"Conservative" Freedom?

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by nostatic
man-man. ok. woman-woman? You bet!

Am I missing something?

duh

woman-man-woman!

[Superman]

Are you guys still fighting about this?

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by RPKESQ
Bigotry, thy name is religion.

Who exactly are you ranting at? Or are you just moaning about religion in general?

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Why does your view have to lead to a line for others to follow?

It doesn't. I don't think anyone has to toe my line. Just don't make the government teach your version of the line to my kids. It's my job to raise my kids, not the governments.

[MichiganMat]

Ever thought about home-schooling or private schooling, Rick?

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by nostatic
Rick, there aren't that many choices. Beastiality? I'd say no...the animal is a victim. It doesn't have a choice of consent. But then again, I suppose how highly people value animals. Other than that, what are the options? Adult-minor, no, we've already talked about the victim. Adult-Adult, yes. Polygamy? Why not? Is there a victim there? I haven't thought very deeply about it.

man-man. ok. woman-woman? You bet!

Am I missing something?

Yeah. Let's try an experiment. Head over to the NAMBLA website or maybe www.ilovemysheep.org. Go onto their discussion boards (it's ok, just use the alias FastPat). Explain to them how that you have scientific research proving that the child is a victim and that what they are doing is wrong. Guess what? You will find yourself in the same discussion we are having now, the only difference being that you will be in my position and the NAMBLA guy will be in yours. All of a sudden you will find yourself being called a bigot and you will be asked why you are afraid of man-boy love and why you want to oppress consenting individuals? Why do you care what they do in their own bedrooms?

You are missing the point that you are only liberal until you find someone nuttier than you. Then you are conservative.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by MichiganMat
Ever thought about home-schooling or private schooling, Rick?

Why should I pay extra for private school (on top of paying my property taxes for public school) just because the public school is wacked? How about not using my tax dollars to push an agenda that a significant percentage of Americans don't agree with?

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
It doesn't. I don't think anyone has to toe my line. Just don't make the government teach your version of the line to my kids. It's my job to raise my kids, not the governments.

But up through my childhood, the government taught the WASP viewpoint and so did television, Leave it To Beaver, etc. It seems you now want to return to that line and have the government teach your view as the standard. That line just doesn't fit very well anymore to real life, if it ever really did.

I get the feeling of watching Pleasantville in this discussion.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Yeah. Let's try an experiment. Head over to the NAMBLA website or maybe www.ilovemysheep.org. Go onto their discussion boards (it's ok, just use the alias FastPat). . .

:rofl:

Funniest thing I've read all week!

I'd ask "where's the love", but evidently the sheep already know!

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by stevepaa
But up through my childhood, the government taught the WASP viewpoint and so did television, Leave it To Beaver, etc. It seems you now want to return to that line and have the government teach your view as the standard. That line just doesn't fit very well anymore to real life, if it ever really did.

Lets see, lower crime rates, people were respectable and weren't dying from aids or living off the government, schools taugh readin, writing & math, not steve has 2 daddies. Yes, times were really bad back then.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by Racerbvd
Lets see, lower crime rates, people were respectable and weren't dying from aids or living off the government, schools taugh readin, writing & math, not steve has 2 daddies. Yes, times were really bad back then.

Schools taught that Mommy and Daddy were white, you had a brother and sister and a dog, non whites could not drink from the water fountain, and television had Amos n Andy to tell you how the black folk lived.

Sort of like Snowman, they all knew their place and didn't stray from it. Pleasantville again.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by stevepaa
But up through my childhood, the government taught the WASP viewpoint and so did television, Leave it To Beaver, etc. It seems you now want to return to that line and have the government teach your view as the standard. That line just doesn't fit very well anymore to real life, if it ever really did.

I get the feeling of watching Pleasantville in this discussion.

No, I don't want the government to teach ANY view as the standard. I don't think a teacher should be saying that heterosexual sex is the only way and I don't think they should be pushing homosexual sex.

How about teaching my kid 2+2? Once you can do that well, then we can talk about all these other agendas.

[RoninLB]

Schools stopped teaching about US morality when the teachers became unionized imo.. don't get me started.

The originals of the system was to teach Euro immigrants English and Euro Christian morality US style ++.

The system is so political now that instead of doing what teachers are supposed to do that all the bs ing is naught.

Those fa ours even hold sway in the Dem machine on who to put up for election from the party. Who ever supports their agenda on what they do to kids is nuts... no offense as it's only imo.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
No, I don't want the government to teach ANY view as the standard. I don't think a teacher should be saying that heterosexual sex is the only way and I don't think they should be pushing homosexual sex.

How about teaching my kid 2+2? Once you can do that well, then we can talk about all these other agendas.

I really don't think teachers push homosexual sex. I did not and I am certain my niece does not now. Teachers have way too much to do in basic skills development. However it is in the reading material where government/society portrays what is acceptable and what is not. How many of your child's books reflect the diverse group of nationalities, races, religions, etc in this country. How much of the diversity in real life do you want in the books is the question. And then when do we introduce the diversity?

Do we show single divorced parents? Do we show married couples with children of different last names? Do we show families with adopted kids of different races? Do we show married couples of different races? Do we show same gender married couples?

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by stevepaa
I really don't think teachers push homosexual sex.

From recent headlines:

Please note that this father was simply asking to be NOTIFIED of when his child was going to be given material like this and asked that he be allowed to take his child out of that class if he wanted to. He did not ask that anyone else have restricted access to the material or try to curtail the school in any way. Oh yeah, and this was KINDERGARTEN!! That means 5 year olds. Story below:

BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Dad on trial over
homosexual book
District banned him from property
after dispute at meeting

In April, David Parker, of Lexington, spent a night in jail and was charged with criminal trespassing after refusing to leave a scheduled meeting with officials at the Estabrook Elementary School unless they gave him the option of pulling his child out of certain classes.

Parker says the officials had indicated they would agree to a notification policy then suddenly refused. He insists he has done nothing wrong and is willing to contest the charge rather than plea-bargain.

The Lexington School Board contends Parker deliberately set out to be arrested and make national headlines.

Parker's attorney, Jeffrey Denner, rejected that claim, arguing Parker engaged in extensive communication with the school, at the invitation of officials, intending to "establish a dialogue to protect his own children and other children as well."

David Parker's son brought home the book 'Who's in a Family?' in school's 'Diversity Book Bag' (Image: Article 8 Alliance)

The dispute began last spring when Parker's then-5-year-old son brought home a book to be shared with his parents titled, "Who's in a Family?" The optional reading material, which came in a "Diversity Book Bag," depicted at least two households led by homosexual partners.

Article 8 Alliance, an advocacy group supporting Parker that opposes same-sex marriage, says that with the national publicity the case already has generated, the District Attorney's office appears reluctant to go forward with a trial, and would probably prefer to have Parker accept a plea-bargain that includes probation.

But Parker insists he has done nothing wrong and represents a danger to no one.

A no-trespass order issued against him by the school – which includes all district property – is "simply an intimidation tactic" against anyone who might protest the school's pro-homosexual policies regarding elementary school children, Article 8 says.

Parker cannot drop off or pick up his children from school; attend his children's sports events or other school activities; meet with his children's teachers at parent-teacher conferences; attend or participate in school committee meetings; or even vote on election day at his local polling place, a public school.

The illustrated book, according to Article 8, says, "A family can be made up in many different ways" and includes this text:


"Laura and Kyle live with their two moms, Joyce and Emily, and a poodle named Daisy. It takes all four of them to give Daisy her bath."
Another illustrated page says:


"Robin's family is made up of her dad, Clifford, her dad's partner, Henry, and Robin's cat, Sassy. Clifford and Henry take turns making dinner for their family."
Article 8 says the book "uses subtle but powerful emotions to normalize homosexual relationships in the minds of the young children."

A backer of the Lexington School District, Laura Tully, argued, according to WCVB-TV in Boston, "A 5-year-old who is coming to the classroom with two moms deserves to be in a classroom that includes books that show his family."

The jury trial was to begin today at 9 a.m. at Concord District Courthouse, but the judge postponed the case another month. Why?

"The Superintendent of Schools has said he hasn't had time to make a decision yet," Article 8's Brian Camenker points out in an Agape Press report. "Now, one has to think, it's been all summer. It's been in the news. How can he not make a 10-minute decision? But this is what he claims."

Thus, the judge has given the superintendent one more month to decide whether to keep the no-trespass order in place, adds Camenker, or whether to discontinue the ban preventing Parker from setting foot on school grounds.

[nostatic]

Rick, your point is specious. The NAMBLA people aren't "liberal", they are predators. How about you address my question ("what are the other options?") without resorting to the extreme position that I have already addressed: adult-child no because of well documented evidence and logical reasoning indicating that there is a victim.

Of course there is someone more "liberal" than me, whatever that is. Let's just stick to the topic...what other pairings are there? And I'll tell you whether I think they are ok or not.

And I still maintain that fighting against discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation might in fact be *more* moral than the traditional WASP compass. But as I said, we just disagree.

[techweenie]

I think we've heard one side of this story. The guy was arrested for trespassing in a school.

Chances are he will be acquitted if this side of the story is correct.

But what about this story of good Christian values at work:

-------------------excerpt-----------------
Jewish family flees Delaware school district's aggressive Christianity

by JewsOnFirst.org, June 28, 2006

A large Delaware school district promoted Christianity so aggressively that a Jewish family felt it necessary to move to Wilmington, two hours away, because they feared retaliation for filing a lawsuit. The religion (if any) of a second family in the lawsuit is not known, because they're suing as Jane and John Doe; they also fear retaliation. Both families are asking relief from "state-sponsored religion."

--------full story-----------
http://www.jewsonfirst.org/06b/indianriver.html

[RoninLB]

if every parent received a school voucher and schools could compete parents would get what they deserve.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by RPKESQ
Jeff, did you read any of these sites or just do a quick and dirty Google?

If you read them then you would find out that the leading cause or drug abuse among gays is the lack of social acceptance and the pressures that it causes. (Back to gay bashers and homophobes).

Gays have a drug problem. Uhh, so do professional athletes, straights, alcoholics, priests and police. Alright I can see why it so bad that gays have it, but not the others. Ohh, wait, your not saying it's OK for the others too. Well, then just lump gays in with people who have a drug problem. No more, no less.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I did. And, unlike you, I understand what they are saying. There are other groups with drug problems. No *****. What sets the gay community apart from these groups is the high incidence of abuse. More per capita abuse than any other group you named. By far; by a factor of several fold. Get it?

So why is this? You and Nostatic both quote from these sites that, in a nutshell, it's not their fault. Its the fault of all the homophobes that surround them in their day to day lives. It's an escape from the rejection they have faced since their youth. It is a way of coping with their differences, differences that everyone has told them are wrong. Bull*****. There is a LOT more to it than that. Many, many groups have endured similar rejection and have not resorted to drugs to numb themselves against it. There is something else going on here.

And here I go again; I don't know how many times I will have to say this. I stand firmly against any government interference in their chosen lifestyle. I will never, indeed have never, treated anyone different because they are gay. They don't scare me, I don't hate them. I do believe what they are doing in unnatural and wrong. I've been right up front about that over the years with friends and acquaintances, but I have been succesful in not having it interfere with any friendships.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by nostatic
Rick, your point is specious. The NAMBLA people aren't "liberal", they are predators.

Only from YOUR point of view. There are plenty of people in NAMBLA who don't think they are predators at all. They just want to be free to practice their particular sexual preference...

Originally posted by nostatic
Of course there is someone more "liberal" than me, whatever that is.

I know, it shocks me too that there are people out there more liberal than you

Originally posted by nostatic
And I'll tell you whether I think they are ok or not.

Who are YOU to decide what is ok and what is not? What are you, trying to impose your moral values on people or something?

Originally posted by nostatic
And I still maintain that fighting against discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation might in fact be *more* moral than the traditional WASP compass. But as I said, we just disagree.

That's only because you have decided that this particular sexual preference is ok and shouldn't be discrimated against while you still think the NAMBLA people are predators and should be put in jail. Who is the one drawing lines again?