Gay Book Flap Erupts Again At Lexington School

[jinx]

Originally Posted by TiddyBaby

But
Like I tell the Jehovah Witnesses, when they saunter up to my front deck with my Beer and Bar B Que smoke-pit:
"Yeah, God is Good, God is Great,
... Now Get a Life and Integrate"

When we lived in Coatesville people came to our door all the fricken time... and honestly, the JW's were my favorite. They were always very polite and respectful, always had something interesting to read if I wanted (usually about chemicals or some other non-religious concern), were quick about it and left without being asked.
It was the Baptists and the kids selling magazines that managed to piss me off every time, with their "buy this/join us or you'll go to hell" message.

Unrelated: Good post Noodle.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

To us, homosexuality is a sin. It's no worse and no better than any other sin, but in my religion, it indicates separation from God's will.

Exactly, and sin is a religious concept, so the rules only apply to beleivers. It's against the rules for a non-Mason to wear a masonic ring, but if you're not a Mason it's OK - the rules don't apply to you.

However, for many of us, Christian or not, gayness seems wrong biologically and morally. Therefore, someone who tells our kids "it's not wrong, it's great. I don't care what your fairy tale book or grandma told you!" is not just sharing the fact of the existence of homosexuality. They are promoting a moral standpoint that also "feels" unnatural on a very deep level.

The idea of eating placenta oogies me out, but I don't ascribe any moral aspect to it. Outside of religion, is there any justification for assigning a moral value to the "I find it yucky"ness of homosexuality?

[TiddyBaby]

hahahahahahahah, I loved the phrase from somebody, saying to somebody else

"thank you for saving this thread"


lol

[Jordon]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Yeppers...long about here . I followed a bit further downthread with some Ginn Basic Readers covers that illustrated the point.

I do have to thank jordon for providing an opportunity to promote the Pink Pistols, and we'll be using his postings as a illustration to the hoplophobe liberals who pontificate that there's no need for the queer community to be concerned with self-defence because the world is so enlightened these days.

You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me?

[twentycentshift]

in reference to mrnoodle's post:

something may "feel unnatural" to someone, and not to someone else. who are we, as individulals, to decide what is ultimately an unnatural feeling?

and none of that really even matters. some kids have gay parents. fact of life. no need to bury our heads in the sand.

[MaggieL]

Gee...somebody sure has a awful lot of cognitive dissonance about the idea of armed women. The temptation to be overtly freudian about it is almost overwhelming.

Almost.

[TiddyBaby]

?

pistol envy?


a good thing that gal wasn't toting a shotgun, ... with them headlights, the stock and barrel would have been forced to aim at the moon.

[twentycentshift]

in the words of austin powers:

that's not a woman. that's a MAN baby.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by twentycentshift

something may "feel unnatural" to someone, and not to someone else. who are we, as individulals, to decide what is ultimately an unnatural feeling?

Sexual attraction and arousal become complex things when you're talking about humans. We have feelings, emotions, and environmental factors that affect how we view sex. Not to mention, we're rare (if not unique) in the fact that we use sex in contexts other than reproduction. The "unnatural" feeling I'm referring to is the same one that a herd of elk might feel towards an albino elk. Kind of a "woah - this is something outside the ordinary". It doesn't lend itself to survival of the species, therefore our unconscious mind has an innate revulsion to it. We overcome that with logic and societal constructs that govern our treatment of each other, but the initial feeling is there nonetheless.

Originally Posted by jaguar

(I'm having a chat with noodle & MaggieL, this is a bizarro world indeed)

Thanks noodle for saving this thread from being a complete train wreck.

What a relief -- if we ever have a beer together, we're no longer automatically required to hit each other with the bottles

[Deb]

Why can't we stick to the 3-Rs and leave social graces to the parents, churches and the real world?

That is a great idea!

Unfortunatly, some teachers have their own selfish agendas to promote.

[twentycentshift]

speak for yourself on that stuff noodle. you're no expert, and no one can say what someone else should feel.

[twentycentshift]

about the 3Rs-- this was a reading class. they are reading a book.

[Munchkin]

I wish everyone would list where they live... I would understand some of these opinions a lot more then...

twentycentshift: are you a native texan ???

I really dont understand the objection to reading this book. I understand that some people just dont agree with homosexuality... but it kind of baffles me... I think its obsurd to not agree with the way people were born... It would be like being disgusted by a native american, or an asian, or an african american...which of course, some ignorant people are... maybe thats just what it boils down to...ignorance...

Ignorance explains the bigotry towards homosexuals more than towards particular races...because I can see how some people would be dumb enough to think that people actually choose to be gay.

Anyway... enough about the ignorant...because some of these christians arent ignorant, so lets address that. Why is being gay a sin, when we have zero control over our sexual orientation? I just dont understand that.

Why is it so wrong to have childrens books that shows diversity? This book does just that. It introduces children to same sex relationships...like there are books that introduce children to different races....and books that explain that "Everybody poops"... books that explain that there are different religions...

I really dont understand. I dont think one person has given a good argument as to why this book should not be allowed to be read. I understand that homosexuality is against some peoples religion... but hey...there are plenty of things in schools that are against peoples religions that their kids are explosed to every day.

Question...have you ever seen a hasidic or orthadox jew in a public school? No, neither have I. Why? Because they are so devout that they dont want their children to be exposed to things that are against their religion...so they dont send them to public school...

This also makes me think about pastafarianism and the flying spaghetti monster. If I was to create a religion, that though it was a sin to wear red shirts... should I be able to stop the school from reading any books where the people wore read shirts??

COME ON PEOPLE...

This book is teaching these kids that gay people exist...barely even teaching that!... if anything, it will make them ask their parents a question when they see two men or two women together...then you can tell them whatever you want...this book isnt corrupting them...

damn this is frustrating... Im horrible at writing these when I actually care about what Im saying...ugh

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Munchkin

because I can see how some people would be dumb enough to think that people actually choose to be gay.

Anyway... enough about the ignorant...because some of these christians arent ignorant, so lets address that. Why is being gay a sin, when we have zero control over our sexual orientation? I just dont understand that.

Well, according to Christianity, we have zero control over sin period, as we are born sinful. NOT sinning is what takes conscious thought -- sinning is the natural way. I'm not sure that sexual preference is coded at birth, though. Either way, if you want to know why homosexual behavior (not predilection) is a sin, you have to ask God. Christians believe the bible is the inspired word of God, and in the bible says homosexuality is a sin. There are separate arguments to be had over the existence of God, the divinity of the teachings in the bible, old testament vs new testament, etc. etc.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by twentycentshift

that's not a woman. that's a MAN baby.

Oh, he tossed up some other images upthread that makes it clear how spectacularly twisted he is on the issue. "An armed woman must obviously really want to be a man.", etc.

Oleg Volk has lots of beautiful images of powerful armed women, but that runs contrary to his pathetic little thesis. Yeah...thesis...that's what I meant.

I notice he's been silent about my question on having kids and/or a partner...like they used to say about the Pope and birth control (Back when Il Papa was Italian): "You no playa da game, you no maka da rules."

Control issues make it so hard to have healthy relationships...and the evidence in hand makes it clear that we should be consulting jordon on what's "normal"...