What is Happening in Our Schools?

[Shadow Wolf]

...that doesn't begin to describe the reality of the situation -nor does it address the many contributing factors -it is a horrible oversimplification which isn't even based in truth or real science.

Yes, that is based on science. I didn't make it up, but a ton of studies have all verified homosexuals, et. all., do not choose to be that way.

You don't know me -and what you wrote about me is incorrect.

I don't know you, but I am not wrong. When "your side" starts screaming, whining, and crying over someone being acknowledged as an equal human being worthy of being treated with decency and respect, "your side" makes an issue of it because you go on about how you're having these agendas shoved down your throat, but it's only your side that is insisting their own agenda be enforced by insisting on having a special exception and privilege to either discriminate, not have to acknowledge you don't like as a good person, and to keep those you don't approve of away from the places you don't want to share with them. "My side" is wanting what everybody else has, and isn't even trying to tell you how to raise your kids or insisting anyone should be exempt from certain places, and we aren't even asking that we be allowed to not serve "your kind" at our establishments.

 

[kerndog]

That's not even comparable. Kids are not sexually developed in anyway, and there no reason to grant rights to a group that does do harm like that. Homosexuality has zero inherent risks that heterosexuals do not face themselves.

And we're not trying to. However, we do need to at least pretend to get along for the sake of society. It works better for everyone with less minority power trampling the minorities, and with more equality rather than less.

We try. But people like you keep butting your noses in and turning this into an issue, where previously, before your involvement, there was none at all.

I DO NOT HATE YOU OR ANY OTHER gay individual, i work with 3 openly gay people, 2 men, 1 woman. I get along great with 2 of them, i treat them with the same respect i treat anyone else, but they know how i feel about being forced fed on this issue, so, they respectfully dont bring it up around me, the other is pushy and arrogant about it. About 3 years ago we had an openly gay woman, i worked with, who was breaking up the marriage of a co-worker, long story short, the husband shot the gay woman dead in the parking lot of a local grocery store down the road, and then shot himself. Left people here with a lot of hard feelings toward gay community, being gay was not the issue, immoral behavior WAS. I will not have my family being led to believe immorality is acceptable, it is a scourge !

 

[Etritonakin]

Yes, you are anti-gay.

What I wrote was not anti-gay.

It would depend how you defined anti-gay -but I would not say that is the case.

In case you actually wanted to know.... I am personally against the sin of homosexuality -but that may not mean what you think.

Just as a person can have outward features both male and female, so I believe it quite possible that other not-so-visible things may make one not completely/distinctly male or female.
Such may even affect attraction -but even so, that would be one of an extremely great number of factors.

Such or similar things are absolutely not the only reason people engage in homosexual activity.

Pardon me if this seems crude -but sometimes people just want to have sex. It's not as though people are born being attracted to their hands, either -they just like how it feels.
Ask an inmate who engages in homosexuality if they are gay -a good percentage will tell you it just feels better than their hand.

I actually don't believe other peoples' sexuality is any of my business -but some make it everyone's business in harmful ways -and in ways that really don't have anything to do with their sexuality, such as promoting agendas with outright untruths.
That goes for people and groups on any and every side of just about any issue.
Doing so to young impressionable minds -for which you are not directly responsible, no less -is a disservice -to say the least.
I do not look down on any group for any reason -but I'm not going to agree with the horsepucky of any group, either.
I actually think many religious groups are just as full of horsepucky.

I do believe that it is important to consider God's will in everything -and to apply the commandments to one's own actual situation -but religious or not, people should not be fed "consensus" -but seek to know their own actual personal situation.

The commandment concerning adultery was given for an ideal situation of distinct males and females. For whatever reason, that is not the case in every case.
If, for example, a person was half male and half female -outwardly, and in whatever way they might be inwardly -how would they be expected to act?
Yet, I realize that many are not even of a mind to keep the commandments -and it is not my place to convince them.
Even if they were, I do not know the actual situation of any individual -that is theirs to deal with.
I don't give their business a thought unless It becomes my business somehow -and I definitely would not look down in them or treat them badly.

I do believe that some will not fare well in their future due to their decisions concerning any sort of sexuality. It can be expressed in healthy ways -and in ways which are harmful -and even deadly.
I believe that sexuality -which is for the purpose of reproduction -is the basis of a strong family society -and any lie or half-truth concerning it will affect the whole society adversely.
To turn its focus on personal pleasure alone is selfish -as is indoctrinating young minds with lies and half-truths with little or no actual concern for their actual well-being.

I do believe it would be best for others to consider God's will in every situation -which often means going against what is "natural" -because I want them to live forever, and to understand the need for universal government, order, and maintenance of the creation by one capable of such. After this life, human sexuality will not even be an issue -but the necessity of government and order will always be an issue.

Still -some are not of a mind to consider such things -or to believe they have anything to do with reality -and I wish them well, regardless.
I believe they will consider it differently in the future -and I think it will be awesome when they do -and that these issues and controversies will then pale in comparison.

 

[Etritonakin]

Yes, that is based on science. I didn't make it up, but a ton of studies have all verified homosexuals, et. all., do not choose to be that way.

I don't know you, but I am not wrong. When "your side" starts screaming, whining, and crying over someone being acknowledged as an equal human being worthy of being treated with decency and respect, "your side" makes an issue of it because you go on about how you're having these agendas shoved down your throat, but it's only your side that is insisting their own agenda be enforced by insisting on having a special exception and privilege to either discriminate, not have to acknowledge you don't like as a good person, and to keep those you don't approve of away from the places you don't want to share with them. "My side" is wanting what everybody else has, and isn't even trying to tell you how to raise your kids or insisting anyone should be exempt from certain places, and we aren't even asking that we be allowed to not serve "your kind" at our establishments.

"Science" does not equate to truth or fact. It just doesn't -especially when used to support other things.

I don't have a "side" -and I'm not screaming with anyone.

That is also "party spirit" -a work of the flesh. I believe in unity, and try to work toward it.

It is understandable if you, perhaps, see that I am somewhat religious and lump me with all that you hold in mind concerning religion and the religious, but it is not accurate. It is also a tendency which I strive to avoid and recommend others avoid.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I believe they will consider it differently in the future -and I think it will be awesome when they do -and that these issues and controversies will then pale in comparison.

Yes, we will. People who are against homosexuals and transgender and bisexuals, they will go the way of the racist. It doesn't matter for what reasons you say their are living a destructive lifestyle, what your god says, it won't matter, because we are not many generations away from people who will view those who are prejudiced against those who are LBGT as no different than we view racists today.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes, we will. People who are against homosexuals and transgender and bisexuals, they will go the way of the racist. It doesn't matter for what reasons you say their are living a destructive lifestyle, what your god says, it won't matter, because we are not many generations away from people who will view those who are prejudiced against those who are LBGT as no different than we view racists today.

The homophobe is indeed seen as how we view racists. I live in a highly conservative (by our standards) state and glad to see many people have become indifferent or even supportive of my gay friends.
Even during my high school days it wasn't terribly common to stand unopposed to homophobia (though homophobic jokes were still common. Eh immaturity.) Though we're no where near as clique-y or with such a stringent social hierarchy as American schools are portrayed to have.

I like to call homophobia this generation's version of racism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The homophobe is indeed seen as how we view racists. I live in a highly conservative (by our standards) state and glad to see many people have become indifferent or even supportive of my gay friends.

Where I live, it is so Conservative that they have made an issue to try to grant to legally protected right to discriminate so long as it is carried out under a "sincerely held religious belief."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I DO NOT HATE YOU OR ANY OTHER gay individual, i work with 3 openly gay people, 2 men, 1 woman. I get along great with 2 of them, i treat them with the same respect i treat anyone else, but they know how i feel about being forced fed on this issue, so, they respectfully dont bring it up around me, the other is pushy and arrogant about it.

So I'm guessing you don't bring up anything about your home life? Nothing about your wife or girlfriend, or events that include them? If not, I suppose that's fair. But if you talk about your family life, but expect LGBT people to be quiet about theirs, then that's just hypocritical.

About 3 years ago we had an openly gay woman, i worked with, who was breaking up the marriage of a co-worker, long story short, the husband shot the gay woman dead in the parking lot of a local grocery store down the road, and then shot himself. Left people here with a lot of hard feelings toward gay community, being gay was not the issue, immoral behavior WAS. I will not have my family being led to believe immorality is acceptable, it is a scourge !

What in the world does that have to do with gay people in general? The whole "jealous husband shoots cheating wife to death" trope is very common with heterosexuals. I don't see how the sexual orientations involved have anything to do with it at all. If she was cheating with a man or - not cheating at all, even - she still would've ended up dead. It's not somehow categorically worse because she was apparently cheating with another woman. She's still dead. Are you trying to excuse that?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What I wrote was not anti-gay.

Going on about this agenda, assuming homosexual relationships are just about pleasure (thus lacking intimacy), and including adjectives such as "deadly" in such a way in such a discussion are anti-gay.

Ask an inmate who engages in homosexuality if they are gay -a good percentage will tell you it just feels better than their hand.

Prison is an extraneous circumstance. Most people wouldn't normally kill, but in a situation of kill or be killed suddenly these people who normally wouldn't kill because they aren't killers will move to preserve their own life. But that too is an extreme and extraneous circumstance.

I actually don't believe other peoples' sexuality is any of my business -but some make it everyone's business in harmful ways -and in ways that really don't have anything to do with their sexuality, such as promoting agendas with outright untruths.

Then quit trying to make it your business. Go about your life, let everyone else go about yours. Don't involve yourself in our lives, and we won't involve our selves with yours. The absolute best way to never hear from us again is to tolerate us, accept us, and give us equal rights and protections under the law. Do that, and you wont hear from us.

To turn its focus on personal pleasure alone is selfish -as is indoctrinating young minds with lies and half-truths with little or no actual concern for their actual well-being.

Homosexuals have sex to be close and intimate with their partners, much like heterosexuals do. They also have sex for pleasure, just like heterosexuals do.

I do believe it would be best for others to consider God's will in every situation

And if you don't believe in your god, then consider your god's will is irrelevant and useless. And then there are those like me who became much better off after evicting the holy ghost.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I DO NOT HATE YOU OR ANY OTHER gay individual, i work with 3 openly gay people, 2 men, 1 woman. I get along great with 2 of them, i treat them with the same respect i treat anyone else, but they know how i feel about being forced fed on this issue, so, they respectfully dont bring it up around me, the other is pushy and arrogant about it. About 3 years ago we had an openly gay woman, i worked with, who was breaking up the marriage of a co-worker, long story short, the husband shot the gay woman dead in the parking lot of a local grocery store down the road, and then shot himself. Left people here with a lot of hard feelings toward gay community, being gay was not the issue, immoral behavior WAS. I will not have my family being led to believe immorality is acceptable, it is a scourge !

Yeah, because people have never killed their cheating spouse and the person they are with before, heterosexual or homosexual.
And the only scourge is telling people their behaviors are immoral and unacceptable when they are causing harm to no one.

 

[SomeRandom]

Where I live, it is so Conservative that they have made an issue to try to grant to legally protected right to discriminate so long as it is carried out under a "sincerely held religious belief."

Wow. That's pretty ****ed up.

 

[Etritonakin]

Yes, we will. People who are against homosexuals and transgender and bisexuals, they will go the way of the racist. It doesn't matter for what reasons you say their are living a destructive lifestyle, what your god says, it won't matter, because we are not many generations away from people who will view those who are prejudiced against those who are LBGT as no different than we view racists today.

That's not really what I said -and I think your prediction is already true -in fact, it appears that the gay rights movement, etc., has been far more successful than the eradication of racism.
I am not prejudiced against LBGT -and it is simple fact that many of whatever sexuality are living destructive lifestyles -some of which has to do with expression of sexuality.
Also...I was mostly referring to what happens after death.

However -not that I expect you to believe or agree -unless what is written happens, we are not many years from human warfare making the LBGT thing a non-issue.
While we decide which bathroom to use, World War III is in the works. You really have to look at the big picture.

If that were not the case, then I'd agree with your prediction somewhat -though changes are rarely permanent due to our lack of permanence, and humans eradicating prejudice altogether is just not going to happen.

I'm perfectly fine with people taking the issue up with God when they see him -either when he ceases human warfare and begins to rule Earth -or at some other point.
I'm also perfectly fine with them not believing that will happen -though I think it will be awesome when it does happen.

 

[Etritonakin]

Going on about this agenda, assuming homosexual relationships are just about pleasure (thus lacking intimacy), and including adjectives such as "deadly" in such a way in such a discussion are anti-gay.


Then quit trying to make it your business. Go about your life, let everyone else go about yours. Don't involve yourself in our lives, and we won't involve our selves with yours. The absolute best way to never hear from us again is to tolerate us, accept us, and give us equal rights and protections under the law. Do that, and you wont hear from us.

I certainly do not assume such, and did not state such.

I do go about my life and let everyone else go about theirs. That's exactly what I do.

"Do that, and you wont hear from us." -not likely, but I have absolutely nothing to do with that.

 

[ShivaFan]

The "greatest" criminals of indoctrination is the rabbit hole mindset of the peons of government and government itself. Even in the case of abuse in the name of "religion", it is some government power holding the fringe cudgels of religion to beat the heads in or shoot the face off or burn someone on the stake in the name of the government wearing some holy robe and not the temple or church. Unless of course, the church and the government are one in the same, which is most often a dynamic that arose from government itself and not "the church". There is no question, of all the abusers of both religion and politics, the greatest is government, and government has been the greatest mass murderer in modern time, no doubt, and the most horrific cults of death has been the politics of government and socialism and communism.

The Islamic extremists, terrorism, this is a modern phenomenon where POLITICS was mixed with religion. It was started in the North West Frontier Province of former India, now Pakistan, and these politicos didn't even believe the bunk but unfortunately some of the peasants did.

A university will not be universal at all under the straight jacket of such government, safe zones are simply a straightjacket and a new word for being put into the government plantation. The end result is clear, bots to be GOVERNED, the mantra "I think I know less than I thought" where knowing itself becomes a crime and only labels exist, viz "racist", "hate crime", et all. This explains all the "advantages" of their disadvantages they place on others so that they can only be governed but never independent. The leaders in government are the only one's who can be individuals (to be worshipped - government zealotry is the ultimate religion) and everyone else is just "citizens" and not individuals, just one blob.

Your odds as a child or teenager being molested by a teacher in a school are multifold higher than by a priest. If these "teachers" are only zealotry agents of government, the government class, for sure they have no intention to teach but to control. They become just another form of police, not teachers. Political police. Who fear to be otherwise. Else they lose their retirement benefits. Paid by the backs of slaves. To government.

 

[Thanda]

Interestingly enough, the idea that one should not have sex during the teenage years is a very recent phenomenon. Up until post WWII there wasn't even a concept of adolescence or teenager. And even when it first came about, it was more about marketing than anything else. People were usually married off by the age of 15. The age of marriage slowly increased over the 20th century, especially in the latter half. The so called "traditional values" that is constantly being raved about as pinnacles of the good old fashioned days are not even a century old in the West. (Younger in other regions of the world I'm sure.)

That's one of the things I've always found interesting. In times past a 13 year-old girl/boy was considered old enough for sex, work, marriage and kids. Today their considered too young for everything but sex (the very thing that often brings kids thus necessitating work and marriage). What do you thing informed this decision of modern life.

 

[JoStories]

I DO NOT HATE YOU OR ANY OTHER gay individual, i work with 3 openly gay people, 2 men, 1 woman. I get along great with 2 of them, i treat them with the same respect i treat anyone else, but they know how i feel about being forced fed on this issue, so, they respectfully dont bring it up around me, the other is pushy and arrogant about it.

Anytime I read a sentence like the above, I know that whomever has said it is homophobic. Its like someone saying...but I have 3 Black friends...how can I be a racist? If someone really did have gay friends with whom they worked and it truly didn't matter, the fact that they are gay would not even be brought up. It would not matter. In the immortal words of the Bard...Me thinkst he doth protest too much

 

[SomeRandom]

That's one of the things I've always found interesting. In times past a 13 year-old girl/boy was considered old enough for sex, work, marriage and kids. Today their considered too young for everything but sex (the very thing that often brings kids thus necessitating work and marriage). What do you thing informed this decision of modern life.

Hmm honestly I think it was Freud.
Back in the day he supposedly suggested that children who are sexually abused carry with them the scars throughout their lives. This was rejected by his colleagues, probably due to the culture at the time.
As time progressed and Psycharitry began to develop, people started to notice patterns. Children who experienced sexual encounters at a young age had abnormalities in their reaction to normal life as they grew up.
As the discipline continued to develop it began arguing for a prolonged childhood. To recognise the newly discovered nuances in human neurological development and so our attitudes in society slowly shifted towards the modern idea of children being too young for sexual activity before adolescence. Couple this with our already strong protective instincts towards our young collectively and you get a serious adverse reaction to childhood sexuality on a large scale.

So I think that modern science basically intermingled with our herd instincts and created a culture that condemned sex with a child (age largely dependent on the region) with such a ferocity that even logic would be overridden.
I mean within the context of society often being unable to properly discuss child sex crime or even a man being biologically turned on by youth as natural selection might dictate/explain logically. Not that marriage at 12 was possibly a good thing, or anything like that.

Of course this is merely speculation as I am not a trained professional in any Scientific field. But those are my thoughts.

 

[Thanda]

Hmm honestly I think it was Freud.

I've heard a lot of this Freud fellow - perhaps one day I should investigate what all the fuss is about him

Back in the day he supposedly suggested that children who are sexually abused carry with them the scars throughout their lives. This was rejected by his colleagues, probably due to the culture at the time.
As time progressed and Psycharitry began to develop, people started to notice patterns. Children who experienced sexual encounters at a young age had abnormalities in their reaction to normal life as they grew up.
As the discipline continued to develop it began arguing for a prolonged childhood. To recognise the newly discovered nuances in human neurological development and so our attitudes in society slowly shifted towards the modern idea of children being too young for sexual activity before adolescence. Couple this with our already strong protective instincts towards our young collectively and you get a serious adverse reaction to childhood sexuality on a large scale.

So I think that modern science basically intermingled with our herd instincts and created a culture that condemned sex with a child (age largely dependent on the region) with such a ferocity that even logic would be overridden.
I mean within the context of society often being unable to properly discuss child sex crime or even a man being biologically turned on by youth as natural selection might dictate/explain logically. Not that marriage at 12 was possibly a good thing, or anything like that.

Of course this is merely speculation as I am not a trained professional in any Scientific field. But those are my thoughts.

My main point was about consistency. I understand that at some point society decided to extend childhood to 18 (always wondered why 18 specifically) but at first it was atleast somewhat consistent. That is they put off all adult related rights and responsibilities (sex, booze, job, cars, marriage etc.) until the age they felt children were properly developed and competent. However in the last few decades there has been a steady trend towards relaxing the restrictions on the rights (sex, alcohol) while keeping in place and even strengthening prohibitions on the responsibilities or what people perceive as being more of a responsibility (work, marriage).
This appears to be happening at both a social and legislative level. For example adolescent sex has largely been decriminalised (between age-mates) while marriage has been more rigorously frowned upon at young ages (where even 23 is considered too young) by society.
Also a two recent court rulings in South Africa further emphasise the point - One court ruled to decriminalise under-age sex while another court ruled that an under age girl no longer has to obtain their parent's or guardian's permission to have an abortion. Thus the right without the responsibility.

In fairness though it is likely part of a larger societal trend (driven partly perhaps by pop culture and consumerism) of placing more emphasis on the pleasures of life and avoiding as much as possible any responsibilities even if some of those responsibilities flow naturally from the pleasures.

 

[SomeRandom]

I've heard a lot of this Freud fellow - perhaps one day I should investigate what all the fuss is about him

Lol, you're lucky. I've grown up around Pyschologists and Counselors who idolize the fellow.
I see his merit, I think. But he's kind of a dinosaur in my silly modern youthful thinking.

My main point was about consistency. I understand that at some point society decided to extend childhood to 18 (always wondered why 18 specifically) but at first it was atleast somewhat consistent. That is they put off all adult related rights and responsibilities (sex, booze, job, cars, marriage etc.) until the age they felt children were properly developed and competent. However in the last few decades there has been a steady trend towards relaxing the restrictions on the rights (sex, alcohol) while keeping in place and even strengthening prohibitions on the responsibilities or what people perceive as being more of a responsibility (work, marriage).
This appears to be happening at both a social and legislative level. For example adolescent sex has largely been decriminalised (between age-mates) while marriage has been more rigorously frowned upon at young ages (where even 23 is considered too young) by society.
Also a two recent court rulings in South Africa further emphasise the point - One court ruled to decriminalise under-age sex while another court ruled that an under age girl no longer has to obtain their parent's or guardian's permission to have an abortion. Thus the right without the responsibility.

In fairness though it is likely part of a larger societal trend (driven partly perhaps by pop culture and consumerism) of placing more emphasis on the pleasures of life and avoiding as much as possible any responsibilities even if some of those responsibilities flow naturally from the pleasures.

That might be a cultural thing.

Having said that, you're probably right. Consumerism probably does instill into young folks a desire to live as much as possible without responsibility.
I'm in my mid 20s now and only now decided to join the adult world and I'm far from the only one. I have been allowed to indulge in my weird little habits (though I still pay bills.)

Though I would argue the right for an under aged girl to have an abortion without her parent's consent personally, only because what if the parent/s are the one's who got said child pregnant? I mean, there's a whole other discussion there and nothing to do with "right without the responsibility." And an underage girl would probably be medically recommended to have an abortion by medical professionals in many circumstances anyway. A child should not be placed at medical risk due to parents being out of the loop or very traditionally stubborn or worse abusive. If you're old enough for sex, then you're old enough to make the medical decision. Neither is a stroll in the park.

Ours is a complicated world with a lot of variances. Sex between minors should be judged as a case by case basis, but probably harmless most of the time.
An older person (man or woman) seducing a much younger person into sexual encounters should be taken seriously by the public. But unless you're a female being seduced or worse raped by an older man, then you've got no support. Because a boy sleeping with a hot older woman is often deemed "becoming a real man" or "lucky" by society at large.
I mean, hell, I remember the most frequent topic to come up in therapy for sex abuse victims was the actual lack of support for male victims (of any age) given by society. As well as sexuality and the like.

There's a whole myriad of various sexual politics in play which probably does influence how society reacts to certain situations of child sexual exploits.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

While we decide which bathroom to use, World War III is in the works. You really have to look at the big picture.

I am seeing the larger picture. Normally, my focus is on human rights violations, environmental degradation and destruction, the wide-scale poisoning happening through industry and agriculture, the massive and unsustainable waste of consumer culture, and the fact that Islamophobic measures will not fight Islamic terrorism but only make it worse, as will continued intervention in the Middle East by the West. We're pretty much only in the current ****-storm of a crisis because of the "dominoes" that England flicked over, that France nudged a bit, and that America allowed to keep going.

I see his merit, I think. But he's kind of a dinosaur in my silly modern youthful thinking.

Even in the field of psychology he is considered a dinosaur and his ideas have been largely and mostly debunked and abandoned. About the most you're going to see his ideas in the field come from anti-LBGT facilities such as Focus on the Family, FRC, or NARTH. Everywhere else in the field they tend to rely on the ideas and practices that came after Freud.