It's ba-ack.

[Bowser]

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

No, it doesn't stop there. They just happen to be the more aggressive players at this time. Ask me if I would be concerned had Lon Mabon began inserting his religious convictions into the school curriculum. I know you are asserting just that, but I don't see it that way.

Religion is a personal matter. I believe that sexuality and its moral implications are also a personal matter. You, however, wish to impose your personal values on the general public. The act of sanctioning homosexuality within our public schools is, in reality, adopting a public policy which values the morality/immorality of a select group. That, my friend, is BS. Your cause is no more righteous than that of any religious fanatic. It favors a slanted view.

How would you feel if the various religious doctrines began creeping into the school curriculum? Would you question that form of diversity? Do you think that activity would be appropriate? Would you view that as being "evil" in light of your own personal values.

Look, if I wanted my children to be good Christians, I would want to send them to a private school which offered that moral indoctrination within its curriculum. If I wanted my children to be homosexual or amoral, I would want to send them to a school which offered such opportunities. Since I cannot afford a private school for my children, I must rely on my public schools to offer a neutral education, one which doesn't impose the values of others on my children, an education which leaves the moral curriculum to the child's parents.

The moment our educators begin suggesting that homosexuality has any moral value (good or bad), they are then imposing a moral view which might favor any one group. The very act of bringing the subject to the classroom could subvert the moral docterine of many parents. As an example, I don't believe that the subject of anal sex is appropriate for my son or his fellow students. Some people with other ideas might think otherwise and claim that to avoid the subject of anal sex is only promoting ingnorance. I also believe that homosexuality is not a healthy or moral choice. How would the encouragement, sanctioning, and promotion of homosexuality serve anyone other than homosexuals and their sense of morality? Does such a thing embrace all values? I don't think so. Does it ignore the values and sense of morality which others hold dear. Yes.

Better to keep such a devisive subject out of our schools. You cannot introduce it into our schools without involving morality. You cannot foster it without suggesting a moral dictate.

"But it seems that the public schools, then, are only there for you."

The schools are there for everyone, even for the few homosexual kids. My belief is that our public schools service a hodgepodge of individuals. It should not journey into the realm of sexuality or religion or any other area which is best reserved for private schools. You might hold sexuality as something seperate from religion, but for many it is closely tethered to religion and moral docterine.

"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."

You keep returning to that same idea that this measure will somehow give license to heterosexuals to brutalize homosexuals. It does remove the effort of the homosexual community to propagate their moral dictates by instrument of public education. Sexuality is a sensitive subject, just like religion.

"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?"

Values in equity are my priority, Tiassa. I don't see the same return for everyone when we allow a small group of people an unfair advantage in regards to public policy.

"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?"

<HR>"The average yearly income of a homosexual is $55,430.00 (most of which is disposable because many have no children to support). The average of the general population is $32,144.00. The average of blacks is $12,166.00.

59.6% of homosexuals are college graduates. 18.0% of the general population are college graduates.

49.0% of homosexuals hold professional/managerial positions. 15.9% of the general population hold such positions Where's the job discrimination?"<HR>

"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."

Perverts breed perverts. Enf of story. It may be your right, but something's gotta give. A pervert in jail is a pervert in jail, except there's usually a molested or seriously hurt person in the world to land them there. That is why perversion 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."

I think it better to see through the cloak of crap which hides the motivations of others. They will then see authority in their own hearts, not in my heart or in your heart or in any other heart.








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

 

[Boris]

Tiassa,

I'm not a homophobe, but I believe I understand what drives them, so I'll take a stab at the answer that seems to make the most sense from my vicarious perspective.

Basically, two things that on the surface appear separate. The first thing, of course, is the culture/religion-driven dehumanization and demonization of homosexuality. But I think it ultimately goes back anyway to the second, fundamental thing: egotism.

Egotism plays two roles. First of all, as a barrier to empathy, it drives people to deride and ridicule anything they find strange (e.g. anything that disagrees with their own perception of the world.) Egotism prevents people from realizing that their viewpoint and their feelings do not constitute an absolute reference frame, to invoke a relativistic analogy. This makes such people largely incapable of respect for those who do not have similar mindsets or who are guided by differing impulses.

The second manifestation of egotism is, in effect, the selfishness of the genes. Simply enough, parents desire their children to procreate, so as to continue the lineage. Obviously (unless recent technological progress is taken into account) homosexual individuals do not procreate. Thus homosexual offspring is, in effect, a "dud". Given the investment parents make in their children, they naturally do not want that investment to fall through. Such parental selfishness plays nicely together with the fear that children or indeed adults can be somehow seduced or converted into homosexuality. While such a fear is utterly unfounded and unsubstantiated, it is great enough to take on a life of its own. It becomes a well-entrenched myth, around which selfish parents rally on common ground; in addition to a false belief it becomes an even more pernicious social phenomenon whereby its adherents gain a sense of comradery in their "fight against evil" which in turn both amplifies their collective efforts at persecution and serves as feedback to reinforce the myth. It becomes a vicious circle of sorts -- kind of like racism, for example. And the only way to breach the loop is to bring its fundamental assumptions back into the foreground and, then expose their incorrectness.

P.S. I forgot the third thing previously mentioned. That being the insecurity of those who are not extreme heterosexuals. If the majority of the population are heterosexual, the drive to fit in provides another powerful reason to resent anything that might deflect one from the course of the majority. Well, anyway, the first and third you can't do much about; it's the second that can be successfully attacked. Besides, the third can ultimately be traced back to egotism as well.

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

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

 

[Boris]

Bowser,

Perverts breed perverts. Enf of story. It may be your right, but something's gotta give. A pervert in jail is a pervert in jail, except there's usually a molested or seriously hurt person in the world to land them there.

Do you seriously believe that all those college-educated homosexuals in managerial positions are out there molesting and hurting people???? Come on man, are you not even the tiniest bit critical of your own views? Do you <u>never</u> question your conclusions? Do you <u>ever</u> pay attention to what comes out of your mouth?

As for Mabon's law... I will not agree that sexuality must be banned from classroom simply because Christianity demands it. Christianity shall not guide the content of public education, period. But what annoys me the most, is that the law is out to ban the act of "sanctioning" homosexuality. What the hell does it mean, "to sanction"? Does it mean that if the teacher tells her students that homosexuals are people just like anyone else -- the teacher is sanctioning homosexuality???

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

 

[Bowser]

Boris,

"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 have read accounts where individuals have turned from their heterosexual orientation to a homosexual orientation, and the opposite. I would think that you have read the same.

"...deductive logic...

Bisexuality comes to mind. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

Boris, I think you will insist on asking this until I'm forced to search for some documentation which shows that an individual can be seduced into crossing the gender barrier, despite the fact that people are often enlisted into the service of ideas which contradict even the most basic human instinct, such as "dying for one's country."

<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

<hr>

"What the Hell is so wrong with homosexuality that we need to legislate it out of our culture?"

I thought we were talking about public schools and children.

"Now ... can someone please explain what's wrong with homosexuality..."

Better to ask what is wrong with the idea of sexual diversity and school children.

"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 ...?"

You are absolutely correct, Tiassa. I will let you know what I find on the shelves. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

"What are homophobes afraid of?"

I think it is more anger than fear. I guess it depends on your own personal values and how other people try to impose their values on public life. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

"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."

Wow, a tongue twister! I think some people are now embracing their labels. They really want to be a separate class of people. There might be an advantage in such a thing.


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

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

 

[Boris]

Bowser,

I have read accounts where individuals have turned from their heterosexual orientation to a homosexual orientation, and the opposite. I would think that you have read the same.

I have read accounts where individuals have been abducted by flying saucers and molested by sentient lizards. And any single act of homosexual <u>intercourse</u> does not a conversion to homosexuality make. Sexual orientation is not about mere intercourse. It is behind that which arouses the desire for intercourse. For some, women do it. For some, men do it.

Most of the "accounts" I've read, came from religious fundamentalist sources who wanted to demonstrate the efficacy of "conversion" away from sin, by God's grace no less. However, I also remember reading somewhere a scientific study that showed most of the "heterosexuals" who "converted" from a homosexual lifestyle end up reverting back to their previous orientation. The "conversion" is nothing more than coersion; it is like getting someone to admit, under duress, that four fingers held in front of their face is actually five fingers.

Your problem, Bowser, is that you are <u>prejudiced</u>. That means you are not going to go out and actually acquaint a homosexual (or just so much as listen to one without presupposing that you are being deceived), to find out what it's really all about. You have already made up your mind, and you refuse to consider the possibility that your beliefs are fubar.

<hr>

Now, as to propriety... Are you saying you are against <u>any</u> discussion of sexuality in school, or are you saying that you are against discussion of <u>homosexuality</u>?

If the former, then you are naive to believe that your children don't know about sex even all the way back in kindergarten. Even you must remember how early in life you found out where babies come from. Older children learn from adults. Younger children learn from older children. You can't stop it. When sexuality is discussed in school, nobody suggests that the teacher preach about how wonderfully glorious sex is (that would be bias.) Nobody suggests that the teacher glorify one particular sexual orientation (that would be bias.) But it is indeed possible, and appropriate, to discuss in class such facts as the very existence of diverse sexual orientation, social and historical attitudes toward sexuality, the influence of sexuality upon cultural evolution, etc.

If the latter, then you are advocating for bias, which is unacceptable in a public school. It's rather simple -- your position is intractable.

<hr>

As to Mabon's law, I believe if it ever passes, it will be striken down for being unconstitutional. We are guaranteed equal protection under law. That means if there is any harassment against homosexual students, teachers are obligated to intervene. Such intervention conflicts with the clause of the law that deals with establishment, sanction, etc. of homosexuality.

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

 

[Boris]

Hey Bowser,

I've got a thought experiment to show you just how fundamental sexuality is, and that it has nothing to do with morality or ideology.

Take adults -- homosexuals, bisexuals, heterosexuals. Show them porno movies of homosexual and heterosexual intercourse. Measure their level of arousal (e.g. by rate of pulse or breathing, by degree of erection, etc.). Homosexuals will be aroused by homosexual intercourse, heterosexuals by heterosexual intercourse, and bisexuals by both. That's my prediction, anyway.

The catch is that arousal precedes and supercedes deliberate control. Most of the time, you cannot just sit and order your body to be aroused. You have to either observe or imagine something that arouses you. If it's the case of observation, then you are not even an active participant; you merely perceive something (perhaps even accidentally) and that arouses you.

No matter how you've been socially conditioned, the arousal mechanism will not be controlled. It is a much more primitive and anscient component of human brain function than any components that deal with deliberate actions.

Now one way to deal with homosexual arousal when it is detected in one's body, is to observe it in disgust and guilt, and ascribe it to the temptations of the devil. Of course, it was not too long ago when the same was done even to heterosexual arousal. Thank goodness the Puritans no longer run this country. Though unfortunately, vestiges of their attitudes remain.

A better way to deal with sexual arousal once it's perceived, is simply to make a note of it and let it be. You are what you are. If you insist upon denying your own qualities, you are setting yourself up for a rocky ride -- not to mention that you live a fake life.

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

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

 

[Tiassa]

Bowser--

No, it doesn't stop there. They just happen to be the more aggressive players at this time. Ask me if I would be concerned had Lon Mabon began inserting his religious convictions into the school curriculum. I know you are asserting just that, but I don't see it that way.

I will remember that the next time a group of people get tired of being unnecessarily repressed by their society that they need to shut up because they're just being too aggressive.

When did humanity earn the sudden stasis of being eternally correct?

* Women voting, then, is wrong.
* Dark-skinned people living freely in this country is wrong.
* The "witches" whose only crime was to be perceived as different in order to warrant torture, rape, and execution, were too aggressive, and therefore wrong.
* Heck, it seems to me that converting Rome to Christianity, then, was aggressive and wrong.

How many thousands of social changes has humanity resisted, only to discover progress after the change occurs?

I assert that society is better when gender is not a disqualifier for voting.

I assert that society is better when people are not enslaved for their skin color.

I assert that society is better when people can freely practice their religions.

I assert society is better because of its ability to abandon outdated, worthless, or arbitrary "values" and "virtues".

What you cannot change is that, at the core of your argument, is the notion that persons who practice homosexuality are lesser, and therefore deserve to be actively repressed.

Establish what's wrong with homosexuality without invoking the tradition of religous standards.

I doubt you can do it.

You, however, wish to impose your personal values on the general public

You're right. I want to impose myself on the public in order to cause them to stop imposing on other people's homes. Do you understand what you're implying? That for someone else to be equal is imposing on your right to be equal? Hello? That's how equality works: You're equal. Equality is not, "We're only equal when I'm better than you."

Is this only about a classroom? Do you think this has nothing to do with privacy? Do you realize that employing a gay teacher is encouraging, promoting, sustaining, advocating--ad nauseam--his manner of conduct?

It goes a little like this:

* Establish that homosexuality is wrong (WRONG)
* Make law such as Mabon's proposal
* Allow Mr Jones, the gay teacher, to keep teaching
* One day, student Joey asks about gay people
* Mr Jones answers directly: "The State of Oregon has instructed me to inform you that homosexuality is detrimental ... (ad nauseam)"
* Joey asks why
* Invoke (WRONG)
* Joey asks, "But if gay people (WRONG), how come they can teach here?"
* And suddenly you have cause for the dismissal of your gay teachers.

I would like to know what (WRONG) equals. So far, the best notion of that (WRONG) I can discern is that it's flat wrong.

You're asking for the discriminatory dismissal of public employees, at the least. Censorship will be the standard regard for works of art and intellect. There will be no schoolborne answer to flagrant, dangerous bigotry. And what is the reason why? What is that (WRONG) that I can't pin down?

Mad-Lib? Homosexuals are bad because _______ . . . ?

And there's already a law against forcing religion in the public schools; but then again, Mabon doesn't care a rat's behind for the Constitution, so I would imagine that's part of the problem.

The act of sanctioning homosexuality within our public schools is, in reality, adopting a public policy which values the morality/immorality of a select group. That, my friend, is BS. Your cause is no more righteous than that of any religious fanatic. It favors a slanted view.

Yes. It favors the slanted view that All people are created equal. The only "select groups" whose morality/immorality is at stake here are the conservative-bigot agitators and their selected target.

How would you feel if the various religious doctrines began creeping into the school curriculum? Would you question that form of diversity? Do you think that activity would be appropriate? Would you view that as being "evil" in light of your own personal values.

Again, we already have a law against religious doctrines creeping into school curricula. It's why Christians can't force Jewish kids to say the Lord's Prayer in school.

Since I cannot afford a private school for my children, I must rely on my public schools to offer a neutral education, one which doesn't impose the values of others on my children, an education which leaves the moral curriculum to the child's parents.

Rather, you want to teach your children how to impose their own values on other people's children ....

Neutral .... You're the one who used the word. If you can't figure out that censorship based on arbitrary religious standards is anything but neutral, then, well, at least I understand more about why you support such a proposal.

The moment our educators begin suggesting that homosexuality has any moral value (good or bad), they are then imposing a moral view which might favor any one group.

So what you fear, then, is Mr Jones getting up and saying, "Kids, in order to succeed in the world, you need to be homosexual."

(I'll get back to you when I stop laughing )

... okay ...

Now, I remember a day in ninth grade when a kid suggested that we should take all the people with AIDS and put them on an island and let them die, since they were all faggots anyway. Under Mabon's law, how would a teacher handle that? It seems okay to defend AIDS patients and to qualify the notion that not all people with HIV are gay. However, it would be, under Mabon's law, illegal to contradict the connection between "let them die" and, "since they're all fags, anyway."

Do you understand what you're saying? If you do, it's not apparent.

The very act of bringing the subject to the classroom could subvert the moral docterine of many parents.

I'll steal a notion from my Dad here, for starters. He once suggested that one shouldn't worry about unconstitutional laws, since the only people who had to worry were breaking the law, anyway. He never did explain to me why prostitution's illegal. (Because it's dangerous to the girls. So we arrest them: I was 10 when I figured out this was a crock of shite.)

Thus I would assert that the only moral doctrine it might subvert would be a moral doctrine which requires superficial labels as leverage in an imaginary moral fight. I know people who objected to cross-racial heterosexual unions, and objected on many of the same terms you do. I never understood what would make a person immoral merely because they dated someone of another ethnicity, but I do recall a time in my own life when such ideas as two skin colors in bed was bad, bad, bad. And, yes, we've had stupid laws before that make interracial marriage illegal.

Whose moral doctrine is being subverted by the idea that homosexuality is not grounds enough to hate someone, hurt them, ostracize or exclude them, demean them, harrass them, assault them, steal from them ....

Whose moral doctrine is being subverted by the idea that homosexuality is not grounds enough to fire someone from their job? Whose moral doctrine is so stupid as to believe that the gender of one's sex partner affects their qualifications for employment?

As an example, I don't believe that the subject of anal sex is appropriate for my son or his fellow students. Some people with other ideas might think otherwise and claim that to avoid the subject of anal sex is only promoting ingnorance.

Sure. Let's pull sex ed, so that you have to go to college to get it. I'm in agreement. In case you wonder about my own morals, ever (which is not offensive, since we debate them frequently), it might be relevant that part of my sexual mores arise from the idea that I learned the mechanical aspect of sexuality from an encyclopaedia. In fact, when my Dad caught me getting a hummer, I snapped back, "I'm surprised you know what it is." The line worked, and sent him stratospheric. See, he painfully avoided "The Talk" at the stake of his life. Of course, I got it from the World Book at age 12 or 13, so I guess all our encyclopaedias have to go, since they might contain language which appears to endorse, encourage, or otherwise fail to condemn homosexuality according to Mabon.

Brilliant idea, Bowser. A friend of mine is adopted. Her mother, apparently, chose not to have children of her own. So goes the family story, which she proudly tells, the mother's parents were unable to bring themselves to explain sexual reproduction to her. So she was taken to a doctor, who gave her a pamphlet and a pep talk. Two days later, she returned to the doctor's office, threw the pamphlet down, and declared, "I don't believe a word of it!" And this was before she had religion. What I'm after, Bowser, is that I know a 60 year-old woman who still doesn't know where babies come from. But she knows enough about sex to dislike gay people ....

I'm willing to yank sex ed from schools. I will not, however, be held responsible for the population boom that comes as that generation of students graduates high school and begins reproducing like rabbits. I'm perfectly happy to blame stupid sexuality on the moral structure which led parents to teach children dumb ideas.

How would the encouragement, sanctioning, and promotion of homosexuality serve anyone other than homosexuals and their sense of morality?

You're right. Would you please, now, insert where you have used the term "homosexuality", the following terms?

* Women
* African-Americans
* Hispanics
* Obese persons
* People not Christian (choose a major religion)

The answer to the question is simple: Accepting (sanctioning) homosexuality as valid conduct in society creates a more diverse yet stable social condition whereby people have one less self-imposed standard to compete over.

In other words, people are more productive, less belligerent, and generally happier, when they're not worried about discrimination and bigotry from either end. I think history will generally back me on this, both recent and longer-term.

Does it ignore the values and sense of morality which others hold dear. Yes.

To stop Mabon only creates the condition of "ignoring" (your word, not mine) the values that lead to bigotry. If you hold dear your right to hate someone based on something as arbitrary as their association to another person, you've got problems with your priorities.

Better to keep such a devisive subject out of our schools. You cannot introduce it into our schools without involving morality. You cannot foster it without suggesting a moral dictate.

* Better to not make such an issue divisive. Stop proposing that it's a gay person's fault for being in the way of a bigot's fist. Yet you would, in order that you might eliminate recourse.
* You cannot introduce anything into our schools without pissing someone off. As our time at Exosci has demonstrated, people are pissed off about Gravity. To be a little more considerate of it, though ... are you failing to "introduce" something to the educational system by proscribing their methods of handling the situation should the idea come up? Let me guess, in your school, nobody ever used bigoted words, so there was never any serious discussion of why you shouldn't use them.
* What is the moral dictate of hating someone? What is the moral dictate of equality? You want to be equal enough to make people unequal. Congrats on reducing our need for a dictionary; words seem to have no meaning whatsoever.

The schools are there for everyone, even for the few homosexual kids. My belief is that our public schools service a hodgepodge of individuals.

Right, and you're proposing that we should offer services to some people, and not others, based on an arbitrary perception of what morality is.

It should not journey into the realm of sexuality or religion or any other area which is best reserved for private schools.

Mostly, I'll note this for the next time we debate free speech. Oh, wait, we are.

You might hold sexuality as something seperate from religion, but for many it is closely tethered to religion and moral docterine.

Bowser, do you recall anyone ever chiding me that I couldn't blame a religion for what its people do with it? I don't recall who that was (a few over time), but I must thank you for demonstrating my point. Those people who connect sex to religion and moral doctrine fear for their souls, and develop such ideas under that threat. Now, perhaps it hasn't occurred to you, but If sexuality and religion are closely tethered, that is the fault of the religion itself. It is not the fault of the religious people: they're being blackmailed. It is the fault of the religion itself.

You keep returning to that same idea that this measure will somehow give license to heterosexuals to brutalize homosexuals. It does remove the effort of the homosexual community to propagate their moral dictates by instrument of public education.

A little note: Rudy Giuliani made up a story about potheads last year in order to step up his drug campaign. His courts are screaming, though, about the backlog, so the plan is to arrest the potheads and then drop the charges; the mean jail stay is just under 22 hours. Giuliani has admitted that the punishment is the processing time. Thus, the point is to punish without trial.

In that vein, I see the possibility of a similar point in open brutalization. I had several people with nothing better than an afternoon's detention to waste jump me; the point wasn't necessarily to kick my ass, but to land me in detention, since everyone knows you have no right to defend yourself in schools. Hell, even if you lie there and take it, you still get punished.

Guess what, Bowser? So your kid goes and beats up Johnny for being a faggot. Whether it's true or not that Johnny is a faggot, your kid can be punished for fighting. What the school will not be able to do is tell your child that even if Johnny is a faggot, it's no reason to beat him up.

You're right, though. The schools have no place affecting the motivation of a child's conduct.

Oh, and it also removes the homosexual community's effort to stop arbitrary harrassment. But that's okay, right? They're dirty faggots who need to be harrassed, eh?

Sexuality is a sensitive subject, just like religion.

It's ideas like that that create atheists where once there was faith. Sexuality is something we can quantify, either empirically or objectively. Good luck matching up for God.

By your juxtaposition, religion is mere fiction.

I don't see the same return for everyone when we allow a small group of people an unfair advantage in regards to public policy.

I'd laugh, but my gut hurts too much; you're a star, man!

The advantage of that small group, of course, being the right to be treated equally under the law.

"The average yearly income of a homosexual is $55,430.00 (most of which is disposable because many have no children to support). The average of the general population is $32,144.00. The average of blacks is $12,166.00.

59.6% of homosexuals are college graduates. 18.0% of the general population are college graduates.

49.0% of homosexuals hold professional/managerial positions. 15.9% of the general population hold such positions Where's the job discrimination?"

The only reasons income is important in that note are: A) the child factor, as you've noted, and B) the college graduate number, which you have noted.

Well, frankly, I don't see where the college graduate numbers come in. I dropped out, and it has nothing to do with gays. I got really, really drunk, and stayed that way for a couple of years.

The professional/managerial numbers might have something to do with the college graduate numbers? Why am I not pissed that I'm not in management? Maybe because I don't have a degree?

Let's see, then ... Job Discrimination:

* So, a gay man chooses to go to college, and thus gets a reasonable management job with a phat salary. I, on the other hand, drop out of college with a booze problem, avoid consistent work for years, and land in a service position at a large corporation that I'm generally not a fan of. I do not see this as job discrimination.

* A friend of mine just knocked up his girlfriend. Great, there goes your future, boy. You were 23 with a good job and a lot of ambition. Now the two of you are spending the next 18 years putting family before your job, which, if you have a family, is as it should be. Is it job discrimination if the guy who chooses not to have a family can get the job done better? Maybe it is if it's a hiring policy. But you'll have to show me the mechanism of discrimination before a statistical disparity demonstrates workplace discrimination against heterosexuals.

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if those figures are one of the two or three motivating factors of homophobia.

By the way, did you include family-related deductions (you know, for irresponsible reproduction, buying a house beyond your means, &c) in your financial figures? Two recent (last four years) tax laws have excluded gays; one a family deduction, the other a home-sale exemption.

Perverts breed perverts. Enf of story. It may be your right, but something's gotta give. A pervert in jail is a pervert in jail, except there's usually a molested or seriously hurt person in the world to land them there. That is why perversion is unacceptable in schools.

Are we then defining pervert to mean "Child Molester" exclusively?

Check out the history of the Castro District in SF. Check out Hardwick v. Georgia (1986, the latest I have from the Supreme Court and sodomy laws). In neither of those cases do I see anyone hurt or molested except the consenting homosexuals. Sure, improprieties occur everywhere, but are you actually failing to realize that we've been throwing people in jail for years for being "perverts" when nobody is getting hurt by the "perverts"?

There is a humongous line between perversion and tolerance.

I think it better to see through the cloak of crap which hides the motivations of others. They will then see authority in their own hearts, not in my heart or in your heart or in any other heart.

How noble.

They will then see authority in their own hearts while reconciling reality to any number of lies you might have told them while they were growing up.

thanx,
Tiassa


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

 

[Bowser]

I'm short on time today. Hold your thoughts until I get a chance to read and respond to your last comments, please. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif"> You place so much effort in your arguments, they deserve consideration.

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

 

[Bowser]

Borris,

Even the <a href = "http://www.behavior.net/cgi-bin/nph-display.cgi?MessageID=56&Top=-1&config=sexualissues&uid=nC1M8.user&new=0&adm=0"> Ph.D's are arguing your question</a> give it a look <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

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

 

[Tiassa]

I thought about being sarcastic, but it didn't fit my mood. Anyway, another public school district is standing up to artificial standards in the best way they know how: Accept that life dicates this fictional standard is something that one must deal with at some point, and then deal with it.
http://www.glsen.org/templates/news/record.html?section=12&record=495 (BTW ... that's a really cool news site, Bowser ... thanx! )

Excerpted:

The decision means student and personnel sections of the board's new policy manual say the district is committed to an environment free of discrimination based on an individual's sense of being female or male.

There are now nine protected categories in the personnel section: race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity.

In the student section, the board also added socio-economic status and physical characteristics to the list.

First off, it's no surprise when I say Congrats to the school board for figuring it out. And a big to Scott Morgan, of the board's opposition, for his demonstration of the problems of homophobia:

Morgan, who led opposition to the provision, said he needed to be convinced that Lawrence schoolchildren wouldn't be served by people struggling with a gender-identity crisis.

Wow. Does that mean we get to institute policies against hiring religious people (Constitution notwithstanding, apropos Mabon) because I need to be convinced that schoolchildren will not be served by people struggling with hallucinations and delusions of grandeur?

At any rate, the bit about socio-economic status and physical characteristics are quite intriguing as well.

The following is a little lyric about these ideas from the band Floater:

Slowly, the albatross comes down.
And witless, his body meets the ground.
And like him I find peace,
And like him I find release
As the bastard son of all that works out wrong.

You've got a lot to teach me about,
I'm just lucky I guess.
Ain't nobody talkin' 'bout the clothes I been wearin;
Take it from me, I've been blessed.

This isn't just about being gay. This is about ideas, laws, and rights that affect all people, regardless of whom they have sex with.

But, anyway, good luck in Kansas, all, and a big to the fearmongers on the schoolboard, because they're also comedians.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited January 12, 2001).]

 

[Bowser]

Boris,

Maybe this is what you desire:

<hr>

"Social Environment

Even in subprimate mammals, mating behavior can be modified by infant care and socialization. In human beings and other primates, the ultimate effects of prenatal hormones depend more extensively on social environment, beginning with parent-infant pair bonding. Hormonal history combines with
upbringing to determine whether a primate will be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual."

Dr. Money is Professor of Medical Psychology and Pediatrics, Emeritus, at
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

<hr>

I don't want to deny you the whole text, so I give you the link:
http://php.iupui.edu/~flip/reading11.html

You might find some support there for your position. It does lend some strength to your argument. Far be it for me to hide any possible truth.

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

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited January 12, 2001).]

 

[Boris]

Bowser,

While reading the main post on the link you provided, I get the impression that here's a supposedly intelligent guy who has lived with his wive for 27 (is it?) years, and after all this time he thinks that despite being a "wonderful mother" she has some neurosis just because she left him and entered into a homosexual relationship. I wonder if he would still classify her a neurotic if she left him for another <u>man</u>.

The idiot actually suggests in all seriousness that sexuality cannot be governed by genes -- based on his alleged expertise, no less! Well, what the hell does he think makes boys different from girls? Dress styles?

There's no doubt that homosexuality is a deviation from the "norm" -- the norm being defined by the set of predominant traits of a species. But that is no reason to treat it as some kind of illness. After all, if we go that far then we must label albinos as "ill".

Whether sexuality is encoded directly by some genes, or emerges during development of the fetus as major brain structures take shape, or forms later in life under influence of hormone levels -- and likely all of the above -- it is <u>NOT</u> a "psychological" phenomenon. It's been linked to large-scale brain structure! Even if it affects sentience, it does not arise from it, and is not a matter of sentient domain, period.

One could argue that although homosexuality is not a psychosis, it is a developmental or genetic disorder -- and therefore should be classified together with such things as the Down's syndrome. However, other than affecting sexual identity, homosexuality is not known to impact any other areas of brain function. And to claim that if a man feels himself to be more of a woman, then that man is somehow inferior -- is an insult to all women. And vice versa for a woman. Therefore, homosexuality is not an illness. It is merely an aberration from the norm, an extreme case on the spectrum of sexual identity.

[edit: whoops, this refers to your previous post, not to the one you just made...]

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

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited January 12, 2001).]

 

[Boris]

Bowser,

You might find some support there for your position. It does lend some strength to your argument. Far be it for me to hide any possible truth.

Some support? You must be joking! I have basically said everything the guy says, word for word, but not with as high a degree of technical detail. I didn't want to unduly burden our nonspecialized audience. Did you really think that my opinions come from thin air?

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

 

[Bowser]

"But, anyway, good luck in Kansas, all, and a big to the fearmongers on the schoolboard, because they're also comedians."

<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif"> Click your heels three times, Tiassa: "There's no place like home. There's no place like home..."

I'm glad you enjoy the link. It is what it is, and that depends on what you believe.

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

 

[Bowser]

"You must be joking! I have basically said everything the guy says, word for word, but not with as high a degree of technical detail."

So, you agree with me that

sexual orientation can be influenced?

homosexuals are victims of their environment?

That sexual orientation is a belief or state of mind where homosexuality is concerned?

<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif"> What are you trying to prove, Boris?

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

 

[Tiassa]

Since we're bringing in the experts, I thought I might drag in the president of the National Educators' Association, the largest teachers' union in the country.

I mean, since we're focusing on homosexuality in the schools, why not include an educator from time to time?
http://www.glsen.org/templates/news/record.html?section=12&record=477

Q: Some gay educators have suggested that teaching is second only to the military in being the most closeted of professions, with its own "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Do you agree?

A: I think it depends on where you are. There are certainly many gay and lesbian educators who don't hide their sexuality, and they are protected by law in several states. For those not protected by law, it's obviously more difficult. Sometimes it depends on the culture of the community in which they teach. There are some places where it would be particularly hard to be out of the closet. But I think things are changing, and all will be better off for it.

I'll even offer up a few shallow dismissals:

* He's a union boss
* He's a bureaucrat
* He's part of an ultra-liberal organization allied with the gays and the Jews and the United Nations to overthrow common decency and force us all to become gay love-slaves.
* He's ... what?

Anyway, it's an educator's assessment (however brief) of how the issue of homosexuality relates to public schools.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited January 12, 2001).]

 

[Boris]

Bowser,

What you get out of a reading does not depend on what you believe, but on whether you actually paid any attention while reading. If you actually read that link with due care, you wouldn't have asked these questions, because it answers them in no uncertain terms...

sexual orientation can be influenced?

During prenatal and early development (early meaning toddler) -- yes. Later in life -- emphatically, absolutely, nonequivocally NO (unless one considers some kind of weirdly specific brain lesion.) But even during early postnatal development, as has been cited by Dr. whomever in that link you provided, sexuality can, at best, bend -- but never break. Prenatal development is the strongest influence.

So no, by the time your children reach school age their sexuality is pretty much set and cannot be influenced. Once the brain has formed, it has formed. You can't reshape it.

homosexuals are victims of their environment?

No more than heterosexuals are victims of their environment.

That sexual orientation is a belief or state of mind where homosexuality is concerned?

Sexual orientation is NOT a "belief or state of mind". To quote from your source,

Despite popular assumptions, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality
are <u>not</u> preferences. Each is a sexuoerotic orientation or status. They are
no more chosen than a native language is.
...
Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality all have both prenatal and later causes,
which interact during critical periods of development to create a
long-lasting or <u>even immutable</u> sexuoerotic status.

That was from the beginning and the end of the very first paragraph. Note that I'm straining with all my willpower, resisting the urge to curse and rage at this time. Let's just say my esteem of your cognitive abilities is pretty low right now.

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

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited January 12, 2001).]

 

[Tiassa]

http://www.americansfortruth.org/Private_Schools.html

So I thought I'd post a Christian perspective. I like this one. The author even complains about public spending in Massachusetts amid an article about private schools. In fact, the author has to resort to calling schools "ritzy" in order to avoid the simple fact that these are private Christian institutions that are adopting sexual identity policies.

I find it amusingly typical, or else typically amusing. But it sounds like it's quite consistent with more conservative perspectives offered here at Exosci.
http://www.americansfortruth.com/UnitedWay.html

And this is from an article titled: Kerusso Ministries Founder Says United Way Attack On Scouts Could Presage Attacks on Christians.

It's worth noting that the only "evidence" of anti-Christian "attacks" comes from a declaration by the ministry's founder:

"It’s just one small step from the Boy Scouts of America to the local church pulpit," Johnston said, noting the increasingly brazen attacks by homosexual activists against Christian institutions that believe homosexuality is sinful.

I liked that. And if anyone has any information on the following, I'd appreciate it (italic emphasis by me):

Homosexual militants are pressuring the United Way -- and schools, local governments and businesses -- to stop sponsoring the Boy Scouts.

Troops of armed gay men forcing you to get a merit badge in Taking it Up the Ass? I just don't get it.

And there's even a revisit to late 1999's Exosci debate about the rape-murder of a young boy.

it's a fun site; a wonderful embodiment of the new conservative.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)

 

[Tiassa]

I simply must throw this one in.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm

Source Ambiguity: Hebrew is an extremely ambiguous language. Some passages in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) may be interpreted in many different ways. At most, only one of those translations would be correct, and be inerrant. But there is no way in which we can know for certain which translation is the correct one. Consider Leviticus 18:22. According to one source, a word-for-word translation is:
"And with a male thou shall not not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination."

(The word "abomination" is a mistranslation, in terms of modern English. The Hebrew word means something like "ritually impure". Some other examples of "abominations" are: a person eating lobster, the offering of an animal which has a blemish for ritual sacrifice, a man getting a haircut or shaving his beard, or a woman wearing jeans or slacks, a person eating a cheezeburger.) This passage is normally interpreted in English as something similar to:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (RSV)

That rendering would condemn all male homosexual activity. Or, if the translators really wanted to stretch the meaning of the passage well beyond what the original Hebrew states, they might want to read a condemnation of lesbianism into the verse, as in:

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin. (NLT)

But it could be argued that an equally accurate rendering is:

"Men must not engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed; it is an abomination"

A couple of days ago, I posted a question:

What the Hell is so wrong with homosexuality that we need to legislate it out of our culture?

Failing any real answers, I'm left sifting through anti-gay pages on the web, and finding a scary connection: I see little from the non-religious community. Even "pro-family" labels derive from religious ideas; I can call two gay people raising a kid, "pro-family", except that the label means you're defining what a family is for sheerly political reasons.

But what I'm left with is a bunch of paranoid rhetoric and opinion, as well as a host of religious concerns primarily centered around the religion of the christos.

But even they are on sketchy grounds.

Can someone give me a good reason to legislate against homosexuality? If not, could y'all bigots please go home and fume about it somewhere other than the publicly-financed ballot? Believe what you want, but if you expect society to respect the practice of open bigotry, well, you're going to meet resistance.

But as the religious doctrines which advocate homophobia and hatred seem to have less credibility than their supporters would ask you to believe, what's the problem?

So there are religious reasons that don't hold up, even within the religion.

And there are reasons having, apparently, little to do with God that have yet to achieve merit.

But all of the reasons to legislate against homosexuality seem completely arbitrary at best, hollow and calculated at worst.

It shouldn't be in the public schools. It shouldn't be in the private schools. I'm starting to wonder if that conservative sect's hatred of the rest of society indicates that the religion has nothing better to offer. I'm starting to wonder if the allegedly non-religious homophobes have anything better to do than sit and fume.

It really does seem as if people are shouting just to complain about the noise.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)

 

[Bowser]

Boris,

Your previous argument which I am trying to disprove:

<hr>
"No matter how you've been socially conditioned, the arousal mechanism will not be controlled. It is a much more primitive and anscient component of human brain function than any components that deal with deliberate actions."<hr>

To be honest, Boris, I'm hoping you are right about the above statement which you had made earlier in this thread, but I think I have found some scientific/ clinical observations which state that (in more refined terms) a boner and individual sexual identity are reactions to environmental conditioning.


Rather than give you my thoughts of what was written, I will just show you an actual quote:

<hr>
"In human beings and other primates, the ultimate effects of prenatal hormones <blink>depend more extensively on social environment, beginning with parent-infant pair bonding.</blink> Hormonal history combines with
upbringing to determine whether a primate will be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual."
<hr>

Try it this way, Boris:

<hr>
"...depend more extensively on social environment...
...beginning with parent-infant pair bonding.
<hr>

Granted, he didn't define that thought to any conclusive answer which will satisfy our question regarding the full spectrum of a child's developing years, but he didn't limit that thought to any segment of developement. Also, I think that he does state rather clearly that sexual identity is not fixed prior to birth, and that the "social environment" has more to do with the developement of a childs sexual identity than does the physical/hormonal characteristics of a child--but that's not to say that those physical/hormonal characteristics don't play a role in that developement.

"Sexual orientation is NOT a "belief or state of mind". To quote from your source"

Where did you find that assumption in the below quote?

<hr>Despite popular assumptions, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality
are not preferences. Each is a sexuoerotic orientation or status. They are
no more chosen than a native language is.<hr>

Tell me, Boris, were you born speaking your native language? How did you acquire your native language?

<hr>"Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality all have both prenatal and later causes,
which interact during critical periods of development to create a
long-lasting or even immutable sexuoerotic status.<hr>

"Belief" might have been a poor choice of words. Perhaps I should have said conditioned state of mind.

I offered that link because I thought the two of you had the same views in many ways, with the exception of the above. It is the first I have found in my search for some clinical, scientific evidence which will support my position concerning your argument. It's doesn't completely affirm my stand, but it does supply you with something to gnaw on while I continue my exploration.

You might find some support there for your position. It does lend some strength to your argument. Far be it for me to hide any possible truth.

"Note that I'm straining with all my willpower, resisting the urge to curse and rage at this time. Let's just say my esteem of your cognitive abilities is pretty low right now."

I suppose I'm too generous (considering that this is a debate) but I thought it important to share more than just select quotes. I think I understand your rage, however (<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon3.gif">), Boris. Don't let it blind you.


<hr>

P.S.
I thought it was an interesting mention about the headhunters and their reasoning for coercing BJ's from young boys. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

<hr>

Tiassa,

I've been trying to follow your posts but I've been busy with Boris and real life. It looks like you're writing a book in the background. You're too eager, man. I had a chance to briefly look at only one of your links and really haven't had much of an opportunity to give your last several postings serious consideration.

Slow down. you will get your turn. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

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



[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited January 13, 2001).]