However, my grandad on one side had 5 heart attacks before dieing of heart failure. My grandfather on the other side died from his first heart attack. My dad has high cholesterol.

Thank God nobody judges me on my cholesterol number like you judge people on being gay. My cholesterol number is probably never going below 200 and into the "healthy" APPROVED range, and that's not a choice despite the fact that some people may be able to change life styles enough to have a good APPROVED cholesterol. The fact that some people can chose in no way makes it a choice for me. When I see the just don't be gay pushers that insist on equating it to a choice that people can choose the other way (which I fundamentally question), I think of the just don't have high cholesterol arguement, and I would be betting on them being from the portion of society that never has to worry about the issue unless they start eating shrimp and steak for dinner every night after a quarter pounder for lunch. In the same light, I think those that question the "choice" to be gay probably never had an issue with it to begin with, and thus it's just not in the realm of things they comprehend as a worry.

I'm not saying the choices can't impact outcome, but I think it's a bit rediculous that some people have picked the outcome without any regard for the feasablity of person x to reaching the outcome. Afterall, if it's easy for me, I should be able to judge you for not getting where I am (and that presupposes that where I am is better than where you are). That line of thinking is a line that is just nauseating.

[rincewind]

I didn't have a chance to respond earlier. I saw somebody make the point that it's like eating and being fat, ie that it is a choice and one can just choose not to do it. Personally, if I have to equate chosing to be gay to "chosing" something, I would think being gay was a lot closer to having "chosing" to have high cholesterol (and personally, I think the they just choose that lifestyle arguement a bit weak because I never picked one way or the other, nor did anybody else I've ever talked to, and nobody I have spoken to thinks the could pick to the other way).

To be fair - he compared it to overeating because gluttony is a sin.

[Major Harris]

I heard Rosie O'Donnell got a DWG the other day. :doh:

driving while gluttonizing? :whoknows:

[rincewind]

driving while gluttonizing? :whoknows:

Driving while gay.

Okay, it was a weak joke. But Larry said something about people Driving while Gay - and i thought it was a funny image.

[Major Harris]

Driving while gay.

Okay, it was a weak joke. But Larry said something about people Driving while Gay - and i thought it was a funny image.

i knew what it meant. so i guess my joke trumped yours for weakness. i'm better than you, :nana:

[dfitzo53]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't see anything wrong with identifying "wrong" actions people make. I understand this may be extremely unpopular with liberals, but, so be it. I would not presume to say that I never say to myself, "their "wrong" actions are worse than mine, so I am better than they are". Of course I do, particularly in the case of murderers, child molestors, etc. Having said that, I understand, based on my belief system, what I am thinking at that point is "wrong", and further proof of my own "wrongness".

I want to understand what you and Chom and Rince maybe are saying. Are you saying that identifying "wrong" actions is wrong? If so, is it because of relative morality, that there is no right or wrong, just whatever works for an individual, therefore identifying it is pointless? That seems to be the direction this is going in, which is very uncomfortable for me. I will be happy to address that thought process if that is indeed the path you are going down. In summary, I guess my question would be why is it wrong for me to identify "wrong" actions in others? And please do not come back with, because you think you are better than them. That's not at all what I am getting at.

I didn't say there was necessarily anything bad about identifying an action as "wrong." I classify homocide, rape and theft as wrong, and I believe I am a better human being than murderers, rapists and thieves. What I did say is that wrong is an inherently negative term. There's no way around that. If you don't agree, look up "wrong" in the dictionary.

I was careful to word my previous post so as not to be accusatory. I don't know you. I don't know whether you consider yourself to be better than certain other people and I'm not qualified to make that judgement. I'm just trying to help you understand why you're being perceived the way you are.

To answer your other question, as a student of anthropology a certain degree of relativism is part of my education. That doesn't mean I abandon my own values, nor does it mean that there aren't aspects of other cultures which I find "wrong." Genital mutilation of young girls in Africa is a perfect example. But it does mean that I'm going to give my best effort to understand why people do certain things culturally and biologically before I make my judgements.

[Goaldeje]

How about from a former republican going libertarian:

Everything you've basically stated is: I'm right your wrong, I am morally superior to you. You will go to hell because I don't do anything wrong in the bedroom and you do. I only have the approved upon missionary position with my wife and only after marriage.

Baiscally your saying overall: 2/3rds of the Planet is wrong and your right.

And its your job to say: My faith tells me to tell you your faith or lack thereof is wrong...

Never ever ever put murder, child molestation and a sexual act between 2 consenting adults in the same thread, its never received well.

You have your right to tell everyone they are wrong and your right, and we have every right to tell you to get stuffed sinner.

Did you mix up gays with pedophiles? or did i read this wrong and you were talking about your safety in assailing people incognito?

Wow. Where did this come from? I have to tell you that's pretty offensive, and if I have said any of that, I will apologize until I am blue in the face. There are a lot of Christians on this board, some think that way, some don't. Take a step back and re-read all my posts before you jump on me like that. That's really harsh, and I feel a bit unwarranted.

[Goaldeje]

I didn't say there was necessarily anything bad about identifying an action as "wrong." I classify homocide, rape and theft as wrong, and I believe I am a better human being than murderers, rapists and thieves. What I did say is that wrong is an inherently negative term. There's no way around that. If you don't agree, look up "wrong" in the dictionary.

I was careful to word my previous post so as not to be accusatory. I don't know you. I don't know whether you consider yourself to be better than certain other people and I'm not qualified to make that judgement. I'm just trying to help you understand why you're being perceived the way you are.

To answer your other question, as a student of anthropology a certain degree of relativism is part of my education. That doesn't mean I abandon my own values, nor does it mean that there aren't aspects of other cultures which I find "wrong." Genital mutilation of young girls in Africa is a perfect example. But it does mean that I'm going to give my best effort to understand why people do certain things culturally and biologically before I make my judgements.

I get that. I believe what I believe, and if you know anything about "beliefs" it is very hard to change them, though if overwhelming evidence comes out against my position, I would do the necessary research to see if a change is in order. As long as we tolerate each other's beliefs on this board, I think we will all be OK. Sorry I got a little testy, it just seemed like mine were the only one's not being tolerated.

[dfitzo53]

it all comes down to that. i respect your opinion, but i disagree. that's the whole basis of the debate, because i don't think that anyone on the other side of the fence would feel the same way if they believed that being gay were the same as skin color. i know i wouldn't.

Does this recent post by skinfan13 have any effect on your opinion, Major? I'm just curious.

after lookig through various scientific journals on the subject, i would have to say recent findings indicate that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, but rather a geneticaly linked disorder based in the x chromosome, not a specific gene.

[Goaldeje]

That said, however, I think the folks who're (mostly falsely, IMO) trying to do the "I don't hate the person, I hate the act" dance are missing an anology that might explain their case better.

I think science is pretty convinced that alcoholism is a genetically determined condition. I think, for example, that part of AA's mantra is that "I'm an alcoholoc. I'll always be an alcoholic. I don't have a choice in the matter, but I can chose not to drink."

I'm not going to deal with the rest of your post, but this is worht discussing. I completely agree with this last statement here. I think you actually have cleared something up in my mind. The semantics don't matter. If you want to say someone if pre-disposed to be an achoholic or homosexual, or whether they are born that way is irrelevent. I believe the choices they make are wrong (sorry dfitz, keep soming back to that word). I do not believe that person is a "wrong" person, or a "bad" person, simply that they are making a "bad" choice. Just as I make a "bad" choice when I eat too much or drink too much or spend hours on Extremeskins while at work . I think your analogy between alchoholism and homosexuals is very apt. Comes down to the choices.

[rincewind]

I'm not going to deal with the rest of your post, but this is worht discussing. I completely agree with this last statement here. I think you actually have cleared something up in my mind. The semantics don't matter. If you want to say someone if pre-disposed to be an achoholic or homosexual, or whether they are born that way is irrelevent. I believe the choices they make are wrong (sorry dfitz, keep soming back to that word). I do not believe that person is a "wrong" person, or a "bad" person, simply that they are making a "bad" choice. Just as I make a "bad" choice when I eat too much or drink too much or spend hours on Extremeskins while at work . I think your analogy between alchoholism and homosexuals is very apt. Comes down to the choices.

Okay, lets say it does come down to choice - why it their 'choice' wrong? Its the right choice for them. Why do you view their decision to be gay wrong?

Keep in mind, this is hypothetical - because i ain't sold on the whole choice thing.

[Zguy28]

What about this? Should a person who played an important part in history have their sexual preference highlighted if they were Gay/Lesbian, Bi-sexual, or Transgender? That's what California is trying to pass.

Now, just to get everyone revved up a bit, as your reading replace any reference in the article to "gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender" with "Christian, Muslim, or Jew."

Let the fireworks begin. I especially am waiting for Predicto's opinion.

:munchout:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060407/us_nm/rights_gays_textbooks_dc

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California school textbooks would highlight the role gays have played in the history of the nation's most populous state if a new proposal that has angered conservatives passes the state Legislature.

History books record contributions by gays but their sexual orientation is often ignored, a situation gay activists say is inexcusable in California, home to a large gay population in San Francisco, a city that briefly made history in 2004 by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The proposed bill would require school textbooks to include lessons on how gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender persons have helped California develop.

Conservative groups say the proposal before lawmakers goes too far and promise a hard fight in California's ideologically divided Legislature. They say it is another bold political move by gay-rights advocates who last year lobbied the Democrat-led Legislature to pass a bill to allow same-sex marriages.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed that legislation, but has not taken a position on the new bill.

"This bill would also prohibit anything that reflects adversely on those people," said Karen England of the conservative Capitol Resource Institute.

"They're after their lifestyle to be embraced and they want to force it on kids as young as kindergarten."

NATIONAL IMPACT?

If the bill by Democratic state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the Legislature's first openly gay member, becomes law, it would have a national effect because California is the biggest U.S. market for school textbooks, England said.

Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California, a gay-rights group and supporter of Kuehl's bill, said the legislation would shed light on a community not discussed in public school books.

One figure activists say merits a place in history texts is San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official of a major U.S. city. Another city supervisor shot and killed Milk and Mayor George Moscone in 1978.

"Public schools should be teaching about all of our history and not deliberately excluding," Kors said. "What this bill does is it ensures that students get a full and complete education."

The bill would amend California's education code to revise its list of groups whose roles in the history of the state and nation are included in textbooks.

It would add "people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender" to the list, which currently includes various ethnic groups.

Kuehl was unavailable to discuss her bill, which the state Senate Judiciary Committee passed on Tuesday by a 3-1 vote with only Republican Senate leader Dick Ackerman opposed.

It still needs to win approval by the Senate and the state Assembly before being passed to Schwarzenegger.

"It's overreaching on many levels," Ackerman said, adding he expects the Democrat majority in the Senate to ensure its passage.

[dfitzo53]

"They're after their lifestyle to be embraced and they want to force it on kids as young as kindergarten."

The assertion that homosexuals want to force their lifestyle is preposterous. The only people trying to force a lifestyle are the ones claiming homosexuality is a disease that can be cured.

Edit: Anyway, I think the effort is a little bit misguided. Learning that there are important homosexual figures in history is not likely to increase tolerance for homosexuals in the present day, in my opinion.

[rincewind]

Zguy - isn't it just like recording the accomplishments of Black Americans? We do afterall have black history month?

By the way - i'm not for either.

[Goaldeje]

Okay, lets say it does come down to choice - why it their 'choice' wrong? Its the right choice for them. Why do you view their decision to be gay wrong?

Keep in mind, this is hypothetical - because i ain't sold on the whole choice thing.

I understand your reticence somewhat, but I think most rational people would admit there is a choice involved with everything we do. To me, their choice is wrong, based on what I believe. I don't subscribe to the idea that if it works for them, go for it. That doesn't fit with my life and what I believe. Most of us, without realizing, subscribe to a fairly consistent moral code. I doubt that you and I, Rince, disagree too very much on what is wrong and right. This is one example, and I am sure there are others, but not an overwhelming number.

[Goaldeje]

The assertion that homosexuals want to force their lifestyle is preposterous. The only people trying to force a lifestyle are the ones claiming homosexuality is a disease that can be cured.

Edit: Anyway, I think the effort is a little bit misguided. Learning that there are important homosexual figures in history is not likely to increase tolerance for homosexuals in the present day, in my opinion.

Your first statement generalizes as much as the left crowd purports the right crowd to do.

Your second statement is spot on, imo.

[Major Harris]

while we're at it, can we note the major accomplishments of left handers?

[rincewind]

while we're at it, can we note the major accomplishments of left handers?

No - the fact that those people choose to be left-handed is WRONG...

and down right disgusting. :mad:

[Major Harris]

I also have a little exercise for the "it's a choice" crowd. An experiment.

(It's written for the male majority 'round here. Females, I'm sure, can figure out how to alter the experiment to apply to themselves.)

Picture, in your mind, an image of, say, Leonardo DiCaprio. He's in bed, asleap. Imagine yourself undressing, and gently pulling back the sheet, and slipping into bed with him.

Keep thinking of that image, really hard, untill you get an erection.

What, can't do it? But I thought being gay was a choice? All you have to do is chose, right? Nothing hard (no pun intended). Just decide.

Gee, I guess you don't have a choice. But everybody who's different, well, they can just

chose

to be like you, right? There's not really anything fundamentally different about people who

could

"pass" this test, is there?

i don't think you fully understand our POV. i didn't choose to be hetero. that's natural.

people that think homosexuality is a choice think that it is a choice because heterosexuality is what is natural, and homosexuality is a choice that goes against that.

at least that's me.

[Major Harris]

No - the fact that those people choose to be left-handed is WRONG...

and down right disgusting. :mad:

well played, sir. :cool:

[Goaldeje]

No - the fact that those people choose to be left-handed is WRONG...

and down right disgusting. :mad:

Don't they make you wipe your rear with your left hand in the Arab world? Those disgusting, filthy, no good left handers. Damn you Phil Mickelson!

[dfitzo53]

Your first statement generalizes as much as the left crowd purports the right crowd to do.

I disagree. I didn't say that you're trying to force a lifestyle. I didn't say that most conservatives are trying to force a lifestyle. What I said is that those who are actively trying to "cure" or "fix" homosexuals are by definition trying to force their lifestyle on others. They are trying to fundamentally change the way homosexuals live.