Public School

[NM_Shooter]

Woods, I'm with you. 

Maybe when that becomes a critical employment skill or a component on the ACTs, I'll change my mind.  I'm also not a progressive thinker when it comes to alternative lifestyles.  I don't give a crap if Bobby has two moms.  Just don't tell my kid that is a normal family unit (and don't be surprised if Bobby turns up bewildered, a cross dresser by the time of 12, and confused and angered by his own anatomy).  I don't care what folks do at their house.  Keep it out of the schools.  That goes for political agendas (both sides of the aisles).

How about we stick to "hardcore" math, science, writing skills instead?

Can you imagine seeing this in school when us boomers were kids? 

[Squirl]

I don't give a crap if Bobby has two moms.  Just don't tell my kid that is a normal family unit (and don't be surprised if Bobby turns up bewildered, a cross dresser by the time of 12, and confused and angered by his own anatomy).

Bobby's two moms came from the same "normal family unit" you have.  So is that what produces the two moms?  If so,  then maybe you should reconsider your stance rather than worry about your grandkids bewildered cross dressers angered at their own anatomy.

[peternap]

Can you imagine seeing this in school when us boomers were kids?

Oh it'd have gone over well in my high school.

800 students about 30% Mennonite, 30% Southern Baptist, 30% Farm Kids and ten percent rural town.
There were no Orientals, 4 Blacks that we didn't know we were supposed to hate and gay meant someone was happy.

Yep, it'd have been well accepted

[peternap]

Bobby's two moms came from the same "normal family unit" 

Really?
And just how did you find that bit of scientific trivia Squirl?

This is probably going to produce another stream of "Hate Speech" protests to John, but I am not any more privy to the cause of Bobby's two Mom's, than I am to what makes a Child Molester, Mass murderer, Necrophelliac or connoisseur of snuff films....but I do know that Bobby's two Mom's do NOT constitute a normal family unit!

[Squirl]

I do know that a child being loved and cared for by two adults, who may even be members, or loved ones of members of people of this board falls into both the normal and family category to me.

And yes peter, equating causation of homosexuality with causation murder and rape is pretty crappy.  If you know that off the bat, why write it?

[peternap]

And yes peter, equating causation of homosexuality with causation murder and rape is pretty crappy.  If you know that off the bat, why write it?

Because it's true!
Just because I know you're going to snipe about it doesn't change the fact that is neither normal or healthy.
Equating those things is easy. It's all perversion and unacceptable.

Now what goes on between two people is their business. That doesn't mean that I or anyone else has to ,or should expose their children to it or in any way indicate to them that it's an alternate lifestyle or anything other than abnormal and immoral.

[NM_Shooter]

Bobby's two moms came from the same "normal family unit" you have.  So is that what produces the two moms?  If so,  then maybe you should reconsider your stance rather than worry about your grandkids bewildered cross dressers angered at their own anatomy.

Hey... I said I didn't care.  I just don't want it taught as normal.  What's next?  Bubba and his wife-sheep?

(oh.... and I don't have grandkids yet)

[NM_Shooter]

Well, crap.  I just burned my thumb on that iron, while I was banding veneer on a bathroom vanity.  I'm going to have to find a new analogy.  Rats.

(Let's keep the fact that I borrowed my wife's new iron for this chore to ourselves, eh?)

[peternap]

Well, crap.  I just burned my thumb on that iron, while I was banding veneer on a bathroom vanity.  I'm going to have to find a new analogy.  Rats.

(Let's keep the fact that I borrowed my wife's new iron for this chore to ourselves, eh?)

I'm glad you burned your thumb!
When I read that I nearly choked on my Genuine Artificial, Sugar Free, Orange Drink.

[Squirl]

Equating those things is easy. It's all perversion and unacceptable.

Equating that an entire segment of the American population is inherently as evil as child rapists and murders is abhorrent.  Are there any other segments you believe are also inherently on par with the greatest evils of humanity that we normally lock away for life or put to death? Races? Religions?

[Gary O]

Because it's true!
Just because I know you're going to snipe about it doesn't change the fact that is neither normal or healthy.
Equating those things is easy. It's all perversion and unacceptable.

Now what goes on between two people is their business. That doesn't mean that I or anyone else has to ,or should expose their children to it or in any way indicate to them that it's an alternate lifestyle or anything other than abnormal and immoral.

Boy, you guys continue to amaze me.
It's gotta be solely due to longevity of membership, culminating in knowing each other pretty darn well, in order to banter like this.
...and it's a great, however volatile, subject.

I, a relative newbie, have some scattered/random thoughts that should cast me into some sort of category;

Squirl
I think you have a solid point.
I see you have strong conviction in making a distinct separation between outright immoral acts like murder from those of a personal belief, or way of life.

The societal grey area is in one's moral stance based on upbringing or studied convictions.
Thing is, some have such a strong belief in these areas that they hold them in regard with as much potency as the accepted obvious evils.

It gives one pause to consider where our society is going.
Are we being more 'open' and moving forward, away from puritanical dictates, or sliding down the moral banister?

How would the Sodomites have handled this?
OK, tongue back outta cheek.......(and not that cheek!!)

Erosion starts with the edges, almost imperceptible.

I applaud those like NM Shooter that stand, and I mean stand, for their convictions.
Holding fast, and shoring up the edges, guarding today's grey areas, of which in their mind is not grey at all.

Raising children is hard, really really hard. The odds are stacked against parents. It's a daily fight, but with kid gloves, and tenderness within the home sanctuary, and dogged determination in a society that is nothing less than a war zone.

OK, the random interlude is over.

[Woodsrule]

Shooter, you are on to something. When we as as society say that anything goes and "who are you to judge?" we are heading down a very slippery slope. Since the issue of homosexual marriage has come up, let me weigh in. I say, that if any individual state wants to allow this, then simply enact the requisite law or hold a referendum for the people to decide. I'm a firm believer of state's rights, so let them decide. However, this issue has been mostly decided by judges and that has caused much unnecessary strife. The reason for this is that most states will not allow homosexual marriage, hence the issue being decided by judges as an end-around. Before the hue and cry of "human rights" is brought to bear on me, let me pose this question. "If homosexual marriage is to be allowed and championed, then why not plural marriage or any other variation?" Is this not a human right? Why can't four men marry one woman or vice versa?

[Squirl]

No one said anything about homosexual marriage.   So far this was only calling homosexuality abnormal, implying children raised by homosexual parents leads to them being 12 year old cross dressers, and equivocating homosexuality at the same level as raping children and executable offenses.

Gay marriage is mild in comparison to the views expressed so far.

[NM_Shooter]

No one said anything about homosexual marriage.   So far this was only calling homosexuality abnormal, implying children raised by homosexual parents leads to them being 12 year old cross dressers, and equivocating homosexuality at the same level as raping children and executable offenses.

I didn't imply anything.  I merely stated the facts.  However, this is way off of my thread topic so I'll be done with this last post :

http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/10/lesbian-couple-gives-son-hormone-therapysays-he-is-transgender-child/

[archimedes]

Demonizing homosexuals is just another way to divide and distract the people.  When some are unequal,  we all are unequal.

It's sad that some in our society want to continue to treat some people as less than others simply for being different.

Comparing homosexuality to pedophelia,  mass murderers,  rapists?   

You'd be singing a different tune if one of your beloved children turned out to be gay and was mistreated by someone who shares your current views on the matter.

[Homegrown Tomatoes]

I don't think that anyone here said anything about it being OK to harm someone because of their sexual preference, and I don't think you could even infer that from what they have said.  Simply put, they don't want it being pushed as normative behavior.  Neither do I.

As to the book your daughter was required to read, Shooter, I had to read it in college for a literature class.  It was awful.  I quit reading part of the way through it and just made up stuff on the tests and essays about it, and passed all of them with an A.  Yes, I was very offended by it, by the vulgarity and the blasphemy.  There is no way that high school kids should be asked to process this.  I wasn't ready for it as a college senior, and still am not as a 35 year old mother of four.  I doubt when I'm a grandma that I'll find it a necessity for being American.... 

Of course, my college writing professors like to write words like "preachy" and "didactic" on stuff I wrote.  I'm pretty certain that at least one of them didn't even know what didactic mean, but just liked to say it.  I thought the crap they wrote was "preachy and didactic" too, but just from a completely different worldview.  Stick to your guns and help your daughter to stand up for herself.... seems like these days it isn't deemed "literature" unless it is crass, godless, vulgar, and depressing. 

[Grimjack]

No one said anything about homosexual marriage.   So far this was only calling homosexuality abnormal, implying children raised by homosexual parents leads to them being 12 year old cross dressers, and equivocating homosexuality at the same level as raping children and executable offenses.

Gay marriage is mild in comparison to the views expressed so far.

Homosexuality is abnormal by definition:


ab·nor·mal   [ab-nawr-muhl]  Show IPA
adjective
1.
not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard: abnormal powers of concentration; an abnormal amount of snow; abnormal behavior.

studies show that about 10% of the population  is homosexual, which means that 90%  are not. One can easily conclude that the 90% are showing average, typical or normal behavior, while the 10% are abnormal.

Don't misconstrue this to mean that I believe gays are more likely to molest kids or what not. I have gay friends, and really don't care who  one sleeps with. However its disingenuous to teach our children that homosexuality is "normal" because its not. Its a genetic fluke.

I believe we should get the government out of the marriage business altogether, but barring that solution let gay marriage pass, they have every right  to be as miserable as the rest of us.

[Gary O]

I believe we should get the government out of the marriage business altogether, but barring that solution let gay marriage pass, they have every right  to be as miserable as the rest of us.

Whether in agreement or not, that's pretty darn funny

[Woodsrule]

Shooter, that article that you linked to was really disturbing. It made me remember the Eugenics movement of not too long ago. You know ""the applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population", usually referring to human populations.[2] Historically, many of the practitioners of eugenics viewed eugenics as a science, not necessarily restricted to human populations; this embraced the views of Darwin and Social Darwinism." 

I'm not trying to equate these two women's motives to the folks who embraced eugenics, but the result will be the same - attempting to play God, or for you folks who don't believe in a God, attempting to change the human race, one person at a time. That society now not only allows, but sometimes champions this is a bit disturbing at the least. Again, I believe that these types of social engineering feats, taken one at a time will only lead to more dangerous and disturbing attempts to create a certain type of person from a child.

[Native_NM]

On the subject of Eugenics...

Regardless of your position on abortion, one thing is clear to me:  it has nothing to do with women's rights.  It is social engineering at its finest. 

According to Margaret Sanger, a member of both the American Eugenics Society and the English Eugenics Society (and founder of Planned Parenthood, the United States' largest abortion provider):

"Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly ... Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to maintenance of those who should never have been born."

There have been 50 million abortions since Roe vs Wade passed in 1973.  Excluding immigration, the US has a negative birth rate. 

[Don_P]

I'd offer that no matter one's position, excluding a choice would be social engineering. The argument would be whether you think this is a positive form of social engineering.
The rate of births in the US is roughly 14 per 1000 population per year, a positive number.
The rate of deaths is roughly 8 per 1000 population per year.
Subtracting deaths from births yields a positive increase of 6 people per 1000 per year, then add immigration.

[Native_NM]

The fertility rate needed to sustain a population is 2.1.  The current rate in the US, excluding immigration, is 1.8.  In the 1960's, it averaged 3.2.   Including the massive influx of immigrants over the last 10 years, the rate is barely at 2.1.




The total fertility rate in the United States after World War II peaked at about 3.8 children per woman in the late 1950s and by 1999 was at 2 children. This means that an imaginary woman (defined in the introduction) who fast-forwarded through her life in the late 1950s would have been expected to have about four children, whereas an imaginary woman who fast-forwarded through her life in 1999 would have been expected to have only about two children in her lifetime. The fertility rate of the total U.S. population is at around the replacement level of about 2.1 children per woman. However, the fertility of the population of the United States is below replacement among those native born, and above replacement among immigrant families, most of whom come to the U.S. from countries with higher fertility than that of the U.S.

[peternap]

I don't think that anyone here said anything about it being OK to harm someone because of their sexual preference, and I don't think you could even infer that from what they have said.  Simply put, they don't want it being pushed as normative behavior.  Neither do I.

I've been hunting so I missed most of this. That's fine because Squirl's starting on race and religion now...which means his argument just dropped below the horizon.
Just to satisfy him though..
No Squirl, I don't hate people for their race or religion, nor do I hate homosexuals.
I don't hate crack addicts either but they shouldn't be raising children.

The fact that two homosexuals may Provide a loving home for the child is irrelevant. It's still an immoral, unnatural atmosphere.

You're an intelligent person and know good and well that most Pedophiles profess to love children also. They are also homosexuals for the most part.

That's pretty much my last word on the subject. If you can scramble it to show I hate Jews and Blacks, or that I'm calling for the execution of all homosexuals....have at it.

Now as to your question about what if it was my child.

I'd still love him/her because it was my child. I'd be defensive but I wouldn't ever consider him or her a fit parent and if someone else suggested they were not fit, I'd keep quiet because he would be right.