I find the idea that human rights should not be taught in a positive way in state schools really strange.

I thought America was founded on equality of opportunity, isnt something like that even the first statement of the constitution of the new state of America?

The obvious conclusion is that to these people, gays aren't human.

Schools have an obligation to teach ethics and critical thinking skills so that the opinions students reach are their own in addition to being well-informed and well-formed.

The ad is disgusting. They don't actually address any of what these heterosexuals claim they would lose. What would they lose, precisely? Their social standing as the accepted majority? I'm hard pressed to think of a single thing beyond that, and I don't see that as a valid reason to wish to deny someone else their basic human rights.

I think so, which is why I called it hate speech.

As I said, you dont need to howl at the moon or demand "round them all up and throw them in concentration camps" to qualify as hate speech. Instead creating the impression of something that is foul, that is other, that is against God and decency... can be equally hateful.

I personally would qualify the expression of a number of people "they are going to take away my freedom" on that video as hateful.

Whether these people like it or not, a number of kids that are going through education already will know that they are gay or bisexual, which is why it is important not to promote homosexuality as superior to heterosexualty (which no one is asking for or "advocating" for) - but to at least say that they are equally valid expressions of human experience, love, and sexuality.

So you're not claiming knowledge, just that you don't think "it's a shabby argument" what his motives or thinking was... fascinating, got it.

I agree that schools should be teaching critical thinking skills, but would it not be the job of parents to teach ethics/morality?

---------- Post added at 03:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------

i'm glad you've stated that this was your own viewpoint, but I think that it's a bit extreme.

Schools (teachers) spend more time out of the home with children in social environments than parents could ever dream of. Both schools and parents should have the responsibility of teaching ethics/morality. I'd say schools have a bigger responsibility because of the time and impact they have.

This includes teaching about homosexuality in sex education.

No, if you really can't see a difference between "I know this" and "This is a viable theory", then you really haven't 'got it'.

I understand that and it's okay. It's motivated at least in some part by my emotions; it's not a wholly rational conclusion. It's not unlike the hatred and bigotry towards homosexuals from the homophobes, I suppose, only I'd never dream of removing their rights because of their beliefs, backwards as I might believe them to be.

Like I said, it's not clear-cut. I don't really understand your objection to my post.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't arguing that.

I said-

So if I changed "you don't think "it's a shabby argument" to "a viable theory" then would I have it?

No.

edit: which is to say that there's a sizable difference between those two things, also, that you're not recognizing.

There is? Ok, if you say so.

I don't see it, I think "it's a shabby argument" and "a viable theory" sound a hell of a lot a like to me.

It IS apples and oranges, and the reason the courts can find things to be unconstitutional is precisely to prevent government from becoming a dictatorship of the majority.

In fact, an apt comparison would be if a majority voted FOR the restriction of freedom of speech.

You can't deny people basic rights afforded to others without due process, even if a majority of people think you should.

What right does anyone else have to enforce their "vote" on anyone else. I vote that stupid people shouldn't be allowed to procreate, should we vote on that, too? It shouldn't even be put to a vote in the first place. I think the whole issue is a "red-herring", it's an emotional trap to keep us from focussing on the real issues- like where our tax dollars are being spent, like foreign aid, entitlements and bail-outs. Our officals think we're stupid and wouldn't understand the finer points of economic stress, so they toss this about to get us off the scent and from asking too many questions.

..the hell? Okay, I could've worded that more clearly, but you just made my point for me.

I agree there isn't much of a difference between "not a shabby argument" and "viable theory", which is why I don't think it matters that I said 'viable theory' the second time instead of 'not a shabby argument'.

What I meant by that last post: there's still a clear and obvious difference between "I know this" and "this is not a shabby argument". Do you really not see it? Is it really that fascinating a distinction?

I don't think anyone can truly claim knowledge of Jesus' mind and motives. And you were wrong to read that into my post.

So then I said-



And you said-

And now you're saying-

Sorry I don't think anyone is proving your point, certainly not you or I.

I will say when I read you're first post it sounded like you seemed to know why Jesus decided to address certain issues and not others. I now understand you to be saying it's a "viable theory" that he based that on what was already covered in the OT. Do I have it right now?

Wait so you believe that no one edited or constructed the writings of Jesus Christ during the 8 ecumenical councils and the 21 Roman Catholic Councils?

Most Christians believe that god intervened in some way, ensuring that the Bible we end up with remains loyal to the original intent. It's what I believed up until that one day I stopped believing.

Did you bother to read that part where I restated what I meant? Is it just more fun to stick with the ambiguous wording?

Neat trick on my part, to sound like that without saying anything like that.

Oh, cool, I only have to say it three times.

---------- Post added at 12:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 PM ----------

Is this addressed to me?

I don't have a strong opinion either way.

It is a neat trick on your part. You make post that are unclear then wonder why people can't understand what you're trying to say.

BTW- Exactly when do you think the OT was written?

I admitted my unclear terms in that second post, but the first had no such flaws. I never claimed knowledge. You took a clumsy leap to your own little pigeonhole.

Sometime before Jesus was born. I don't have an exact date in my mind. Does this have anything to do with anything I said? Or with something else you'd like to imagine I said?

Wow, the OP ad is almost as fun as this:

First you said "you don't think "it's a shabby argument" that Jesus didn’t address this issue because the OT already did that. You then changed it to "a viable theory" I asked for clarification because they sounded a lot alike. And you said

I'm not leaping into pigeonholes. I trying to understand what you're trying to say.



Nice, I can't understand your post and I'm imagining things you say.

Just trying to figure out what you consider to be the OT. Are you talking about the Hebrew Bible?

Yes, that would be the post where I admitted to unclear terms. It was the first post where you couldn't seem to distinguish between "it's not a shabby argument" - what I said - and "I know this to be true" - what I did not say.

If what I said - in that FIRST post, FIRST - seemed to look like a claim of knowledge to you, then you simply weren't reading my post very carefully.

Yep.

Yep.

Audition tapes if you missed them the first time


I looked around on their website, and if I had heard one of those radio ads without knowing about this campaign, I would have assumed Rockstar was running in-game ads on realstations to promote the next GTA game again (GTA3 was promoted by ads for stuff like www.petsovernight.com)

..

Actually, they should decriminalize polygamy. As long as all parties are willing, I don't see the problem, other than that it would put certain men at a disadvantage. I think most objections to it are religious...but sucks to the moral code in that respect. I think there is a parallel of this to same-sex marriage.

What storm? Where does what stop?

I don't know what storm it is, but I believe that there are major ramifications and issues that will require legal remedy, just like the gay marriages. Wife B wants to have equal access to beneficiary, estate, medical records, etc. which currently they are persona non grata in the eyes of the state.

A good point, but this isn't anywhere near the greatest legal/contractual challenge of our time.

What storm?

It stops when people stop trying to tell other adults who they can love and marry. As long as they're not trying to marry, or have sex with, children they should be left alone.

..

To me the age of consent for marriage is 18. No, I wouldn't be ok if a state lowered it 13.

I dont understand how, in any sense, homosexuals having equal legal rights in suggests a rise in bigamy.

Very true, but as a teacher I can tell you that this is far from the case in many schools. My philosophy has always been teach them how to think, not what to think. Also empower them with information so that they can have well-informed opinions. Sadly, though, a lot of teachers/schools allow their personal prejudices or politics dictate the curriculum.

This is an hilarious appeal to emotion. What timalkin might not know is that a great number of people at the TFP aren't particularly emotional and won't be immediately swayed by this argument, in which case they'll be able to deconstruct it for the drivel that it is...

All states have to decide how old someone must be before they're competent. This is necessary for any free society that allows its citizens to make decisions for themselves. If a state actually thinks 13 year olds are competent enough then so be it. This would be an issue for some regardless of whether gay marriage was legal or not. The existence of gay marriage would not increase the number of people who'd object to this age of consent. Indeed, it's unlikely to even change which individuals objects to this law. Age of consent is just not relevant to the issue of gay marriage.

So, would you like to state what your actual objection is? Polygamy might be next and I think it's worth bringing up 'cause why couldn't consenting adults in a free society be engaged in a marriage? What's your objection to that?




Finally, I want to be known as the guy with all those YouTube links...

I feel that the government has to supply a valid and compelling reason to infring on any American's pursuit of happiness.

Liberals and conservatives both agree that they want the government to stay out of our daily lives as much as possible. Both sides also agree that if the government is to interfere then they must have solid reasons to show that if they don't interfere, than society will be harmed.

The government says that kids can't drive. I think that there is enough evidence for the government to limit kid's pursuit of happiness.

The government says that we can not steal our neighboor's stuff. I think there is merit in the government stepping in.

The government says no to gays being married. The jury is out on this one. I have not seen a compelling argument why gays being married harms society. Without the evidence of harm, then the government can not interfere.

As much as I'm not an advocate for gay marriage, I still think that video IS DOING IT WRONG.

I spotted numerous logical arguments in there that annoyed me.

Firstly the issue of freedom.

"My freedom will be taken away (if gay marriage is approved)"


Sorry, but.... HUH?

Since when did gay marriage have any effect on anyone else's freedom? Freedom to what? Live? Eat? Breathe? Have hetero sex?????

Secondly, the issue of choosing between faith and job- unless this doctor is somehow forced into accepting gay marriage and should she choose not to advocate it, her job will thus be lost, then she has a right to make that statement a valid argument against gay marriage.

But.... WHAT?!

Thirdly: "Those advocates will have to change the way I live"

I'm sorry, but WHAT THE FISH?

Just because someone else advocates gay marriage means your way of live is disturbed???

How the heck is that even possible?

oh god, if you want to spend millions of dollars on a campaign against gay marriage, at least stop the ad hominems, strawman arguments and throwing red herrings all over the video.

They make Theists look like idiots!

Every human being has one life.

They should be entitled to live it how they see fit as long as they aren't hurting anyone.

No one has the right to tell someone else how to live or who to love.

One short life is all we get. Let every person live their time in the manner they choose, being equal with all others.