It's ba-ack.

[Bowser]

Well, it looks like we are shooting for that moderation which I had mentioned in a prior post.

<A HREF="http://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/news/oregonian/00/12/lc_71meas923.frame">"...petition filed"</A>

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited December 23, 2000).]

 

[Tiassa]

Bowser--

In another post you also mentioned the idea that certain ideas shouldn't be approached at all. By the time Mabon waters down his law so that it's "lie-proof", "distortion-proof", or so forth to his own satisfaction that nobody can say anything bad about his proposed law without assuming his motive (which is the trick of his method), you will find that the lie-proof law will look no different than the world without the lie-proof law. In other words, Mabon is chasing an extraneous standard.

Which does now bring to mind ideas of his motive: Why are you (Mr Mabon) creating an issue, defining propriety, and asking that this artificial issue be respected according to this artificial propriety?

If Mabon wants a lie-proof law, he needs not bother. What he wants is the power to designate inappropriate something which he finds inappropriate by his own personal standard. As long as he watches his stupid mouth and doesn't gloat about preventing counselors from helping confused schoolchildren, he might get a more reasonable audience this time.

So, Bowser, have you thought about my counterproposal about obese people? Try the language for this one, too.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

 

[Bowser]

Tiassa,

I thought this would interest you, so I posted it for you. I just now noticed your response. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

"In another post you also mentioned the idea that certain ideas shouldn't be approached at all."

My position was that children should not be approached with certain ideas.

"Why are you (Mr Mabon) creating an issue..."

Speaking for myself, I am opposed to the idea that our schools should foster such behavior. As you should know, I think and feel that this behavior is bad, and I don't care for it being offered to our children as something good.

"...defining propriety..."

Defining propriety is what people do. I don't have a problem with that, unless the definition is contrary to my own and involves my children.

"...and asking that this artificial issue be respected according to this artificial propriety?"

It only appears artificial if you don't respect the opinions of others.

"So, Bowser, have you thought about my counterproposal about obese people? Try the language for this one, too."

Are they encouraging, promoting, or sanctioning abnormal eating behavior? Should we invite them to hold special seminars within our schools, so that they can teach the pleasures of gluttony to our children?

I don't see any parallel with the two groups, and I doubt you will find many obese people who enjoy their condition--I don't see any activity which would suggest that the obese are trying to influence our school lunch menu. Obesity is not a parade as is the other: "I'm fat and in your face!" <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

Anyway, I wanted to share that bit of news with you.

Two years...<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

 

[Tiassa]

Bowser--

"So, Bowser, have you thought about my counterproposal about obese people? Try the language for this one, too."

Are they encouraging, promoting, or sanctioning abnormal eating behavior? Should we invite them to hold special seminars within our schools, so that they can teach the pleasures of gluttony to our children?

I don't see any parallel with the two groups, and I doubt you will find many obese people who enjoy their condition--I don't see any activity which would suggest that the obese are trying to influence our school lunch menu. Obesity is not a parade as is the other: "I'm fat and in your face!"

Obesity is included in "sensitivity" and "diversity" training, right along side color, religion, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. I seem to recall that the 1980's treated obesity as a disease, as well.
http://www.naafa.org/

NAAFA is a non-profit human rights organization dedicated to improving the quality of life for fat people. NAAFA has been working since 1969 to eliminate discrimination based on body size and provide fat people with the tools for self-empowerment through public education, advocacy, and member support.

My point is that telling children to accept that some people are obese in society is the same as telling them that some people are gay.

You were never told in school to not make fun of fat people? You went to a hell of a school.

Telling overweight children to not have a psychiatric meltdown because of their weight is no greater a "wrong" than Lon Mabon proposed in asking to prevent counselors from telling gay kids to not have a meltdown because they're gay.

You still seem to think that it's about gaining gay converts. Funny that it's evangelical religious people complaining about it, eh?

Speaking for myself, I am opposed to the idea that our schools should foster such behavior. As you should know, I think and feel that this behavior is bad, and I don't care for it being offered to our children as something good.

Speaking for yourself, speaking for yourself. Have you ever thought of the idea that what is best for yourself happens to coincide with what's best for the culture? Not in the, "I'm right, so the rest of you conform" manner that you and Mabon advocate. Rather, in the notion that when I look at what's good and bad, my first consideration might be myself, but really ....

After all, that's the kind of attitude which historically demonstrates that the beholder is about to have a revolution explode in his face.

Really, you don't like homosexual sex, so it should be illegal to provide resources for gay people equivalent to what is offered heterosexuals. It's that you don't want to respect people, and you'll only feel right instead of disrespectful if that's the way it is for all of society.

That's what it sounds like.

You know, I don't extend certain parts of my life to obese people; it isn't that being 5'6" and 350 lbs makes you a bad person, but I think it's a far cry between not sleeping with you because I like the feel of a thin woman's ribcage or something dumb like that, and the notion that I'm not allowed to teach children that obese people aren't any different morally from thin people. If I prefer redheads, am I a bigot? If the rumor's going around that redheads are stealing the economy and we should throw them in concentration camps ... if I am not allowed to teach that such things are mere rumors and that redheads are no different from brunettes ....

People have sex. Or they don't. You choose to decide that a handjob or a blowjob is different because of the gender of the person servicing you. Period. At the core, you can say all you want, but there is the only difference between you and your mate, and ... how about Lance and Bruce? That when you're communing with your mate and spilling your seed, you are doing it with the participation of a woman, while Lance is doing it with the participation of a man.

Beyond that, all else is hyperbole. Because conservatism asserts, in Mabon's universe, that these people spilling their seed with another man are somehow immoral. The idea comes up, and you're saying that it has to be accepted? What you're proposing is the denial of a person to defend themselves against slanders if they're paid by the public treasury. The reworded version of the petition still, whether intentional or not (whatever ), licenses open discrimination.

Look, we know that at a certain point, obesity becomes unhealthy. If we leave it at that, we can leave it at that. We also know that at a certain point, too much sexual intercourse can be unhealthy. How we feel about who's eating what, in either case, is only that: how we, as individuals, feel.

If you're a gay kid, it's just a different world. As a heterosexual daughter, one might get thrown out of the house for having sex. (My aunt thought this was a brilliant idea once; guess where the daughter went?) As a homosexual, you aren't being kicked out for slatterny or whoring or anything else, but because you're gay.

My dad got upset once when he caught me getting a hummer from a woman. (Note, we all know that my folks didn't like her because she was Hispanic and married, but that's beside the point.) Anyway, my Dad went on and on about responsibility, discretion, and so forth. I do not know a single gay person whose family knew when they were in high school whose sexuality was about responsibility and discretion at those same moments. Caught in the act, the argument became about perversity, disrespect for upbringing, and sinfulness. Why? Because that individual parent chose for it to be.

Y'all choose to discriminate against people arbitrarily. It's okay to hate, I suppose. But remember what happens when you bestow it on a community.

Now, how is homosexuality being offered to children as something "good"? And, "good" as opposed to what? Bad? Acceptable? Neutral?

I will remind you that, in Oregon, it's the "responsible" conservative "families" that are contributing to global overpopulation. But that's right, the rest of the world has nothing to do with morality or right or wrong. It's all about what you want, right?

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited January 10, 2001).]

 

[Bowser]

<hr>
NAAFA

National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance

"Federal Seat Belt Regulation Under Review: Your Input Needed"
<hr>

Hmm...

"My point is that telling children to accept that some people are obese in society is the same as telling them that some people are gay."

Well, I don't think there is a problem recognizing that some people are fat and that some people are gay.

"You were never told in school to not make fun of fat people? You went to a hell of a school."

Obesity was never a topic of serious discussion in my school.

"Telling overweight children to not have a psychiatric meltdown because of their weight is no greater a "wrong" than Lon Mabon proposed in asking to prevent counselors from telling gay kids to not have a meltdown because they're gay."

Okay, but do we hold open the doors to McDonalds and Burger king so the fat kids can indulge in their lifestyle?

"You still seem to think that it's about gaining gay converts. Funny that it's evangelical religious people complaining about it, eh?"

It's about a great many things. One conversion would be the idea that over eating is right.

"Have you ever thought of the idea that what is best for yourself happens to coincide with what's best for the culture? Not in the, "I'm right, so the rest of you conform" manner that you and Mabon advocate. Rather, in the notion that when I look at what's good and bad, my first consideration might be myself, but really ..."

It sounds like you advocate sacrificing the needs of the few for the needs of the many. "I'm right, so the rest of you conform" is a voice that echoes.

"After all, that's the kind of attitude which historically demonstrates that the beholder is about to have a revolution explode in his face."

I agree with you, but in which direction does the pendulum now swing?

"Really, you don't like homosexual sex, so it should be illegal to provide resources for gay people equivalent to what is offered heterosexuals."

Certainly, I do advocate help. Let's tell them that it's a bad idea.

Really, what I don't like is the idea that we are allowing our schools to advocate such things.

"It's that you don't want to respect people, and you'll only feel right instead of disrespectful if that's the way it is for all of society.

That's what it sounds like."

No, I have a problem with what I see as <a href = "http://www.glsen.org/">manipulation of future generations</a>. The difference between the OCA and those people you advocate is that people are given a choice to decide with a vote on the OCA measures, where as your fellows appear to prefer to use a back door approach in an attempt to educate our children in amoral concepts.

"You know, I don't extend certain parts of my life to obese people; it isn't that being 5'6" and 350 lbs makes you a bad person, but I think it's a far cry between not sleeping with you because I like the feel of a thin woman's ribcage or something dumb like that, and the notion that I'm not allowed to teach children that obese people aren't any different morally from thin people. If I prefer redheads, am I a bigot? If the rumor's going around that redheads are stealing the economy and we should throw them in concentration camps ... if I am not allowed to teach that such things are mere rumors and that redheads are no different from brunettes ..."

Well, let's assume that the bigots wanted to teach your children that genocide was OK, that there was no moral abligation for society to feed the obese? What if they wanted to teach your children to think like a bigot, would that be a concern for you as a parent? If you created a law that said, "Hey, there are bigots in this world, but we don't want bigotry promoted, encouraged, or sanctioned by our public schools." Would that be a reasonable law?

"People have sex. Or they don't. You choose to decide that a handjob or a blowjob is different because of the gender of the person servicing you. Period. At the core, you can say all you want, but there is the only difference between you and your mate, and ... how about Lance and Bruce? That when you're communing with your mate and spilling your seed, you are doing it with the participation of a woman, while Lance is doing it with the participation of a man."

Once again, there is a difference, and I suspect that even "Lance and Bruce" can see the difference. The question is whether we want our children to recognize that difference and whether the schools should redefine that difference.

"Beyond that, all else is hyperbole. Because conservatism asserts, in Mabon's universe, that these people spilling their seed with another man are somehow immoral. The idea comes up, and you're saying that it has to be accepted? What you're proposing is the denial of a person to defend themselves against slanders if they're paid by the public treasury. The reworded version of the petition still, whether intentional or not (whatever ), licenses open discrimination."

Well, I need to read it again, but I didn't see that in the first or second version. I think that any opportunity for an individual (parent or child) to make a decission contrary to the idea that homosexuality anything other than right will be contrived as discrimination.

"Look, we know that at a certain point, obesity becomes unhealthy. If we leave it at that, we can leave it at that. We also know that at a certain point, too much sexual intercourse can be unhealthy. How we feel about who's eating what, in either case, is only that: how we, as individuals, feel."

But it isn't that simple now, Tiassa. It has reached a point where you are told to eat it. People have had their fill of that shit sandwitch.

"If you're a gay kid, it's just a different world. As a heterosexual daughter, one might get thrown out of the house for having sex. (My aunt thought this was a brilliant idea once; guess where the daughter went?) As a homosexual, you aren't being kicked out for slatterny or whoring or anything else, but because you're gay."

Yes, the gay kid... I don't believe there is an easy resolve for the him or her. I can see where it is a disability.

"Y'all choose to discriminate against people arbitrarily. It's okay to hate, I suppose. But remember what happens when you bestow it on a community."

Yes...concentration camps for homosexuals. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

"Now, how is homosexuality being offered to children as something "good"? And, "good" as opposed to what? Bad? Acceptable? Neutral?"

<a href = "http://www.glsen.org/">If I wanted to dig around for the information, I could give you plenty, but I think you could find it for yourself as well as I.</a>.

"I will remind you that, in Oregon, it's the "responsible" conservative "families" that are contributing to global overpopulation. But that's right, the rest of the world has nothing to do with morality or right or wrong. It's all about what you want, right?"

That does seem to be every individual's motivation in life, and it does explain many things. Whose motivation should we defend?

------------------
It's all very large.

 

[Tiassa]

Bowser--

I'm aware it's redundant to remind you that I think you're reaching on this one, but I feel the need. However, that does not mean there's nothing to address.

Obesity was never a topic of serious discussion in my school.

Anecdote: Once upon a time, about fifth grade, several of our "respectable" kids beat a kid up on the playground for the crime of being fat. Though this took place at a time when nobody in my particular classroom was present, the thirty of us had to sit through forty minutes of furious lecturing. The value of senseless crime, I suppose, is that those who are actually paying attention, can gather some sense from it.

Okay, but do we hold open the doors to McDonalds and Burger king so the fat kids can indulge in their lifestyle?

Nor are we taking them to bathhouses on field trips. When did you last have to consider a field trip permission slip to send your kid to the Jolly Green Discipline Dungeon? Despite the "temptation" of vending machines full of cookies, Ho-Ho's, and other treats, we did not banish such things from our schools on the grounds that obesity is immoral. Yet when I look around at my contemporaries, they still cling to the snack-food culture. Why have lunch when you can grab a bag of chips and a Pepsi?

It's about a great many things. One conversion would be the idea that over eating is right.

The flip-side of that is that we teach nutrition in schools. Safe food? It's just encouraging your kids to eat ...

"Have you ever thought of the idea that what is best for yourself happens to coincide with what's best for the culture? Not in the, "I'm right, so the rest of you conform" manner that you and Mabon advocate. Rather, in the notion that when I look at what's good and bad, my first consideration might be myself, but really ..."

It sounds like you advocate sacrificing the needs of the few for the needs of the many. "I'm right, so the rest of you conform" is a voice that echoes.

You're right, the voice does echo. It echoes off the stone faces of all the people who stand agape, wondering, What the hell are you doing? Peace and unity do not come from divisive anger?

In the sense you've presented, we have some options for conformity:

* That a gay man or woman should conform by not taking pleasure in those things that give them pleasure, in order to conform with your will.
* That you can conform by choosing to not go out of your way to be afraid of people for the sole crime of being different from you.

There's more options, to be sure, but these are the most nakedly juxtaposed, that you would ask people to conform by going out of their way to be someone they're not, as opposed to asking people to conform by not going out of their way to find someone to waste their energies resenting for arbitrary reasons. That homophobes choose to be homophobes indicates to me that they would rather spend their time worrying about things they shouldn't be.

Given my distrust of Christianity, I don't feel I'm "conforming" to anything by reserving my comments to my chosen written forums, nor am I conforming to anything by simply permitting Christians to live and worship without demanding legislation against them, Constitution notwithstanding.

I do however, feel that I would be conforming to an artificial standard were I to choose to live within and participate in the enforcement of a law such as the one Mabon proposes.

You don't know exactly when Lance and Bruce are buggering. Why worry about it? Can you look down the street at their house and say, "Ugh! The sins that are taking place there right now." And if you could, well, you'd still be worrying about your own definition of sin.

I agree with you, but in which direction does the pendulum now swing?

The pendulum always swings, in times of revolution, toward individual liberty. Even Christianity would assert so, despite their anti-individualistic history. Those Christians who settled this continent did not think at first of how their way of life oppressed/suppressed other peoples. Rather, they trumped the individual liberty of worship. If the Revolution was a Christian one today, it would be seen as a usurpation, because it would demand that people forsake certain liberties already established in society. If the revolution was against Mabon's type of Christianity, history would note its stand on behalf of the individual against an institutional idea.

Certainly, I do advocate help. Let's tell them that it's a bad idea.

Really, what I don't like is the idea that we are allowing our schools to advocate such things.

Your "help" sounds like the embittered OCA after the '92 defeat. Homosexuality as a psych problem needed counseling. But then it was a genetic problem, so we needed to pioneer a genetic "cure". And then it was liberty, and that's just flat unacceptable to the OCA and its ilk.

What form does the advocacy take within the schools? Counseling? Well, what would you say to the obese boy whose ass got kicked in fifth grade? Does it change any if that boy is gay in tenth grade?

In my Catholic school, "Adam and Steve" was considered an intellectual joke. The problem is, that in a public school, there would be no reasonable method to reduce student-borne prejudice. Anything you do to prevent hate crimes, participatory discrimination, or otherwise, is somehow expressing approval. The law literally says that you cannot tell Jack that, "Because Sam is gay is no reason to beat him up."

No, I have a problem with what I see as manipulation of future generations.

Sounds familiar. 1950's ... Civil War ... anyone, anyone?

In other words, you would rather we teach future generations to seek out differences and resent each other by them? It reminds me of a theological entity who accuses.

The difference between the OCA and those people you advocate is that people are given a choice to decide with a vote on the OCA measures, where as your fellows appear to prefer to use a back door approach in an attempt to educate our children in amoral concepts.

You'll have to illustrate back-door approaches.

The difference between the OCA and reality is that the only reason people are "given" a choice to decide with a vote is because a bunch of screaming bigots won't let it rest. Who decided we needed a ballot measure?

Once again, there is a difference, and I suspect that even "Lance and Bruce" can see the difference. The question is whether we want our children to recognize that difference and whether the schools should redefine that difference.

Lance and Bruce can definitely tell the difference between a penis, a vagina, and an asshole. How they feel about those differences are their own business.

As to children recognizing the difference ... it depends on what's important, I suppose. The only reason I care about the difference is to avoid the confusion of, "Hi, howzabout it?" and the response of, "Sorry, I'm gay." Funny, then, that lesbians should react better to these advances than heterosexual women, but that's merely a side comment for my own amusement.

Redefining the difference .... Well, let's see: we constitutionally "redefined" people with dark skin to equal a whole person. We "redefined" women in order to recognize that yes, they are capable of voting. The British "redefined" women when they decided that a woman was not the legal property of her husband. As we've discussed in another post, people have redefined their faith, so that the Lord is not their bulwark against the fear of death, but their guns.

Redefining the difference: I propose the redefinition that we are not gay or straight, or black or white, or Christian or Muslim, or anything, except people.

Well, I need to read it again, but I didn't see that in the first or second version. I think that any opportunity for an individual (parent or child) to make a decission contrary to the idea that homosexuality anything other than right will be contrived as discrimination.

I looked through it again, and to punish a child for fighting is okay, but to tell him it's wrong to assault someone's person because of their artificial hatred for homosexuality is to behave "in a manner that would express approval of, promote or endorse homosexual or bisexual behaviors."

From the measure itself, since you brought it up ... I'm quoting your Oregon Live article:

Sexual orientation and homosexuality are defined as "yielding, whether in thought or deed, respectively, to urges or temptations to engage in sexual activity with members of the same gender."

Whether in thought or deed ... Sounds Orwellian at best.

So Mr Jones comes in and announces to the children that he whacked off last night to a picture of Freddie Prinze, Jr. Okay, you would have a point there. Of course, is it any less appropriate than Mr Jones announcing that he creamed to Uma Thurman? In other words, why do you need a law that singles out homosexual impropriety?

Otherwise, who the heck's going to know what you think? Is the impropriety in who Mr Jones beats it to? Or is it in the fact that he's describing it to his students?

But it isn't that simple now, Tiassa. It has reached a point where you are told to eat it. People have had their fill of that shit sandwitch.

It has only reached that point because those people have chosen to wallow in this mire. If they didn't walk into this diner, they wouldn't be served shit.

Furthermore, these people who have had enough of their shit sandwich are selfish. If you don't like the shit you're getting, leave the restaurant. Not only that, but it's their own shit they're eating.

Yes, the gay kid... I don't believe there is an easy resolve for the him or her. I can see where it is a disability.

You're half right at best. There's an easy resolve for the gay kid: live life. The solution for the homophobes is a little more difficult: get over yourselves; y'all have to invent harm to protest.

As to disability ... it's the parents' disability.

Yes...concentration camps for homosexuals.

You think you're funny, don't you

Whose motivation should we defend?

The motivation of the individual within their own sphere.

I have heard Christians of Mabon's ilk claim that their First Amendment right to speech is only honored when someone else is forced to keep silent. I have heard Christians of Mabon's ilk claim that their First Amendment right to religion is only respected when other religions are restrained. I have heard Christians of Mabon's ilk claim that their First Amendment right to assemble is only intact when gatherings on behalf of foreign ideas are suppressed. Since 1990, at least, Mabon and his ilk have argued that homosexuality violates their rights to speech (by the presence of "disagreeable" books in libraries), their rights to religion (it's a threat to the mortal soul to permit sin within our community), and their rights to assembly (no "gay-support" groups at local community centers).

Homosexuality also apparently violates a parent's right to privacy; to determine who's zoomin' who and to fire them from their jobs based on that inquisition, however, is a defense of privacy, according to Mabon's Menagerie.

Mabon's ilk, then, are defending:

* Their right to speech, by ordering gay ideas censored.
* Their right to religion, by purging society of ideas they find sinful.
* Their right to assembly, by removing the right of their opponents to assemble.
* Their right to privacy, by legislating thought.

Cowards and hypocrites at best. Provocateurs and tyrants at worst. These people are applying the least-educated solutions they can find to problems that wouldn't otherwise exist except that those lamenting them have created these problems specifically to have something to lament.

If I wanted to dig around for the information, I could give you plenty, but I think you could find it for yourself as well as I..

In other words, you have no answers of your own

However, I have perused the site:

* http://www.glsen.org/templates/news/record.html?section=12&record=480 talks about school library censorshp. If this is a legitimate beef of the homophobes, then they're definitely creating their own issues to lament.

* http://www.glsen.org/templates/chapters/record.html?section=37&record=446 is a horrifying story about (gasp!) gay kids. A short quote:

This young speaking group was composed of nine youth from the area, representing both GLSEN New York Capital Region's YouthPride and the Capital District Gay and Lesbian Community Council's Peer Support Group. Approaching the topics from both a personal as well as general perspective, the youth spoke with courage, eloquence and a keen sense of what their audience needed to hear. The primary substance of their presentation consisted of the issues that face LGBT youth in schools and those concrete strategies that can be utilized to effectively address and stop harassment in the hallways and classrooms of schools.

Terrifying, eh?

* http://www.glsen.org/templates/chapters/record.html?section=37&record=493 is again about gay kids, but it contains a harrowing description of legislation aimed at preventing such wonderful things as assaults.

This law, also known as AB537, prohibits discrimination and harrassment based upon actual or percieved sexual orientation in the state's schools.

But we always knew California was a nest of sinners, anyway, right?

* http://www.glsen.org/templates/news/record.html?section=12&record=467 ... Of course, we then end up with terrifying words from the mouths of babes:

"Some people are prejudiced and stuff against different families, like gay families. It's important to know that they can still be a family -- it doesn't have to have a mom, a dad, a son and a daughter," Fernando said.

Terrifying, eh? A 12 year-old stumping for unity?

* http://www.glsen.org/templates/news/record.html?section=12&record=100 is a story about Gay & Lesbian History Month in Michigan schools. Would Mabon's law accept this display? (Probably not.) Would Mabon's law accept a display telling gay kids they're wrong, and how to get "help"? (Probably, based on Mabon's joy over cutting off counseling resources to troubled children.)

* http://www.glsen.org/templates/news/record.html?section=12&record=87 is an interesting one. I'm of general agreement that "cocksucker" is not a word for school use, but consider the "summary" and the "objection":

Written by the famous Beat generation poet in 1955, the ground-breaking poem attacks racism and the repression of sexual orientation and political and academic ideas prevalent during the 1950s. But it is the graphic description of homosexual acts that offended some members of the community.

"It is X-rated," said the Rev. Gene Cross of Wesconnett Freewill Baptist Church. His daughter Christie is in Nerf's class.

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this doesn't belong in schools," Cross said. "I built picket fences and church walls to protect my daughter from homosexuality in this raw and filthy manner."

So it's X-rated, but not because of words like "cocksucker". Apparently, it's X-rating comes from its elements against homophobia. Very telling, I think, about the priorities of the preacher, at least.

There's a vital point in this debate: Is it the word? Or is it the homosexuality?
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/1281/poems/howl.html is a copy of the poem obtained from a Google search of "Howl" and "Ginsberg".

I've stumbled across an article on the history of "the right to be left alone", but I have yet to read it in its entirety. I'm sure some of that will come into play here.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited January 09, 2001).]

 

[Boris]

If I didn't just butt in here, I'd be out of character, wouldn't I?

To start it off, I just have one question with a follow-on for Bowser:

Do you seriously believe kids (or <u>anyone</u>) can alter their sexual orientation (I'm not talking about experimentation here, but about emotional attitudes and habitual practice as related to pairing and copulation)?

If so, what is the evidence upon which you base your belief?

A little context for these questions:

It seems to me that if your child is a heterosexual, you have nothing to fear from open discussion and/or social acceptance of homosexuality (unless you are against discussion of <u>any</u> sexuality, in which case you ought to lay off homosexuals and concentrate on the broader issue.) On the other hand, if your child is homosexual, you perform rape and torture if you try to break and reassemble your child into a heterosexual (which more than likely will not work, but quite likely will seriously mess up your child's life.) For a bisexual child, I suppose it's easier to adapt to a demand that they only grant life to one side of their heritage -- but mounting such a demand essentially infringes upon the sovereignty and individual freedom of that child's existence.

Sexuality is not really about sex. In a preponderance of cases, sex is a derivative of affection, and therefore sexual orientation is not about who sticks what where, but about who falls in love with whom. For example, if you've ever fallen in love with a member of your own sex to the point of fantasizing about intercourse with that person, then you are at least bisexual; if in addition you've never experienced such an affliction with a member of the opposite sex then it's possible you are a homosexual; if your episodes of homosexual infatuation are many and of heterosexual infatuation none, then you are almost definitely homosexual; if the converse is true then you are almost definitely heterosexual. I don't know if there can be true absolutes of sexuality, but a spectrum definitely exists. And it really is as simple as that. Nobody decides sexuality; sexuality is simply a part of personality. It merely manifests itself, and thus you discover who you are. Some people are socialites, others are hermits. Some are heterosexual, some are homosexual. You can't turn a hermit into a socialite. You can't turn a homosexual into a heterosexual. You can't turn a heterosexual into a homosexual. Personality is flexible, but it is not that flexible when it comes to its keystone features. And attempting to remake a personality is nothing but a senseless act of violence.

To reiterate, sexuality is about love. The history of human experience provides plenty of demonstration that love will not be legislated or mandated. But if you attempt to engineer love, be it socially or genetically, then you are attempting to dehumanize a key ingredient of what it means to be human.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited January 09, 2001).]

 

[Boris]

Many people have suggested that homophobes are in fact homosexuals hiding from the truth. As I re-read the analysis in my previous message, it occurs to me that perhaps a larger proportion of the population is actually bisexual, than are willing to admit.

I have seen extreme examples of heterosexuality, where it is all but impossible to imagine the person infatuated with a member of their own sex. However, there is a subtle but quite perceptible difference between such extremists and many other people who <u>declare</u> themselves to be just as extreme. I wonder if such declarations are driven by nothing but fear.

Given the religious stigma imposed upon homosexuality by the dominant religion, the social persecution directed against homosexuality, the structures of culture and law that insist upon differential treatment based on sexuality, the desire to fall in with friends and role models, the anguish of the unknown -- it seems pretty plausible that the vast majority of the bisexual population would live in mortal fear of exposing, exploring or even contemplating their bisexuality. If that is the case, then the most vehement attacks on homosexuality must arise from the most insecure among that bisexual contingent -- insecure either by personality or by the degree to which their own sexuality leans toward what they fear.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

 

[Bowser]

Tiassa,

"I'm aware it's redundant to remind you that I think you're reaching on this one, but I feel the need."

I feel the need, too. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

When I was a kid, the fat kid never took a whooping. Why? Because he had the weight advantage. Have you ever seen a fat kid move when he's pissed? You just as well stand on the tracks of a train.

"The flip-side of that is that we teach nutrition in schools. Safe food? It's just encouraging your kids to eat."

LOL!

"Nor are we taking them to bathhouses on field trips. When did you last have to consider a field trip permission slip to send your kid to the Jolly Green Discipline Dungeon?"

Tiassa, from what I have read, those permission slips don't always reflect the true nature of the field trip. Please don't ask me to go searching for the link. You would just question the motivation of my source as I would yours.

"You're right, the voice does echo. It echoes off the stone faces of all the people who stand agape, wondering, What the hell are you doing? Peace and unity do not come from divisive anger?"

Nor does it come from apathy. As for what I am doing...you supply the best arguments to date.

"In the sense you've presented, we have some options for conformity:

* That a gay man or woman should conform by not taking pleasure in those things that give them pleasure, in order to conform with your will.

* That you can conform by choosing to not go out of your way to be afraid of people for the sole crime of being different from you."

Possibly. Or maybe I am saying the homosexuality is one of those fringe elements that really shouldn't be involved in our classrooms. That doesn't keep individuals from practicing their thing. It does keep them from promoting their thing within our schools. Maybe there is a fine line there, but that has yet to be seen.

"I do however, feel that I would be conforming to an artificial standard were I to choose to live within and participate in the enforcement of a law such as the one Mabon proposes."

Yeah, it's a tough call when your individuality involves children. The "artificial standard" is for their protection. But homosexuality is so much more important.

"You don't know exactly when Lance and Bruce are buggering. Why worry about it? Can you look down the street at their house and say, "Ugh! The sins that are taking place there right now." And if you could, well, you'd still be worrying about your own definition of sin."

They probably have a book about their life in my kids school library. Hell, Lance and Bruce might be guest speakers and part of the "sensitivity" and "diversity" training at the elementary school.

"Cowards and hypocrites at best. Provocateurs and tyrants at worst. These people are applying the least-educated solutions they can find to problems that wouldn't otherwise exist except that those lamenting them have created these problems specifically to have something to lament."

Maybe the cowards should create a counter to the GLNSEN ambition, become more involved with local politics and local PTA. Why bother with a public vote when we can accomplish more by entering through the back of the house. Heck, we might even manage public money to further our agenda.

<hr>
If I wanted to dig around for the information, I could give you plenty, but I think you could find it for yourself as well as I..
<hr>

"In other words, you have no answers of your own..."

I didn't want to bore you with a bunch of links. My hope is that you have explored the other end of this issue with an open mind. I have been where you now be.


"I've stumbled across an article on the history of "the right to be left alone", but I have yet to read it in its entirety. I'm sure some of that will come into play here."

Well, please share.

<hr>

Boris,

"If I didn't just butt in here, I'd be out of character, wouldn't I? "

Just don't bare that thing, man.

"Do you seriously believe kids (or anyone) can alter their sexual orientation (I'm not talking about experimentation here, but about emotional attitudes and habitual practice as related to pairing and copulation)?"

I think kids can be induced to believe anything: Santa Clause, monsters in the closet, and angels in the clouds...just to name a few.

"If so, what is the evidence upon which you base your belief?"

See the above...^

"A little context for these questions:

It seems to me that if your child is a heterosexual, you have nothing to fear from open discussion and/or social acceptance of homosexuality (unless you are against discussion of any sexuality, in which case you ought to lay off homosexuals and concentrate on the broader issue.)

That would be the better solution. What do you think, Tiassa? Should we write a measure which denies school access to all sexual oddities? This does come down to which ideas are appropriate for children. I've been waiting for someone to make that suggestion, but nobody has ventured there.

"On the other hand, if your child is homosexual, you perform rape and torture if you try to break and reassemble your child into a heterosexual (which more than likely will not work, but quite likely will seriously mess up your child's life.) For a bisexual child, I suppose it's easier to adapt to a demand that they only grant life to one side of their heritage -- but mounting such a demand essentially infringes upon the sovereignty and individual freedom of that child's existence."

I have given him a firm opinion which he already mirrors. I can only hope it is infectious with the other children at his school. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

"Sexuality is not really about sex. In a preponderance of cases, sex is a derivative of affection, and therefore sexual orientation is not about who sticks what where, but about who falls in love with whom. For example, if you've ever fallen in love with a member of your own sex to the point of fantasizing about intercourse with that person, then you are at least bisexual; if in addition you've never experienced such an affliction with a member of the opposite sex then it's possible you are a homosexual; if your episodes of homosexual infatuation are many and of heterosexual infatuation none, then you are almost definitely homosexual; if the converse is true then you are almost definitely heterosexual. I don't know if there can be true absolutes of sexuality, but a spectrum definitely exists. And it really is as simple as that. Nobody decides sexuality; sexuality is simply a part of personality. It merely manifests itself, and thus you discover who you are. Some people are socialites, others are hermits. Some are heterosexual, some are homosexual. You can't turn a hermit into a socialite. You can't turn a homosexual into a heterosexual. You can't turn a heterosexual into a homosexual. Personality is flexible, but it is not that flexible when it comes to its keystone features. And attempting to remake a personality is nothing but a senseless act of violence."

"To reiterate, sexuality is about love. The history of human experience provides plenty of demonstration that love will not be legislated or mandated. But if you attempt to engineer love, be it socially or genetically, then you are attempting to dehumanize a key ingredient of what it means to be human."

I believe that we learn the skills of sexual interaction from others. That was my experience--I was given the tools by nature of my physical body, but the use of those tools was not a knowledge of my own. I believe that the sexual act is taught, and that love is an entity seperate from sexual intercourse(it is an emotion and desire of its own power).

I think that sexual desire is the base emotion on which sexuality and gender identity is then constructed, and that our sexual identity is the product of environment. You can love your father, mother, brother, sister, friends, and pets; but my bet is that you wouldn't have sexual contact with them beyond a kiss, hug, or handshake. My guess is that you were taught through devices of your envronment that sexual contact is limited within the confines of such relationships.

I don't see sexuality as being love, that's just two people using eachother for mutual benefit. Love can't be simplified or tied to sex in the sense that you suggest.


[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited January 10, 2001).]

 

[Bowser]

"Many people have suggested that homophobes are in fact homosexuals hiding from the truth. As I re-read the analysis in my previous message, it occurs to me that perhaps a larger proportion of the population is actually bisexual, than are willing to admit.
I have seen extreme examples of heterosexuality, where it is all but impossible to imagine the person infatuated with a member of their own sex. However, there is a subtle but quite perceptible difference between such extremists and many other people who declare themselves to be just as extreme. I wonder if such declarations are driven by nothing but fear.

Given the religious stigma imposed upon homosexuality by the dominant religion, the social persecution directed against homosexuality, the structures of culture and law that insist upon differential treatment based on sexuality, the desire to fall in with friends and role models, the anguish of the unknown -- it seems pretty plausible that the vast majority of the bisexual population would live in mortal fear of exposing, exploring or even contemplating their bisexuality. If that is the case, then the most vehement attacks on homosexuality must arise from the most insecure among that bisexual contingent -- insecure either by personality or by the degree to which their own sexuality leans toward what they fear."

<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif"> That thought pops up in these discussions each time. Homosexuality doesn't bother me as much as does its resistance to the idea that it doesn't belong in the classroom. It is doing more harm to itself now than any heterosexual could ever accomplish.

 

[Tiassa]

Bowser--

Homosexuality doesn't bother me as much as does its resistance to the idea that it doesn't belong in the classroom. It is doing more harm to itself now than any heterosexual could ever accomplish.

If we have no law preventing mention of the positive aspects of homosexuality then there is no legal mandate requiring teachers to promote or encourage homosexuality.

If we have a law saying that you can't talk about homosexuality in a certain way, it's sheerly censorship.

Yeah, it's a tough call when your individuality involves children. The "artificial standard" is for their protection. But homosexuality is so much more important.

Of artificial standards and protecting children, I again refer to Spooner's notion of enforcing ignorance in a mad quest to create the illusion of virtue.

And it's not homosexuality, per se that is more important than your or Mabon's bigotries. Rather, it's liberty, consistency, dignity, and the honor of a nation that doesn't need to invent new reasons to persecute people.

thanx,
Tiassa



------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

 

[Tiassa]

Bowser--

Well, let's assume that the bigots wanted to teach your children that genocide was OK, that there was no moral abligation for society to feed the obese? What if they wanted to teach your children to think like a bigot, would that be a concern for you as a parent? If you created a law that said, "Hey, there are bigots in this world, but we don't want bigotry promoted, encouraged, or sanctioned by our public schools." Would that be a reasonable law?

I think you're missing something fundamental about the notion of having a right.

I see nothing unreasonable about a law which restricts a person from behaving in a manner detrimental to others. Consider the World Church ... here, the philosophy seems to be that violent death is a good thing if it's minority ethnic groups doing the dying, and white people doing the violence. To advocate, encourage, or promote such a philosophy in schools would be instructing the children to go out and physically hurt someone else. It is already against the law to willfully compel a child to break the law, or to deceive a child into breaking the law.

If it's just philosophical bigotry you're referring to, that a law might be passed which makes it illegal to support White Supremacy as a classroom policy, I think you're still doing ok.

Just like I complain about certain Christians and their idea of Free Speech:

* We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, ad nauseam. It is within the scope of our Constitution, I think, for the government to provide for the common welfare by preventing class separation in forms such as white supremacy from becoming classroom policy.

As relates to homosexuals, you're not drawing a straight comparison. With homosexuality, you're dealing with ideas pertaining to how the law regards a person's right to govern their own conduct. With broader bigotry and its results, you're dealing with ideas pertaining to how the law regards a person's right to interfere with another person's rights. It's all well and okay to say you think whites are "better" than blacks, but when it comes to advocating social policies based on those bigotries, the education is hardly an attribute to the common welfare, wouldn't you say?

Lance and Bruce's homosexuality has done nothing to interfere with your life, except that you choose to be offended that they can be gay and survive in society. White supremacy, homophobia, and other bigotries covered by your what-if law do, indeed, interfere with your life.

Presently, you might as well be asking why we have laws against murder.

It's the difference between who is affected. That's why whenever two adults are criminally prosecuted for sex, it's called a consensual crime; as in, both parties involved consent to the act. This is not so when one person murders another. This is not so when one person fires another for being black, or gay, or having the wrong color of hair.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

 

[Bowser]

"If we have a law saying that you can't talk about homosexuality in a certain way, it's sheerly censorship."

I agree with you on that point, but then I also look at the CAPTIVE audience that MUST listen to the OPINIONS of those who speak. It's not as though our children can walk away from the class or have the option to argue a difference of opinion. The podium is owned by those who dictate the curriculum. I also doubt that free speech is a liberty given to all who desire access to our public schools. If we wanted to respect all diversities, then we would need to give voice to other extremes.

I want equal access to those kids so that I can express my assertion that homosexuality is a sad and ugly thing, in opposition to what homosexuals would have our children think.

A young mind, by virtue, is an empty reservoir. I see that reservoir as not being public domain.

"Of artificial standards and protecting children, I again refer to Spooner's notion of enforcing ignorance in a mad quest to create the illusion of virtue."

I don't give the last word regarding children and the value of virtue to any one group; however, as a parent, I would place higher value on virtue than, say, homosexuality.

I also see that virtue has no opportunity to grow when you plant the seed of sexual diversity. Is there virtue in the idea of encouraging growth and maturity before introduction of adult concepts regarding diverse sexuality.

"...it's liberty, consistency, dignity, and the honor of a nation that doesn't need to invent new reasons to persecute people."

Unfortunately, that goal which you claim to hold sacred sacrifices the individual right to make discriminating decisions. It requires that we LIKE everyone--that is, if they don't disagree with homosexuality. This in the name of diversity. It is very limiting and provacative.

That which you call persecution is, in my view, the clash of differing views, but it is also an illusion/delusion coddled by a few who use it as a tool/excuse for social reorganization. The inflated assumption of disadvantage is the excuse for activities which are underhanded. There are no concentration camps, Tiassa. There are only differences in values. But the absolutist cannot tolerate any thought which might suggest that homosexuality is wrong. Enter the re-education camps.

Liberty is the opportunity to make your own conclusions regarding such things. Because they have not the maturity to define life for themselves, children often barrow their conclusions from established authority. Children are at a disadvantage when served a one-sided view, a view such as that offered by a tainted mind.

These are young malleable minds which, in my opinion, the likes of GLNSEN desire to influence through our public schools. I parallel that effort with those of the NAZI's when they worked with on German youth through public facilities in an effort to create clones of the NAZI mind.

There is evidence that the new NAZI's require obedience to a certain opinion of mind. It is the totalitarian attitude which slithers under guise of "liberty, consistency, dignity, and the honor" when searching for absolute control. These are the same snakes who influence local governments to create laws which reflect the desires of a few, but ignore the liberties of many others.

How do I define "despotism" or, better yet "fascism."



------------------
It's all very large.

 

[Boris]

Bowser,

Maybe I'm not being explicit enough or something, so let me try to leave no detail to interpretation and see...

I think kids can be induced to believe anything: Santa Clause, monsters in the closet, and angels in the clouds...just to name a few.

Sexuality is not a "belief". Just like, for example, sense of humor is not a belief. You can't teach a child to be funny. You can't teach a child to be homosexual.

I did not ask you whether you think children can be made to believe something ridiculous. I asked you whether you seriously believe any human (child or adult) can change their innate sexuality. And if so, what evidence do you base such a belief on.

I have given him a firm opinion which he already mirrors. I can only hope it is infectious with the other children at his school.

I hope that "firm opinion" does not go along the lines of "all fags are sick perverts, stay as far away from them as possible, and if one comes near you beat them senseless so they never make that mistake again". Though the sad truth is, such "firm opinions" are indeed infectious. Of course, giving a child "firm opinions" sets the child "firmly" on the way of a lifelong mindless existence. Wouldn't it be that much better if the child was merely given facts and arguments, and allowed to form his/her own opinion? But of course we don't want to raise thinking, independent, intellectual individuals -- do we?

I think that sexual desire is the base emotion on which sexuality and gender identity is then constructed, and that our sexual identity is the product of environment.
...
I don't see sexuality as being love, that's just two people using eachother for mutual benefit. Love can't be simplified or tied to sex in the sense that you suggest.

Sorry, but I'm afraid reality is in conflict with your beliefs. Sexuality is manifested very early in life, much earlier than the onset of puberty and its attendant adult version of sexual drive. The question of nature vs. nurture in the formation of identity is hotly debated, but there is abundant evidence for both. That is, while certain aspects of identity are largely influenced by environment, other aspects are largely inborn. Sexuality is one of those things that appears to be inborn.

Sexuality is not taught. For example, our nearest animal relatives (the great apes) exhibit inborn sexuality that ranges from extremely heterosexual to extremely homosexual, and is manifested in a matter of months after birth (apes mature much faster than humans.) I think that in light of such an observation, it is pretty obvious that the same applies to humans. We are different from the great apes in certain higher cognitive processes, but we are virtually identical in our physiological and emotional drives.

And while during casual encounters sex is primary to love, in prolonged partnerships it is love that is primary.

Additionally, as children we learn to love way before we learn to have sex. Now come on, don't tell me you never had a crush on some girl (and likely more than one) when you were a boy. The only reason you are staunchly heterosexual (if you are being truthful about it) is because you never had a crush on a boy. Personally, I recall infatuations with members of the opposite sex dating way back to my first year of kindergarten. I also recall one or two infatuations with a member of my own sex as a child. So I'd say I'm mostly heterosexual, but not extremely so. So trust me, I speak from experience when I discuss a spectrum of sexuality.

Homosexuality doesn't bother me as much as does its resistance to the idea that it doesn't belong in the classroom. It is doing more harm to itself now than any heterosexual could ever accomplish.

I think sexuality does belong in a classroom. Unless you are arguing that any and all discussion of love must be banned from the classroom. Which would make it pretty difficult to teach literature, psychology, sociology or history. Or are you proposing that we can discuss in the classroom any aspect of human condition EXCEPT sexuality?? That is, it's ok to discuss crime, slavery, fascism, religion, history, science, language, literature, art, war -- but not sexuality??? I do not understand how one could argue for such a ridiculous restriction. Schools have one goal, and one goal only -- to purvey knowledge. There is no obligation or indeed incumbent purpose in schools to mold opinions or attitudes. The whole idea of PUBLIC schools is that they are impartial sources of information for the children. They must convey information and skills. That's all. And in my view, if a child is never exposed to a balanced discussion of sexuality during their entire education -- then their education is fundamentally lacking.

It is ridiculous to argue that <u>any</u> kind of information does not belong in the classroom. The classroom is a conduit of information. It certainly cannot be allowed to degenerate into a place where future generations are brainwashed into socially acceptable mindsets. To deny information is to deny freedom. I thought this was the land of the free?

It's not as though our children can walk away from the class or have the option to argue a difference of opinion.
...
I want equal access to those kids so that I can express my assertion that homosexuality is a sad and ugly thing, in opposition to what homosexuals would have our children think.

If children are discouraged from arguing a difference of opinion in the classroom, then the educational system is dysfunctional. A child must not be a passive receptacle for whatever the system wishes to deposit. A child must be an active and critical learner. If that is not happening, then the educational system is a failure.

And I would like to watch you convey the latter assertion in a private audience with a homosexual child. Are you really that cruel?

A young mind, by virtue, is an empty reservoir. I see that reservoir as not being public domain.

Baloney, and baloney. By the time a child gets to attend school, their mind is far indeed from empty. And if you don't want your child to be aware of the public domain, I suggest you keep your child locked up in your basement. Or at least send your child to a private school that shares your vision.

Public education, by virtue of being public, cannot be exclusive. It must necessarily be all-inclusive. Otherwise, it is institutionalizing a bias. Trust me, coming from the dearly departed Soviet Union, government-enforced ideology is not a good thing.

I also see that virtue has no opportunity to grow when you plant the seed of sexual diversity.

Shudder.

In other words, diversity is the opposite of virtue. Awareness is the opposite of virtue. Knowledge corrupts virtue. Impartiality is not virtuous.

Shudder.

Unfortunately, that goal which you claim to hold sacred sacrifices the individual right to make discriminating decisions. It requires that we LIKE everyone--that is, if they don't disagree with homosexuality. This in the name of diversity. It is very limiting and provacative.

I'm sorry, but how can ANYONE possibly sacrifice YOUR right to make discriminating decisions?! The public does not own your brain, last time I checked!

Diversity is not a requirement to like everyone. Rather, it is merely a fact of life. How you choose to relate to that fact, is what determines whether you are a decent human being or a hateful prick.

Diversity is limiting?????

That which you call persecution is, in my view, the clash of differing views, but it is also an illusion/delusion coddled by a few who use it as a tool/excuse for social reorganization.

Tell that to all the people who have been socially isolated, fired, humiliated and brutalized. Next thing we know, you'll be arguing that Holocaust never happened. I suppose the concentration camps that did exist, were nothing but a clash of differing views.

But the absolutist cannot tolerate any thought which might suggest that homosexuality is wrong. Enter the re-education camps.

I'm certainly not arguing for absolutism. I'm not out to censor or restrict your ideas. But I'm not about to present them to the exclusion of opposing ideas in an institution that is supposed to be neutral. You want your argument heard in schools? Then that's what you should fight for. But it does not give you license to silence the opposing argument. Ideally, both should be present since together they represent the true situation in contemporary society. Of course, when analyzed impartially it is fairly obvious which belief more correctly mirrors reality. So, I'm not afraid of competition because I understand my beliefs to be well-founded and reasonable. If you manage to convince me otherwise, then good for you, and good for me!

Liberty is the opportunity to make your own conclusions regarding such things. Because they have not the maturity to define life for themselves, children often barrow their conclusions from established authority. Children are at a disadvantage when served a one-sided view, a view such as that offered by a tainted mind.

But you argue to replace a one-sided view with another one-sided view. How does that combat the "disadvantage"?

And once again, if we are not teaching children to make their own conclusions rather than mindlessly trust some authority -- then we are failing as teachers. Rather, we become indoctrinators. If there's one thing I hate, it's indoctrinators.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

 

[Tiassa]

Bowser--

Help! I've fallen, and I'm laughing too hard to get up!

Just give me a second to wipe the smirk off my face ... okay. And I'll even tell you why I'm so damned amused: You're enacting--essentially, proving--part of my point.

I quote myself:

Mabon's ilk, then, are defending:

* Their right to speech, by ordering gay ideas censored.
* Their right to religion, by purging society of ideas they find sinful.
* Their right to assembly, by removing the right of their opponents to assemble.
* Their right to privacy, by legislating thought.

I'll concentrate generally on the first of those, though Mabon's religious standard in general invokes the second; though his current monster has evolved, it's worth mentioning that his 1992 petition would have enacted that third statement; the present petition actualizes the fourth statement.

Now, I quote you:

"If we have a law saying that you can't talk about homosexuality in a certain way, it's sheerly censorship."
I agree with you on that point, but then I also look at the CAPTIVE audience that MUST listen to the OPINIONS of those who speak. It's not as though our children can walk away from the class or have the option to argue a difference of opinion.

On the other hand, when and if homosexuality does come up, a teacher must either dismiss the subject altogether, or describe it a way that conforms with Mabon's law, as such. In this sense, the Captive Audience must listen to the propaganda of those who tell the speaker what to say. And while children do learn to ignore certain levels of shite in the general social conscience, and while they do have the option of having a different opinion, Mabon's law would prevent the school from allowing those children to express their opinions.

I want equal access to those kids so that I can express my assertion that homosexuality is a sad and ugly thing, in opposition to what homosexuals would have our children think.

I think this is at the heart of it. On the other hand, go for it: ask your local school board if you can lecture in one of the schools about the dangers of homosexuality. But, as you've pointed out with your note about giving voice to other extremes ... that's what happens when you consider things extreme based solely on your prejudice. I would ask what other extremes, but I'm honestly afraid, given your NAZI analogy, that you consider homosexuality on par with systematic genocide. I understand your point, but on the one hand I don't find homosexuality to be extreme, and to the other, I do feel that you're asking the schools to acknowledge that because it's an idea, it must then be legitimate.

Furthermore, as in the four criticisms I listed about Mabon's ilk, How do you expect to better express yourself by taking away the rights of others to express themselves?

A young mind, by virtue, is an empty reservoir. I see that reservoir as not being public domain.

In the proprietary sense, I agree with you. But who, then, has that right? To that notion, I quote an 80's comedian who escapes memory (most likely Garafolo, Poundstone, Sather, or Johansen): You need a license to have a dog; anyone can have children. It seems you're asserting that a parent's right to intentionally indoctrinate a child into bad ideas is their sovereign right. To the other, I agree.

But that's the problem with proprietary schemes like we find in a social structure that worships capitalism. The mind is public domain in the sense that you can take any measures you want to filter, censor, or taint incoming information all you want. You cannot, however, govern what that child--that human individual--perceives. Case in point: had I paid attention to my father, I would be exactly the kind of capitalist who thinks it's appropriate to pay children twenty cents a day to do dangerous, unregulated factory work because, "They wouldn't have a chance to support their families otherwise." I knew there was something fundamentally amiss between what I perceived and what I was told. Had I followed my parents' example, I would avoid the blue-collar altogether because "those people" are the kind of people who "have problems".

But when we look at the mind as a simple entity, transcendent of all proprietary concerns, it is truly a public-domain device. What it perceives, it perceives, and nobody but the mind's person can own it.

I generally knew when my parents were being bigots. I generally knew when they were way off the mark. My father, too, believed at one point in his life that he had the "right" to teach us what he chose. But he soon realized that the reality of it was that the world at large had a greater impact on my formation than he did.

But you're asking for the right to create a person exactly in your image; what is your responsibility, then, to ensure that the chosen image works harmoniously with the reality of society? Raising racists may be your right, but it's irresponsible. Such it is with homophobia.

I don't give the last word regarding children and the value of virtue to any one group; however, as a parent, I would place higher value on virtue than, say, homosexuality.

Virtue is an illusion. It is a false template applied to reality in order to ease the perceived savagery of human life. Virtue is comparative to the people who hold it. Whereas Mabon looks upon his crusade to "protect" children from homosexuality as virtuous, I see those defending human freedom and civil decency as virtuous.

However, you would teach your child homophobia as a virtue? What has that homosexual done that your child should fear him or her based solely on their homosexuality?

I also see that virtue has no opportunity to grow when you plant the seed of sexual diversity. Is there virtue in the idea of encouraging growth and maturity before introduction of adult concepts regarding diverse sexuality.

That sounds, first off, a little like an argument about drugs: Tell the kids how bad they are, and they won't do them. The fact is that drugs are closer to your kids than they are to you. My own mother took only a short while to realize that when it came to substance, I knew more of what I was talking about than she.

Encouraging growth and maturity has little to do, in the practical sense, with the introduction of adult concepts, such as those regarding sexuality. I saw Monty Python's Meaning of Life by chance on television last night, and the sex-education scene still just floors me. But the reality is that kids who watch TV, listen to Top 40 music, or read books, are exposed to sexuality before their parents are ready. Have you seen a "teen" magazine, lately? I heartily agree that growth and maturity are very good things, but so is acceptance of other people. So is social harmony. I see a better harmony when we don't worry about things people do that aren't hurting other people. I see a poor excuse for harmony when that harmony only exists because the discord is bound and gagged.

It seems that virtue, by the Mabonian/Bowserian standard we're examining, has something to do with not only when you have sex in life, but whom you do it with. This virtue is the virtue valued by people with nothing better to think about. To me, the virtue of sexuality comes with a number of things, but hardly the position or gender of my partner. As applies to the existing dichotomy between peoples, I assert that virtue is tolerance.

Unfortunately, that goal which you claim to hold sacred sacrifices the individual right to make discriminating decisions. It requires that we LIKE everyone--that is, if they don't disagree with homosexuality. This in the name of diversity. It is very limiting and provacative.

I didn't think much of my belly until I heard it laugh at this one. I'll tell you what the goal I pursue sacrifices: The "right" (ha!) to persecute anyone based on an arbitrary standard. Discriminating decisions, or the decision to discriminate? You can hate who you want, Bowser. You just can't go out of your way to hurt or reduce them in any way.

You're trying to pass a law telling teachers what it is illegal to say, and limiting their allowable expressions to a set of religious-based principles, and you're telling me that the liberty to be happy with another person is sacrificing the individual right to choice?

Bowser: What Lance and Bruce are doing, they are doing to and with each other. What you and Mabon are doing, you are doing to other people. That is the simplest reason why your hatred cannot become law.

That which you call persecution is, in my view, the clash of differing views, but it is also an illusion/delusion coddled by a few who use it as a tool/excuse for social reorganization.

A clash of views, then, that can best be resolved by causing the law to force one set of views to shut the hell up. Something about rights?

You're asking to suspend the civil rights of other people, based solely on a religious belief (without which, we would not be having this debate, since non-religious homophobes honestly have better things to worry about, in general), and their response to your aggressive legislation is an excuse to reorganize society? Who's supporting the gays in this, then, the UN-Jewish Conspiracy?

But the absolutist cannot tolerate any thought which might suggest that homosexuality is wrong.

Wow ... That is one big pile of bull-puree. In other words, an absolutist is a person who thinks it's wrong to proactively discriminate? That an absolutist is a person too stupid to see that it's no matter that you're invoking your freedoms to revoke another person's freedom--and the same freedom, at that?

I've got to get your dictionary. With it, I can never be wrong!

Liberty is the opportunity to make your own conclusions regarding such things.

That's right. And, just so I have it clear, I would like to write this in Mabonese: Liberty is the opportunity to make your own conclusions regarding things that you will not allow other people to consider.

Or: Liberty is the opportunity to supersede the rights of your fellow human beings.

Either will do, I think.

These are young malleable minds which, in my opinion, the likes of GLNSEN desire to influence through our public schools. I parallel that effort with those of the NAZI's when they worked with on German youth through public facilities in an effort to create clones of the NAZI mind.

There is evidence that the new NAZI's require obedience to a certain opinion of mind. It is the totalitarian attitude which slithers under guise of "liberty, consistency, dignity, and the honor" when searching for absolute control. These are the same snakes who influence local governments to create laws which reflect the desires of a few, but ignore the liberties of many others.

So I know I have it clear: You're talking about the same Nazis who executed a couple hundred-thousand people for the crime of being perceived to be homosexual?

I think you've ventured into the Realm of Offensive Misperceptions.

First you suggest that people are offensive for simply existing, and now you have to reach into that pile o'manure?

* There is evidence that the new NAZI's require obedience to a certain opinion of mind.

Let's think about that for a moment: Beyond all else, impropriety is impropriety, regardless of whether it's hetero- or homosexual. Or is it that it's appropriate to discuss anal heterosexual intercourse in the same way that it's inappropriate to discuss anal homosexual intercourse? Thus, I say impropriety doesn't discriminate 'twixt genders.

In addition to the law that covers both hetero- and homosexual impropriety, you're now asking to pass a law which covers homosexual impropriety, and redefines (that word again) a comparative impropriety that is not evident in heterosexual impropriety.

* As the law is, it is inappropriate to discuss certain sexual issues with children.
* As the new petition is, the same things that specifically pertain to homosexuality would be inappropriate. However, there now exists a standard of propriety which extends to render inappropriate homsexual conversation which would be deemed appropriate were the subject at hand to be hetersexuality.

Now, by instructing teachers what they are not allowed to say, based solely on an artificial standard derived primarily from one of the world's many religions, are we possibly attempting to require obedience to a certain opinion of mind?

How do I define "despotism" or, better yet "fascism"?

Since we all eschew the confines of dictionary definitions, I won't bother.

But since I find the words I would have to stick in your mouth in order to assume an answer, I'll let you go ahead and do that.

Let's talk about the despotisms, then, of the past, as applied to that context. Those feminist despots! How could they infringe on a man's right to vote? Those dark-skinned despots ... and that Lincoln! How dare they infringe on a man's right to freely labor for his wealth!

Those Commie despots? Well, in this case, you'd be asserting, How dare they infringe upon a man's right to exploit the toils of the peasantry! All other offenses of Communism aside, we might point out that this is the stage of despotism you would be asserting were I to stick those words in your mouth: Those faggot despots! How dare they infringe upon a man's right to disenfranchise them!

I'll let you take a swing at facism.

Bowser, I sometimes wonder if you aren't a closeted (per se) advocate of tolerance and acceptance. This last post of yours, for instance, could not have illustrated one of my vital complaints about Mabon's brand of reality any more clearly. Frankly, I don't think Rush Limbaugh could have done it better.

thanx much,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

 

[Bowser]

Boris,

"Sexuality is not a "belief". Just like, for example, sense of humor is not a belief. You can't teach a child to be funny. You can't teach a child to be homosexual.

I did not ask you whether you think children can be made to believe something ridiculous. I asked you whether you seriously believe any human (child or adult) can change their innate sexuality. And if so, what evidence do you base such a belief on."

Well, I suppose this is where we disagree. If I had clinical evidence to offer in support of my belief, then I would give it to you. But I don't, so in support of my argument, I offered examples which I had hoped would serve to show you that children are capable of believing and acting on very questionable ideas. Here is another example which might might better illustrate the capacity of children and adults when presented with a questionable idea:

<a href = "http://www.fmv.ulg.ac.be/schmitz/Holocaust/eg1.html">Here's an example</a>...<a href = "http://www.fmv.ulg.ac.be/schmitz/Holocaust/medexp01.html">another example</a>...<a href = "http://www.fmv.ulg.ac.be/schmitz/Holocaust/maidan02.html">and more</a>...<a href = "http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/youth.htm">wow, this looks queer</a><a href = "http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/statistics-losses-age.htm">it's an adult game, but who really pays for the play?</a>

I understand that this doesn't supply a direct answer to your specific question, but I think it does supply ample proof that the base impulses of both adults and children can be channeled in a defined direction.

<hr>
Tiassa,

"Help! I've fallen, and I'm laughing too hard to get up!

Just give me a second to wipe the smirk off my face ... okay. And I'll even tell you why I'm so damned amused: You're enacting--essentially, proving--part of my point."

<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif"> But you failed to see the parallel. Here's where our views come together, Tiassa. My child is not an instrument for furthering your ideals or the needs of the homosexual community. My child is not your responsibility or the responsibility of the homosexual community. There is no doubt in my mind, as a parent, that I understand my child better than any other person. To be fare to all people concerned, and considering the "devisive nature of the subjects of homosexuality and bisexuality," our public schools should not "encourage, promote or sanction homosexuality or bisexuality."

You might want to place the above in a context which better fits your views--religious influences might better suit your tastes.

Much of this issue is fueled by the moral bias of others...you are correct there. The conservative side of this issue doesn't enforce, however, any specific opinion or conviction with this measure, other than the idea that no single group should have dominance in school curriculum, much less in the area of sexualuality and--your favorite--propriety.

As I had once said before, children (our schools) are a battleground for adult ambitions. I would prefer to leave those schools alone, and as neutral ground, but I see others entrenching their ideals there exclusively.

<hr>

I wish I could address all of your comments, but my three-year-old is demanding my attention. I think she has settled into her bed now, but I can never be certain that she will stay in her bed, much less go to sleep. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif">


------------------
It's all very large.

 

[Bowser]

Tiassa,

You might enjoy the irony which this link offers. I know it gave me a good laugh <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">
http://www.nazi.org/

They sound familiar... http://www.nazi.org/current/issue6.html

LOL! http://www.nazi.org/party/faq.html

An interesting link from that very same site. http://www.blackplague.org/holocaust/war.html


------------------
It's all very large.



[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited January 11, 2001).]

 

[Tiassa]

Bowser--

My child is not an instrument for furthering your ideals or the needs of the homosexual community. My child is not your responsibility or the responsibility of the homosexual community. There is no doubt in my mind, as a parent, that I understand my child better than any other person. To be fare to all people concerned, and considering the "devisive nature of the subjects of homosexuality and bisexuality," our public schools should not "encourage, promote or sanction homosexuality or bisexuality."

So in all the world, it's still just about homosexuals?

In other words, in order to be fair to your prejudice against the moral worth of homosexuals, we should make it against the law for anyone in a school to acknowledge that a homosexual has moral worth?

Something comes to mind about the definition of fascism.

You might, then, say, that your child is not the responsibility of the mathematical community, the historical community, the scientific community, the legal community, or any other community whatsoever. Duh! This is understood. But it seems that the public schools, then, are only there for you.

There's a lot of things about the world that I don't like. But I'm not going to pass a law against human beings just because I disagree with them: they have to do something wrong first. Survival is a law of nature; I'm sorry that you resent the fact that human beings are trying to exist in society. Obviously, the gay will to live at all is a deviation from nature.

Crap, man ... you don't actually care whether your values are constructive or not. You don't actually think your kids are smart enough to figure things out for themselves. Or else you are so insecure in your position that you have to buttress it with the law. It's all about your kids, isn't it? Well, what about them?

Twenty years into the future: "Hi, Dad, how's it going? How's Mom? Listen, Dad, I need to ask a favor. I need to borrow some money so I can sue my faggot boss for firing me. He violated my rights and fired me because I was tired of the stupid faggot sitting in the next cube. I mean, the guy dresses weird, and wears horrible cologne and that voice! And I finally lost it. So I told him to take his faggot cologne, and his ugly faggot clothes, and his stupid faggot voice, and get his faggot ass away from me. And they fired me! They said I was being a bigot! It's a stupid faggot conspiracy! You gotta help me win this, Dad!"

Remember, this is self-defense. Everything was fine until the faggots invaded your son's place of work, eh? Then everyone was prejudiced against the heterosexuals, eh?

Bigots breed bigots. End of story. It may be your right, but something's gotta give. A bigot in jail is a bigot in jail, except there's usually a dead or seriously hurt person in the world to land them there. That is why bigotry is unacceptable in schools.

If you want your children to succeed in the world, teach them how to work with society. Stop demanding that the world conform to you, or they will learn the same.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited January 11, 2001).]

 

[Boris]

Bowser,

While Tiassa has an entirely valid argument that I haven't even touched because he's doing such a fine job (i.e. the Golden Rule), all I'm trying to demonstrate to you is that your fears of homosexuality are 100% unfounded and misdirected.

Well, I suppose this is where we disagree. If I had clinical evidence to offer in support of my belief, then I would give it to you. But I don't, so in support of my argument, I offered examples which I had hoped would serve to show you that children are capable of believing and acting on very questionable ideas.
...
[a bunch of nazi-related pictures]
...
I understand that this doesn't supply a direct answer to your specific question, but I think it does supply ample proof that the base impulses of both adults and children can be channeled in a defined direction.

There's a simple and fundamental thing that you don't understand. There is a critical difference between ideology and personality. For example, the ideology of communism is always defeated by contrary qualities of personality -- that's why communism does not work. Communism is ideology; greed is human nature. Homosexuality is not an ideology, it is human nature. There is a vast difference between ideology and human nature. They are not the same thing.

And concerning clinical evidence, since you don't have any I once again ask why do you believe that sexual orientation can change. How did you come to such a belief? What chain of deductive logic led you to it?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

 

[Tiassa]

I'm sorry, but I simply must dredge up this old question, if only because I don't think I've ever understood any answer I've ever been given; at least, never understood enough to agree.

* We seem to be arguing about the merits of legislating against homosexuality. What the Hell is so wrong with homosexuality that we need to legislate it out of our culture?

For instance, What is so wrong about murder that it needs to be illegal?

Well, we've agreed that murder ends a person's life, and we've agreed this is bad, since life and death is a fundamental standard of good and bad. To get around this, we would all need to get guns, anyway, in order to shoot ourselves and experience the Good Things About Dying.

Murder is a problem because it hurts people individually and collectively.

Drunk Driving is a problem because it leads to people not so much making bad choices, but to not being aware of the choice they make to kill someone with their car. There is a scientifically-demonstrable difference between the performance of a driver either drunk or sober that we see the need for our drunk-driving laws. The alternative, of course, would be to make it as difficult as possible to die in a car wreck, but who can afford $1 million cars? Drunk driving is bad because it places other people in imminent danger.

Why is rape bad? Because it hurts someone other than the rapist!

Now ... can someone please explain what's wrong with homosexuality that requires legislation against it? And I would prefer something a little more substantive than the recent retort:

"You don't know exactly when Lance and Bruce are buggering. Why worry about it? Can you look down the street at their house and say, "Ugh! The sins that are taking place there right now." And if you could, well, you'd still be worrying about your own definition of sin."

They probably have a book about their life in my kids school library. Hell, Lance and Bruce might be guest speakers and part of the "sensitivity" and "diversity" training at the elementary school.

Probably, maybe, might be .... Unfortunately, probablies, maybes, might-bes, would-bes, wanna-bes, or other theoretic assertions are part of the problem. As we observe, these indefinite projections are a best-response scenario to the question of "How do you know ...?

So, really, I'm now officially curious, because I don't think I've ever figured out the simplest question: What are homophobes afraid of?

And, please remember that hetero- and homosexual are merely labels we use to identify people. I have difficulty accepting that something a homosexual does is "wrong" if a heterosexual doing the same thing is "not wrong". Since we're all people, I figure we should be entitled to participate in a common right and wrong, as opposed to inventing right and wrong so we can include only those we already like.

What is so scary about homosexuality that people like Lon Mabon have to hide in their #4 Ivory-colored Paper Tower? I can derive plenty of ideas about what's up based on things Mabon and his ilk have said, but I'd love to hear a definitive explanation of what's wrong with homosexuality.

What is so scary about homosexuality as to encourage people to thought control?

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot