3yr-olds to be taught about gay relationships

Started by selkie, Jul 22, 2006, 11:06 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Mr. X

Quote from: "typhonblue"
I have to shake my head over this one.

It causes me agony how mislead homosexuals have been by the feminist agenda.

They are insisting on tolerance and acceptance when these things are something that are *earned*, not a right. And the more you insist on them, the less you get.

Homophobia cannot be combated this way. It isn't as simple as racism; kids just need to be exposed to people who are different. It's an expression of very complex internal preassures... that's obvious when you realize that much homophobic violence occures *after* the homophobe has engaged in consensual sexual activity with another man.

And homosexuals pushing, and pushing and pushing this issue will only make it worse.

Just once I wish they'd stop pushing and turn around to see the smug grins of the feminists supporting them.


I agree. This is the WORST thing one can do to gays in the name of acceptance. This is why I oppose gay advocacy groups and not gays. But the other problem is if I oppose this tactic by SOME gay groups right away the "phobic" and "hater" labels come out. That a person cannot have a differing view.

I actually feel sorry for the average gay on the street. These people shove gay down everyone's throat to the point where people hate gays just cause they are bullied into liking them. Then, on top of it, you don't see great gay role models on TV. They are like the black sambos from the 40s. You don't see regular people just having a gay relationship. Instead every gay person knows shoes and hair and how to dress and is the swish wrist, feminine talking stereotype who likes Cher.

I'm really in a divide as to whom gets hurt worse, gays or heteros. But this tactic just hurte people, period. It reminds me of the South park episode about the kids going to the Hall of Tolerance to learn tolerance then the Hall people yelling at some guy for smoking a cigarette outside away from everyone.
Feminists - "Verbally beating men like dumb animals or ignoring them is all we know and its not working."

jaketk

Quote from: "Denis"
The gay agenda is really a stealth feminist and anti-heterosexual male agenda.  


One of the oddest parts about the efforts to get gay marriage passed and protected by law is that the majority of the people fighting for it are not gay. I do not doubt many gays want to right to marry, but most of the loudest protesters have made passing such laws across the board virtually impossible. Back in 2004, there was a real possibility that gay civil unions would have been allowed. But that was crushed by the response of many heterosexual liberals (not an attack, just an observation).

I also think it does a great disservice to the gay population who have very real and arguablly more important fights to wins. One in particular is that gays are not allowed to adopt or even foster children in certain states. In many of the states that bar or limit gay foster parenting, such as Florida, the CPS system is horrorible. Allowing gays to be foster and adoptive parents would greatly help children that nobody wants. Yet while many gays are lobbying for the right to take in and care for children , few of the supporters of gay marriage have backed that cause.

Because of that, I do think there is something to claim that the gay marriage agenda has more to do with attacking traditional culture and society than it does respecting the rights and liberties of gays. The absence of support on real issues like gay adoption of unwanted children is a fine example of that.

Rob

Of the gay people that I know in my neck of the woods, it has been my observation that gay marriage is DEFINITELY NOT supported 100% throughout the gay community.

There are many, many older gay men who were previously married to women and have children etc. etc. and went through the heart wrenching ordeal of "coming out" and leaving their marriages, families and communities behind. These men know and understand marriage AND DIVORCE, and they really don't want their "new" community and their "new" relationships to resemble their old ones in any way. Many of these are well-paid professionals who fear that their lifestyle will be tainted by gold-digging, whining to get married, defacto commonlaw status etc. etc. and they want nothing to do with it! It seems to be the younger, more financially challenged who are the most vocal on the issue. - This was my observation anyway.

Rob

And... I believe the only "gay right" that gays should be granted is the right to legally practise homosexuality. Thats it! What else do you need? It used to be that it was illegal to practise homosexuality. Now it isn't. End of story. Bully for you. I enjoy receiving oral sex, but I'm not lobbying for "oral rights" nor to change more women's opinions about freely accepting my beliefs about oral sex.

All else is just nonsense, as they are already granted the exact same rights and protections as all others in society just by being human beings living within society.

strangedisk

Quote from: "jaketk"
One, I think you mistakingly think every issue brought up on this board must have a men's issue angle. While this is a men's issue forum, it is not exclusive to only those issues.


Okay, but why not have an "off-topic" area for off-topic issues?  This is, after all, a men's rights/men's issues board.  While I have no problem whatsoever with an off-topic area, I don't think it should be mixed in with the main area.

Why do I care about this?  Because, frankly, many threads on this board make it look like a left-bashing board, as opposed to a men's rights board.  Men's rights is a human issue, not specifically an issue of any particular political leaning.  Since men's issues boards are so rare, StandYourGround is one of the few places men (and women) can go to talk about issues like this.  And if it reads like a left-bashing board, it alienates everyone but the extreme right.  Alienating the very men who this board exists for is in fact, a true men's rights issue.

Quote
Two, many of the men here, like BRIAN, are fathers, so that is one reason why they are concerned. The other is because of the tactics used by gay organizations, as TB mentioned, that are strikingly similar to the tactics commonly used by feminists.


As to fathers, still not convinced that this topic has anything to do  specifically with fathers as opposed to parents or just people in general.

As to tactics -- hey political tactics are pretty much universal.  Ursurping common positive words making them seem as if they are really attached to your political or religious views when they are in fact universal ("family"), shifting and redefining words to mean something new ('gay"), painting your opponents as idiots/evil/self-interested or whatever other universally negative trait you can find, and so on, and so on.  You will have no trouble finding examples for any or all of these techniques on all sides of the political spectrum.  Welcome to life.  That you can draw parallels only means that both groups you are drawing parallels from are made up of people.

Mr. X

Quote
Because of that, I do think there is something to claim that the gay marriage agenda has more to do with attacking traditional culture and society than it does respecting the rights and liberties of gays. The absence of support on real issues like gay adoption of unwanted children is a fine example of that.


Well I think there is also the fact marriage and the law are intertwined. I think gay marriage should be decriminalized but not legalized. If its legalized then any benefit heteros get like putting spouse onto medical and insurance automatically applies to gays forcing employers who do not think gay marriage is a legitimate union to accept it under law. When I hear gay marriage advocates I almost always hera talk of wanting to be put into wills, protection in court as a spouse...basically all the benefits spouses get.

I think the gay marriage issue is totally partisan and has become a polluted playing field of politics. I'll vote to decriminalize it and that's all.
Feminists - "Verbally beating men like dumb animals or ignoring them is all we know and its not working."

Rob

The most alarming thing about articles such as those listed in this thread should be the government's willingness and complicity in over-riding parental RIGHTS to teach their children the morals and values that the PARENTS see fit!

The only "law" or "influence" that the government should be able to have over an issue such as this is to not allow parents to encourage violence or other illegal acts towards gays. If the parents should choose to teach their children that homosexuality is morally wrong or morally right should be entirely the parent's choice. Believing homosexuality is morally wrong is a constitutionally protected right, remember? What's next? The government implementing programs to curb foul language amongst our youth?

God help us that the government is going to teach morals to our children in their usual "model of efficiency" ways.

This is pure indoctrination, propaganda and disempowerment of a very fundamental human right.

If the government is going to take the responsibility of teaching our children what is right and wrong, then aren't parents being relegated to glorified babysitters?

strangedisk

Quote from: "TheManOnTheStreet"
"For example, say a father is concerned about his child's education including teaching about the existance of homosexuality. How is that different than a mother being concerned? What makes it a father's issue, in particular?"

First off, don't twist my words.  There is a big difference between "teaching the existance" and teaching that it is normal or indoctrination style "exploration of one's sexuality".  A big fucking difference.


I am not "twisting your words."  "teaching the existance" are my words, not yours.  At no time did I ever present them as yours.

Quote
Secondly, I believe it is a fathers issue because fathers usually don't have a say in what goes on in their childs school.  If said school says that little Johhny needs Ritelin, mommy does it.  Without consulting dad.  It happens all the time.  That is what makes it a fathers issue.

When our children were younger, the teachers would send home permission slips to watch a particular movie.  For example; Lets say, for exteme purposes, the Vagina Monologues.  Mommy dearest will sign, for the most part.  Does daddy have a say in whether or not he wants his son seeing such garbage?  No.  Again, fathers issue.

TMOTS


The fact is that divorced father's have a lesser say in their children's education (presumably a married man can sign or not, as well as a married woman, or even against her misgivings), and a statement like "discrimination against men leads to a situation where fathers cannot have a say in their children's education" is ever so slightly different than ""discrimination against men leads to a situation where fathers cannot have a say in their children's education concerning the gay scourge and its attempt to indoctrinate our children to love gays"  (yes, now I really am twisting your words, for humor).  But you can't then come back and say, "no, really, I was referring to men's rights".  Obviously, the point of the dicussion isn't men's rights.  Again, since men are half the population, anything at all could be a men's rights issue, that doesn't men that everything is naturally a men's rights issue.

strangedisk

Quote from: "BRIAN"
Nobody is bashing the left here. We are criticising the worst most absurd and egregious things the FEMS are doing. It just so happens that the political left is by and large a willing accomplice to 99% of the FEMS agenda. Perhaps if you don't like that you should re-evaluate your political philosophy and party affiliation.


Perhaps if I don't like what?  The fact that the Left (as a political machine) is associating itself with the FEMS, and I should change my political philosophy?  Why?  If I were a Christian, would I change my religion if I discovered that the church was acting anti-christlike?  Of course not.  Do you change your philosophy every time someone who purports to have the same philosophy acts like an ass?  There's nothing in the core left philosophy which is anti-male.

Rob

I recently read an article by Stephen Baskerville that directly deals with many of the issues we are discussing here and how it relates to men's rights.  http://www.profam.org/pub/xfia_cur.htm

It is too long to post here and while it takes a while to read through it all, I highly recommend reading it, as it articulates very well many concerns we should all have.

One (of many) of the arguments he outlines is that "traditional" marriage was an institution of patriarchy, just like fems screach about. And it was an institution of patriarchy to ensure paternity, as until recently, it was virtually impossible to 100% know paternity, therefore marriage and the family was really an institution created to ensure that men could have children...

You can argue that any further erosion of marriage (as in gay marriage), further removes men from children and families...

Anyway, its a well done article that is worth the time to read.

Rob

Strangedisk,

Do you think you could oblige by keeping this thread on topic or starting a new thread to address your concerns?

Thanks

strangedisk

Quote from: "CaptDMO"
Quote from: "strangedisk"
"ad hominem's" require that I attack a person, which I haven't.

I humbly beg to differ as apparently the private school I attended used a different dictionary and caliber of instruction.


I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were giving me an example of the kind of ad hominem to avoid, such as calling the caliber of my education into question.

Actually, for those of us to whom learning in a life-long adventure, I give you the Merriam-Webster definition:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

... which tends to agree with us both, giving two definitions.  Definition 1 seems to go along with you, definition 2 seems to go along with me.  In any case, I don't believe I am guilty of either.

Regardless, at no time did I ever refer to anyone as being "big poopyheads".

fratstar

Why this topic matters is because this another example of parental & hence fathers rights being taken away.  Its a slippery slope and every day its getting worse.  

When has it gone to far?  Has it gone to far when NAMBLA finally gets it  made legal to screw 10 year olds?  How about paying expecant mothers to abort their child so they can sell the stem cells?   As a MAN I woud like to protect my offspring from such horible events.   Just because the government says "its OK" does not mean it's morally right.  Broken/dysfunctional families is big business.  It pays for a lot of governemnt employees, lawyers, women, etc. to make sure they stay just as awful.  

By the way, I dont think the "right" hasnt been doing so hot recently. So, if anyone sees the "right" doing something to screw men over, bring it up!  

FratStar

jaketk

Quote from: "strangedisk"
Okay, but why not have an "off-topic" area for off-topic issues?  This is, after all, a men's rights/men's issues board.  While I have no problem whatsoever with an off-topic area, I don't think it should be mixed in with the main area.


I see your point, and that might be a good idea. The left-bashing thing is probably incidental, though. Many of the issues that concern the posters on this board are supported by the left. Many of the opioins found on the board are the same as those of the right. But neither side specifically backs the men's movement.

As a side note, I am neither left or right.

Quote
As to fathers, still not convinced that this topic has anything to do  specifically with fathers as opposed to parents or just people in general.


It was not my intent to imply that it did. I apologize if it came across as that. I merely meant that there are fathers on this board, so the issue would concern them.

Quote
As to tactics -- hey political tactics are pretty much universal.


No offense, but the brand of politics used in the article is more common among liberals and specifically feminists. Lately, these kinds of "you are bigoted because you don't believe what I believe" tactics have been adopted by other special interests groups. Unlike conservative groups who more commonly attack a person's morals, liberal groups tend to strike directly for the person's character. While they may have the same belittling effect, the former allows the person to change if he simply adopts conservative morals. The latter allows for no such change. Instead one's whole sense of self must be destroyed (or "deconstructed") and then rebuilt in the liberal image.

What make this particular issue so disconcerting is that 3-year-old children have yet to form a sense of self, sexual attraction or even the difference between genders.

strangedisk

Quote from: "Rob"
Strangedisk,

Do you think you could oblige by keeping this thread on topic or starting a new thread to address your concerns?

Thanks


Okay, I'll do both in fact.  

As for the on-topic part.

The core idea behind this, as I see it (regardless of how well or how poorly it is implemented), is that children should be made aware at an early age that homosexuality exists, that it's okay, and that all the permutations that may arise from this (such as "two mommies" or "two daddies", a gay father who is still married to mommy, or what have you) are part of life.

All of which I fully agree with.  If we take race as an example, we know that children are aware of racial differences early on.  It's because you can see them!  So when they are taught to be tolerant of racial differences, they know what the hell you are talking about!  But with homosexuality, since it cannot be known by looking at someone, a little background is in order.  I would say that the background should be age-appropriate, of course.  But I think tolerance should be taught to children in schools whether the parents like it or not (just like you pay taxes whether you like it or not, you provide proper medical care to your children whether you like it or not, you provide an education to your children and it has to cover "the basics" whether you like it or not).  The reason is the same:  Society functions better that way.  It's not "all about you".  Your child will benefit from learning about tolerance early on, and society will benefit.  It's like vaccinations.  People complain about potential side effects, but the real complaint is that they don't like being told what to do, even if doing so has almost no cost to them and a strong measurable benefit to others.

Taxes, diseases, and most importantly, other people are not going away.  And gays aren't going away.

Insofar as this is a men's issue, it is, but only just slightly and somewhat tengentally.  It is because the vast majority of crap that aimed against gays, if it is aimed to one gender, it is aimed at men.  Therefore, clearly being a man and being gay is somehow "worse" than being gay.  I admit it's tangental.

Rob, your argument that this is a men's issue is in fact the only one I see as attaching it exclusively to men (as opposed to parents) and it's interesting.  But it's problematic.

With the invention of DNA testing and the subsequent confusion in the courts as to what makes a father (DNA or fathering or both? -- the answer seems to be -- neither if the father benefits but either if it costs him), I think its clear that marriage as a mechanism to preserve known paternity, if it ever really was that, has utterly failed.  It follows then, that marriage serves no purpose.  And yet, here it is, with people getting married eagerly to this day, gays fighting for equality in marriage, and politicians vying to make themselves look friendlier to marriage.  So, it's still important in this society, even without paternity assurances.  The word "bastard" doesn't really refer to what it once did, and no one really cares if you are one anymore, so the "bite" of being born outside of marriage just isn't there anymore.

Obviously there's a lot more to this "marriage" thing than knowing paternity (why would gays want to marry?), more to it than protecting one's children against the terrible social stigma of being a bastard (no one cares), more than the specter of some historical paternity (it's usually the women who want to marry first).  Face it, marriage is biological, it's in our blood as human beings.

It ain't gonna be destroyed by the fems, or by the government, or by the gays, or by anyone else.

Go Up