first graders take field trip to same sex marriage

[jundp 191]

They didn't speak anything discernible - well, not to me anyway, they were so cute though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGPhXrc78Jg

I take that back, it's a Swedish porn video

Oooh. At 1:23 he says "#######." I totally saw that in the subtitles. What game are you playing at here?!?!?

[IAMX 3,055]

1. I believe Christianity to be "love God, love yourself, love your neighbor." Do these three things and how can you break any of the commandments?

2. It wasn't classroom time being eaten up, it was a parent's idea, not the teacher's, and there was no indoctrination.

3. I wonder if this book is offensive too?

1. I believe Christianity is hypocrisy. The bible is well contradictory, and people have shown to subjectively decide which parts of the Bible, for instance, to follow literally and not to. You should immediately remove any sort of truth from something that people can decide to or not to follow as the "truth".

3. This book is just fine. Homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality. There's nothing wrong with teaching about things that are normal, even better for people to have a better understanding of their natural behavior and attraction, rather than hiding it due to someone else's views of immorality. If someone doesn't like "back door relationships", don't have them. Hell, I can't avoid finding hetero porn where a guy is ###### a chick in the ### too. Just like the "sanctity of marriage" BS, this pre-occupation with buttsex is selective and full of hypocrisy. This is why no one around here takes people who want to rail against homosexuality seriously. There's far too much of the "my own kind" philosophy and it's clear who the socially and scientifically uneducated people are. They usually make issues about things that shouldn't be, and make the funniest rationales for it, too.

Edited October 23, 2008 by SRVT

[akdiver 3]

See, now if the field trip included a live demo of what lesbians do on their wedding night - now - that would be worthy of a field trip.

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

See, now if the field trip included a live demo of what lesbians do on their wedding night - now - that would be worthy of a field trip.

:dance: :dance:

[Danno 1,228]

1. I believe Christianity to be "love God, love yourself, love your neighbor." Do these three things and how can you break any of the commandments?

2. It wasn't classroom time being eaten up, it was a parent's idea, not the teacher's, and there was no indoctrination.

3. I wonder if this book is offensive too?

1. I believe Christianity is hypocrisy. The bible is well contradictory, and people have shown to subjectively decide which parts of the Bible, for instance, to follow literally and not to. You should immediately remove any sort of truth from something that people can decide to or not to follow as the "truth".

3. This book is just fine. Homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality. There's nothing wrong with teaching about things that are normal, even better for people to have a better understanding of their natural behavior and attraction, rather than hiding it due to someone else's views of immorality. If someone doesn't like "back door relationships", don't have them. Hell, I can't avoid finding hetero porn where a guy is ###### a chick in the ### too. Just like the "sanctity of marriage" BS, this pre-occupation with buttsex is selective and full of hypocrisy. This is why no one around here takes people who want to rail against homosexuality seriously. There's far too much of the "my own kind" philosophy and it's clear who the socially and scientifically uneducated people are. They usually make issues about things that shouldn't be, and make the funniest rationales for it, too.

What constitutes "normal" relationship?

if ** is normal, is adult incest normal as well... and how about house-holds where multiple partners are sharing a bed and life....why isn't the school system teaching about these types of "families as well"?

Seems to me these books and class trips are to limited in scope, there is a whole diverse world out there full of all types of bizarre "family" situations... why only teach acceptance of a few?

[Amby 490]

I think these days homosexual and bisexual are normal. I've said it before and I'll say it one more time...kids shouldn't be sheltered from things. They should be exposed to things like homosexual relationships at a young age even if they don't understand it. Being around those types of things will help them to be more tolerant when they're older and then they won't even have to have this debate that we're having.

[Peikko 1,575]

1. I believe Christianity to be "love God, love yourself, love your neighbor." Do these three things and how can you break any of the commandments?

2. It wasn't classroom time being eaten up, it was a parent's idea, not the teacher's, and there was no indoctrination.

3. I wonder if this book is offensive too?

1. I believe Christianity is hypocrisy. The bible is well contradictory, and people have shown to subjectively decide which parts of the Bible, for instance, to follow literally and not to. You should immediately remove any sort of truth from something that people can decide to or not to follow as the "truth".

3. This book is just fine. Homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality. There's nothing wrong with teaching about things that are normal, even better for people to have a better understanding of their natural behavior and attraction, rather than hiding it due to someone else's views of immorality. If someone doesn't like "back door relationships", don't have them. Hell, I can't avoid finding hetero porn where a guy is ###### a chick in the ### too. Just like the "sanctity of marriage" BS, this pre-occupation with buttsex is selective and full of hypocrisy. This is why no one around here takes people who want to rail against homosexuality seriously. There's far too much of the "my own kind" philosophy and it's clear who the socially and scientifically uneducated people are. They usually make issues about things that shouldn't be, and make the funniest rationales for it, too.

What constitutes "normal" relationship?

if ** is normal, is adult incest normal as well... and how about house-holds where multiple partners are sharing a bed and life....why isn't the school system teaching about these types of "families as well"?

Seems to me these books and class trips are to limited in scope, there is a whole diverse world out there full of all types of bizarre "family" situations... why only teach acceptance of a few?

I'll answer your question if you answer my question

Failing that, just watch pingu, you know you want to.

[Mononoke28 135]

We also have to keep in mind that homosexuality was very normal even back in Roman times. It was during the Victorian age where they all became puritans and even started to consider regular heterosexual sex as "evil".

Diana

[IAMX 3,055]

What constitutes "normal" relationship?

Two loving people. The end. (Edit: Then again, normal is also usually redefined as the times go along and our understanding of things changes and evolves)

if ** is normal, is adult incest normal as well... and how about house-holds where multiple partners are sharing a bed and life

Well, I have yet to see the case of incest being described as normal or unnormal. Since incest is not homosexuality, that's something that needs to be looked into. And polygamy. Unless you mean gay incestuous polygamy, in which case, uh.. no comment.

....why isn't the school system teaching about these types of "families as well"?

Likely because there hasn't been much focus on it. We've just deemed it "bad" and left it at that. This is not enough of an educated rationale when it deals with relationships of the masses and when laws are made regarding it that affect the daily lives of these people in their relationships.

Seems to me these books and class trips are to limited in scope, there is a whole diverse world out there full of all types of bizarre "family" situations... why only teach acceptance of a few?

Look, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It is completely normal. Homosexual people function normally in society, have normal relationships, are in love just as much as heterosexual people. There is no debate about this. Some people have not yet come to the grips of reality because others, like yourself, believe it requires your acceptance -- it does not. Additionally, these people are far too focused on their ###### each other in the ###, and not the actual relationship itself, as if all they do is screw each other, or look at every other person of their same sex as a sex object, particularly of males, to be fornicated with. That's almost exclusively what I've seen from the circles of the requisite surrounding "acceptance" of.. whoever may not approve of these people.

Public schools are about unbiased education, and, unbiasedly, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. This is not a moral issue. People who want to turn it into such need to do so in their own time. I have moral issues I plan on teaching my kids besides in school. There is nothing about this that isn't fair and reasonable. Schools are not there to instill morals or push moral issues, just to educate on what is or isn't normal, educate them on science, and teach children how to function in society and ultimately be professionals in whatever field they ultimately decide to be in. Of public school, it also teaches children how to deal with others since they're around many others of different beliefs and backgrounds. Teach people cognitive reasoning. That does require challenging beliefs.

Edited October 23, 2008 by SRVT

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I believe Christianity is hypocrisy. The bible is well contradictory, and people have shown to subjectively decide which parts of the Bible, for instance, to follow literally and not to. You should immediately remove any sort of truth from something that people can decide to or not to follow as the "truth".

Steven, not every religion under the umbrella of Christianity regards the Bible as a word for word, edict from God. The same can be said for other religions and their holy books. What you object to is religious fundamentalism - an ideology which believes that the Bible and all its passages, literally the actual words and commandments of God, whereas contextualism (what jundp and ascribe to) regard the Bible as inspired by God, but written by imperfect humans with their own personal ignorance and hang-ups. There is truth in the Bible, but it doesn't depend on believing each and every word to be a literal dictate from God.

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

We also have to keep in mind that homosexuality was very normal even back in Roman times. It was during the Victorian age where they all became puritans and even started to consider regular heterosexual sex as "evil".

Diana

well that casts new meaning on that phrase "when in rome, do as romans do."

[IAMX 3,055]

I believe Christianity is hypocrisy. The bible is well contradictory, and people have shown to subjectively decide which parts of the Bible, for instance, to follow literally and not to. You should immediately remove any sort of truth from something that people can decide to or not to follow as the "truth".

Steven, not every religion under the umbrella of Christianity regards the Bible as a word for word, edict from God. The same can be said for other religions and their holy books. What you object to is religious fundamentalism - an ideology which believes that the Bible and all its passages, literally the actual words and commandments of God, whereas contextualism (what jundp and ascribe to) regard the Bible as inspired by God, but written by imperfect humans with their own personal ignorance and hang-ups. There is truth in the Bible, but it doesn't depend on believing each and every word to be a literal dictate from God.

I take no objections to any god at all. I take objections to the moral statutes, the advocating of violence, yet tolerance, the advocating of moral prejudice, and of course the fast food menu style way people wish to enforce these beliefs upon others, only taking the parts that they like and ignoring the rest, while asserting other parts are literal and other parts are not. I take objections to the inconsistency and irresponsibility, namely of the Bible itself and those who follow it. This being of a book that is viewable by the public, so open to criticism as any other. I don't object to people who live thei own lives and let others live theirs. So yes, fundamentalism to a degree, is what I find myself usually at odds with. I was always perfectly fine around religious people who could have personal beliefs and be tolerant enough of others to accept theirs, so long as they respected the "my fist, your nose" philosophy of beliefs. But where I draw the line is the execution of these upon others. Then that's an invitation to scrutinize the source of these beliefs.

[Danno 1,228]

We also have to keep in mind that homosexuality was very normal even back in Roman times. It was during the Victorian age where they all became puritans and even started to consider regular heterosexual sex as "evil".

Diana

well that casts new meaning on that phrase "when in rome, do as romans do."

No kidding!

It's also no secret that Pedophilia was quite "normal" too.

We see a few in the room welcome all kinds of redefining ...of what Normal even means.

[HAL 9000 96]

The slope is slippery once again.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yet, I still wait for his explanation of what exactly 'gay' behaviour entails.

Danno clearly has issues with logic.