The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Famine]

I don't think that at all

You said that they are your property. That means that you think you have ownership rights over them.

My children are my property.

They aren't your property - they're their own property. They have ownership rights over themselves. No-one has ownership rights over another human being, though some law occasionally forget that...

If you don't think that your kids are your property, you shouldn't have said that they are. I have no idea about the contents of your head besides what you express - and you expressed that you own your children.

Of course earlier you also expressed that you - and everyone else - has ownership over everyone's children for compulsory military service (ironic as the purpose of the military is to protect rights and you want to take them away...) so it's not exactly inconsistent for you to claim you own your kids, but it's extremely inconsistent with your claimed stance of believing in liberty...

 

[squadops]

That is not true, while they are minors they are my property, I didn't mean it in the way you are implying, I was speaking of law, look it up. You should know better to nitpick that point.

The service I have to admit is a bit of a contradiction on my part, but I'd rather do a few years in the army then a public school. Just saying.

I did own my children when they were not of age, that is just a fact Famine.

 

[Ialyrn]

That is not true, while they are minors they are my property, I didn't mean it in the way you are implying, I was speaking of law, look it up. You should know better to nitpick that point.

The service I have to admit is a bit of a contradiction on my part, but I'd rather do a few years in the army then a public school. Just saying.

I did own my children when they were not of age, that is just a fact Famine.

I think you mean "responsibility", not "Property". They are two entirely different things, and yes, before you ask, I am a parent myself. I have a 7 year old daughter, so I understand fully about the responsibility aspect

 

[squadops]

How can you have responsibility if the state dictates some sort to you? It does not work that way, sure you don't like the word I used but it is the word.

Do you really think I did not give my kids all their freedoms? I give more than most I can assure you of that.

 

[Famine]

That is not true, while they are minors they are my property

Nope. You don't have ownership rights over any human being but yourself.

I didn't mean it in the way you are implying, I was speaking of law, look it up.

. No-one has ownership rights over another human being, though some law occasionally forget that...

Laws don't concern me - nor, if you claim to be all for liberty, should they concern you. At one point laws in your country stated that certain types of human could indeed be owned, so using law to justify the ridiculous position that you "own" your kids is just plain potty.

I did own my children when they were not of age, that is just a fact Famine.

Things don't become fact just because you say so - and since you're using law as a crutch for your argument it still isn't fact as law is just opinion. Majority opinion at that, the ultimate enemy of liberty...

You were responsible for them. You didn't own them. The key difference is that you can destroy things that you own - or do anything else you like to them. Neither rights nor laws allow you to kill a child...

The service I have to admit is a bit of a contradiction on my part, but I'd rather do a few years in the army then a public school. Just saying.

You're entitled to take that decision - for yourself. No-one who claims to be a supporter of liberty should be also trying to turn people into slaves for their own causes. But then you think you can own other people...

 

[squadops]

That is all fine and dandy, the fact remains my kids are my kids and not anyone else's, I taught them well, I afforded them every opportunity I could, I shielded them from the government, do I need to go on?

Society does not have a right to jump a minor.

Oh, you don't realize that school is mandatory?

 

[Famine]

That is all fine and dandy, the fact remains my kids are my kids and not anyone else's, I taught them well, I afforded them every opportunity I could, I shielded them from the government, do I need to go on?

Well you could go back rather than on, and admit that when you said that your kids were your property you were wrong.

I do find it odd that you used the phrase "shielded them from the government" given that you also keep telling people that something is "the law" and to "look it up"... The former attitude is that the law is not the be-all and end-all and that sometimes laws are illogical, contrary to rights and not for for purpose, but the latter is that the law is always right...

It's odd to see both on the same person in the same argument - and even odder that anyone who professes support for liberty would use the latter attitude... ever.

Society does not have a right to jump a minor.

Except when you want them to fight to preserve your rights - which you deny them by forcing them into service - right?

 

[squadops]

Wait a sec, so you are saying that mandatory school is ok, but not service? Now I will go to the first bit. You are correct, and of course I am for liberty, we have to have some sort of law. Is it so bad that I expect the law to protect my parental rights?

 

[Famine]

so you are saying

That usually prefaces a dramatic misunderstanding or misrepresentation of someone else's comments...

so you are saying that mandatory school is ok,

Oh snap.

Quote me saying that anywhere.

 

[squadops]

Oh common now

Let us go back then, if school was not forced, who cares about your sex ed program?

 

[Famine]

Oh common now

Let us go back then, if school was not forced, who cares about your sex ed program?

My what?

Perhaps while you're finding that quote from me that says mandatory schooling is okay you can find where I've proposed or supported a sex education program?

 

[Johnnypenso]

There's an easy enough way to figure that out. If @squadops is capable of teaching Year 12 English, then he should be able to discuss the growing disenchantment with the American dream in light of the ideological shift that took hold in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly with the perception that political leaders were trading the stable and legitimate power of national values for the transient and ephemeral power of political influence at home and abroad - with specific reference to Paul Theroux's The Mosquito Coast.

And bear in mind that the above is nothing special; it's a Monday morning for me.

You're assuming that that is something he would want to teach his child or that he would find it useful for his child to know. Theroux didn't like being a man and was unable to think beyond the stereotypical and narrow minded train of thought that masculinity was composed mainly of right wing attitudes and hatred of women. That's not the kind of masculinity I taught my son and I would see no value in teaching him Theroux's view on it either since I completely disagree with his viewpoint. I'm guessing @squadops would agree but he can speak for himself.

 

[squadops]

Oh, of course, prisonermonkies post was the one that started it all. It's not your program, it's a program that is being supported in this thread and it is one that I oppose.

 

[Famine]

Oh, of course, prisonermonkies post was the one that started it all. It's not your program, it's a program that is being supported in this thread and it is one that I oppose.

Apology accepted, I guess.

 

[squadops]

It should be, what else do you want me to say? I'm here to please.

 

[novcze]

So 8 year olds can be violent idiots and the schools should have no policy in their education that seeks to teach them otherwise?

Really? ... is this what am I saying.

Whole discussion was about approach and extent of education regarding LGBTs.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Really? ... is this what am I saying.

Whole discussion was about approach and extent of education regarding LGBTs.

The question mark was there for a reason. A questioning reason.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Given that @squadops has completely failed to address my request for him to demonstrate his supposed prowess as a senior educator, I think that we can safely call his claims in that field utter rubbish (not that I ever believed him).

My advice? Quit while you're behind.

 

[squadops]

What? All I said was a raised my children, of course I taught them, I'd rather they learn from me then say, you for instance, I would not let you within a mile of my kids.

 

[FoolKiller]

The issue with using schools to be morality indoctrination centers is that your version of morality might not be the popular one some day.

It's why people are so scared of a Trump presidency. We've given the federal government and the executive branch a lot more power over the last couple of decades and the idea that Trump could wield that is scary.

What you want is only what you want when your opinion is the popular one.

 

[squadops]

Morality indoctrination center, that my friend is pure gold 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

Morality indoctrination center, that my friend is pure gold 👍

Anything beyond general education and treating other students respectfully goes beyond my definition of school. It's bad enough public schools around here are all America rah rah. Kids get taught one view of history, economics, and current events.

Besides, the idea of having kids taught to be understanding toward minorities, by the same people who can't get a hang on bullying within their own demographic, is just laughable.

There is nothing wrong with trying to teach my daughter what is considered the morally correct view point, but in a public school system not everyone will agree with that and at some point the majority might disagree with me. Then it will be on me to teach my daughter and to have to tell her that her school is wrong.

I don't like state entities being given power in general. The person/people wielding that power might not always be good. That's how states wound up with gay marriage bans. We gave the state power over something they had no right to be meddling with. Some used that power to disenfranchise others.

 

[squadops]

I'm glad that you both speak with more eloquence than I do, and also that you have a bit more respect around here than I do.

You are preaching to the choir 👍

SO, seeing as how I'm now backing a libertarian I thought to share this here. For your viewing pleasures of course.

So David outside of gay and lesbian issues, first of all no one should get fired because they are gay or lesbian period. But when you set these laws up my experience with these laws are you create a protected class. And I speak as someone who started a one man handyman business in Albuquerque in 1974 and grew it to over a thousand employees... I’ll tell you because of our laws that we passed on safety issues that this whole notion of whistle blower legislation it sounds great but the reality is... employees that were horrible declared themselves to be whistle blowers in the safety category or they declared themselves an alcoholic because of legislation [feedback] the American for Disabilities Act... I want that person who breaks a window breaks a windshield with a rock prosecuted on the basis that they threw a rock through a windshield not because they were motivated by hate.

Might not fit all the bill, but it was worth my effort.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You're assuming that that is something he would want to teach his child or that he would find it useful for his child to know. Theroux didn't like being a man and was unable to think beyond the stereotypical and narrow minded train of thought that masculinity was composed mainly of right wing attitudes and hatred of women. That's not the kind of masculinity I taught my son and I would see no value in teaching him Theroux's view on it either since I completely disagree with his viewpoint. I'm guessing @squadops would agree but he can speak for himself.

Typical neocon response; it completely misses the point of the novel.

Theroux wasn't ashamed of his masculinity. He was concerned that with the global ideological shift that came about after the Second World War, America had started compromising its own values for the sake of winning political influence in Latin America; influence that was completely intransient and insubstantial. He was afraid that when the Cold War ended, America would no longer be itself; hence Allie's increasing desire for a more pure way of life when ironically he was committing the very same ideological errors that he was trying to protest against.

 

[squadops]

I like your post, except for the attack part, if I know him how I think I do, Johnny is not a neocon, in any event there was no call for that bit.

At the very least he was right in saying I don't care for what you would like my child to know.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Johnny is not a neocon

I didn't say he was. I just said that his response is what I would expect from a neocon perspective of the novel - which I think is weak. He could have approached it from a post-modern, post-colonial, Marxist or any one of a dozen other standpoints, and I would have critiqued them accordingly. I just find that the neocon interpretation is more concerned with criticising Theroux than it is with actually examining his thematic concerns, probably because Theroux was opposed to neoconservatism.

 

[squadops]

I think he was more interested in defending me, but like he said, we will wait for him to speak.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Typical neocon response; it completely misses the point of the novel.

Theroux wasn't ashamed of his masculinity.

He wasn't?

I have always disliked being a man. The whole idea of manhood in America is pitiful, a little like having to wear an ill-fitting coat for one's entire life. Even the expression ''Be a man!'' strikes me as insulting and abusive. It means: Be stupid, be unfeeling, obedient and soldierly, and stop thinking. Man means ''manly'' - how can one think ''about men'' without considering the terrible ambition of manliness? And yet it is part of every man's life. It is a hideous and crippling lie; it not only insists on difference and connives at superiority, it is also by its very nature destructive - emotionally damaging and socially harmful.

Any objective study would find the quest for manliness essentially right wing, puritanical, cowardly, neurotic and fueled largely by a fear of women. It is also certainly philistine.

NY Times, November 27, 1983

Since you claim he wasnt ashamed of his masculinity I think I can safely conclude that you don't really know anything about him. To be honest, your question to @squadops sounds like something you just copy/pasted out of some teaching plan or something. Not hard to see that Theroux was pathological in his self loathing and hatred of men and being a man in general. His extremely narrow view of manhood and what it means to be a man, smacks of someone who likely had probably got picked last in pickup sports games or was picked on by a bigger boy.

Being a man is bad enough; being manly is appalling.

I'm sure he's the darling of liberal academics who often adore this kind of self hatred, so long as it's a privileged white male of course, but the work of a man like that is not something I would voluntarily teach my son, as that attitude is surely pervasive in his writing.

So if being a typical neocon means that I see Theroux for what he is and not through rose coloured academic glasses like you...I'll take that any day.

 

[squadops]

Anything beyond general education and treating other students respectfully goes beyond my definition of school.

Some would have you think that because I term that as abc 123 I'm somehow an idiot. From now on I guess I will spell a few things out, I considered this section of the board to be smart enough to read between the lines, maybe that is my bad. It so boring and cumbersome to have to do that however.

Incoherent dribble is how I've been labeled, that is a farce.

 

[Scaff]

The issue with using schools to be morality indoctrination centers is that your version of morality might not be the popular one some day.

It's why people are so scared of a Trump presidency. We've given the federal government and the executive branch a lot more power over the last couple of decades and the idea that Trump could wield that is scary.

What you want is only what you want when your opinion is the popular one.

I don't believe anyone was suggesting indoctrination, but rather discussion, debate and critical thinking around a specific topic.

Certainly from the perspective of how this is managed in the UK the approach taken is nearer to that , than of "you must think in this way and don't question it".

Morality indoctrination center, that my friend is pure gold 👍

While I may disagree with FK in this regard, you are simply being hypocritical.

You have no issue with indoctrination, your support for mandatory national service and belief that one owns children makes that quite clear.

Rather you are simply being selective about the indoctrination.