| Do you agree with O'Reilly or the School? |
| O'Reilly |
|
58% |
[ 7 ] |
| Middle/Undecided (Elaborate) |
|
16% |
[ 2 ] |
| The School |
|
25% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 12 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Thu May 26, 2005 5:45 pm |
|
| madlilnerd wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | voy416 wrote: | You should never tell a child being gay is wrong because it is not wrong. It is how people are and people should really just get over the fact that there are gay people. gay's have been around for years. They were in history although people do not like to say they were. there is NO perfect parent teach your kids the best you can.
my view as i has said is i am gay but before you judge me, judge yourself |
Maybe we aren't judging the PEOPLE, just the ACTION. The concept of one being gay goes straight down to moral beliefs, and if the parents deem it immoral, then they should be allowed to tell that to their children, as it is THEIR job to tell their children what is right and wrong. |
Being gay is not an action. Sex between two men or two women is an action and is considered wrong by many people.
Six year olds are taught about stereotypical families with a Mummy and a Daddy, but so many families nowadays are divorced or single parents that I think children should be taught about a wide range of different families to give them a wider understanding of the REAL WORLD. |
Sure, sure, but NOT of two moms and two dads.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Thu May 26, 2005 10:59 pm |
|
A lot of kids have two moms and two dads these days 
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Fri May 27, 2005 10:00 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | madlilnerd wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | voy416 wrote: | You should never tell a child being gay is wrong because it is not wrong. It is how people are and people should really just get over the fact that there are gay people. gay's have been around for years. They were in history although people do not like to say they were. there is NO perfect parent teach your kids the best you can.
my view as i has said is i am gay but before you judge me, judge yourself |
Maybe we aren't judging the PEOPLE, just the ACTION. The concept of one being gay goes straight down to moral beliefs, and if the parents deem it immoral, then they should be allowed to tell that to their children, as it is THEIR job to tell their children what is right and wrong. |
Being gay is not an action. Sex between two men or two women is an action and is considered wrong by many people.
Six year olds are taught about stereotypical families with a Mummy and a Daddy, but so many families nowadays are divorced or single parents that I think children should be taught about a wide range of different families to give them a wider understanding of the REAL WORLD. |
Sure, sure, but NOT of two moms and two dads. |
Why not? What does it matter if they have one mum and two dads? Or no dad and two mums? Or a lesbian mum with a male gay best friend? Why does it matter so much? It sounds to me that you are going to teach your own children (if you get any) some very mixed up things.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 27, 2005 1:07 pm |
|
| Seven of Nine wrote: | | A lot of kids have two moms and two dads these days |
Irrelivent. That does NOT mean that they should be taught that by the schools
| madlilnerd wrote: | | Why not? What does it matter if they have one mum and two dads? Or no dad and two mums? Or a lesbian mum with a male gay best friend? Why does it matter so much? It sounds to me that you are going to teach your own children (if you get any) some very mixed up things. |
Messed up from your point of view I will submit to you that perhaps BEING gay is not wrong, but it is ACTING on it that's wrong.
This is essentially what I will teach my children one day (NOT at a young age, however, mind you)
BEING gay (after explaining it) is not exactly wrong, it is DOING things--acting on it--that really is wrong, and the Bible says against it. It's wrong, and those people are misguided and are going against moral teachings. However, althought they are doing something wrong, that does NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE BAD PEOPLE.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Fri May 27, 2005 1:10 pm |
|
I didn't say messed up, I said mixed up. There's a difference.
The bible only says that sex between two men is wrong. It doesn't actually say anything about lesbians or gay people getting married.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 27, 2005 1:11 pm |
|
| madlilnerd wrote: | I didn't say messed up, I said mixed up. There's a difference.
The bible only says that sex between two men is wrong. It doesn't actually say anything about lesbians or gay people getting married. |
It's implied
And there's nothing mixed up about it
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Fri May 27, 2005 1:15 pm |
|
You said that being gay was "wrong", yet you'd still love and support your children if they turned out gay. Would you love and support them if they did something else "wrong", for example, getting pregnant outside of marraige or having an abortion or raped and murdered?
And saying that it's implied is reading between the lines.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 27, 2005 1:20 pm |
|
| madlilnerd wrote: | You said that being gay was "wrong", yet you'd still love and support your children if they turned out gay. Would you love and support them if they did something else "wrong", for example, getting pregnant outside of marraige or having an abortion or raped and murdered?
And saying that it's implied is reading between the lines. |
I would still love and support them, of course. Although I don't know if I would support her doing things like having an abortion, etc, but I would still love them--unless they began to murder, in which case I don't know if it would diminish or I would lose it somewhat. If they had an abortion, I would be mad and dissapointed and think that she did something cruel. If they raped or murdered someone, I would NOT give them economic support or anything like that. As a matter of fact, although I would be saddened by the actions, I would even push for the child to go to jail if found convicted of rape and murder.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Fri May 27, 2005 3:47 pm |
|
There's a difference between loving someone and still wanting justice to be done, 
|
|
|
Birdy
Socialist
Joined: 20 Sep 2004
Posts: 13502
Location: Here.
|
| Sun May 29, 2005 8:09 am |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | I've seen a two-headed turtle, snake, frog, and lizard. I've seen children with flippers for arms, and I've seen conjoined twins. They are all "part of nature", but are sill aberations - deviations from what they were supposed to be. |
That's your opinion. Who are you to judge/say what is normal and what isn't?
-------signature-------
Nosce te ipsum
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Sun May 29, 2005 9:12 am |
|
Without mutations, evolution wouldn't happen. Normal does not exist in nature.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Sun May 29, 2005 12:55 pm |
|
Without straight animals and people, there would be no procreation, either. Natural selection would favor the "normalcy" of having a sexual preference in the opposite sex, unless gays suddenly learn the art of parthenogenisis. And I really don't see that happening.
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sun May 29, 2005 3:36 pm |
|
| Exalya wrote: | | Without straight animals and people, there would be no procreation, either. Natural selection would favor the "normalcy" of having a sexual preference in the opposite sex, unless gays suddenly learn the art of parthenogenisis. And I really don't see that happening. |
While true, that is only looking at, and arguing the point from one side. Natural Selection may not favor homosexuality, Mutations in the human body help cause it.
These mutations are at the core of what causes things like what Webtaz99 was saying. They also cause certain things in Human beings to change, such as Testosterone in women and estrogen in males to be released unabated by the natural enzymes that are supposed to be released by the body to counteract them.
We are one of the few cultures that has a problem with this. This is not something that has sprung up in the past few years. Native Americans such as the Navajo had "Manly-Hearted Women" Women who would fight wars and do the work of men. Sound Familier?
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sun May 29, 2005 3:39 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | We are one of the few cultures that has a problem with this. This is not something that has sprung up in the past few years. Native Americans such as the Navajo had "Manly-Hearted Women" Women who would fight wars and do the work of men. Sound Familier? |
That example is a social mutation, however.
Scientifically, you are correct that mutations are important to evolution. Natural selection's purpose, however, is to ensure that only mutations that help better the survival of a species will survive. Because homosexuality in a sexual species does not better the survival of a species, then natural selection would rule in favour of heterosexuals rather than those having a homosexual "mutation."
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Sun May 29, 2005 3:53 pm |
|
But, homosexuality does help in the process of evolution. Women with homosexual male relatives have more children. Seriously, I read it in New Scientist magazine. Also, women with children seem to be more trusting leaving their offspring in the hands of a gay man than a straight one.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun May 29, 2005 5:01 pm |
|
| madlilnerd wrote: | | But, homosexuality does help in the process of evolution. Women with homosexual male relatives have more children. Seriously, I read it in New Scientist magazine. Also, women with children seem to be more trusting leaving their offspring in the hands of a gay man than a straight one. |
I don't believe that--particularly/especially the part of the process of evolution, how it helps it. I fail to see how it does. And the only place where I've really heard something of prefering leaving offspring in the hands of gay men is here--at STV. I have yet to meet a woman--in person--that would prefer that, and in the US I can guarantee you that most moms would NOT prefer that, as we are a society of morals that believes that being gay is not right.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Sun May 29, 2005 5:17 pm |
|
So, in the US, gay people are not welcome? If I had children (which is a topic I've been thinking about a lot recently) then I would definately prefer to leave my child in the hands of a gay man over a straight man (presuming that I trusted both men equally and neither of them were related to me or the baby) because I believe that gay men are more gentle and have less anger management problems, don't swear as much and can be much more caring and sensitive.
We (humans) are God's children, yes? And God designed each and every one of us, yes? If being gay was wrong, then why would God make gay people in the first place? You don't choose to be gay, just like you don't choose your eye colour or who you are sexually attracted to. It's just the way you turn out to be.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun May 29, 2005 5:33 pm |
|
| madlilnerd wrote: | So, in the US, gay people are not welcome? If I had children (which is a topic I've been thinking about a lot recently) then I would definately prefer to leave my child in the hands of a gay man over a straight man (presuming that I trusted both men equally and neither of them were related to me or the baby) because I believe that gay men are more gentle and have less anger management problems, don't swear as much and can be much more caring and sensitive.
We (humans) are God's children, yes? And God designed each and every one of us, yes? If being gay was wrong, then why would God make gay people in the first place? You don't choose to be gay, just like you don't choose your eye colour or who you are sexually attracted to. It's just the way you turn out to be. |
In a way, I would say that you DO choose to be gay, but nonetheless, it's not that gay people aren't welcome, just that Americans are more traditional, etc. And I'm as good with kids, am as caring and sensitive, and don't sware as much as any girl/woman (essentially yes) and yet I'm not gay, so...
And I don't know if I can answer why God would allow people to become gay--but it doesn't mean that it's right. Just look at Sadom and Gamor, for instance.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Sun May 29, 2005 5:35 pm |
|
Is it still wrong to be gay if they take up a life of chastity and become a monk or nun?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun May 29, 2005 5:37 pm |
|
| madlilnerd wrote: | | Is it still wrong to be gay if they take up a life of chastity and become a monk or nun? |
I suppose that if you don't act on it, then it's not wrong, but...
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Sun May 29, 2005 5:41 pm |
|
But what? I can guess... but you wouldn't really accept a gay monk or nun, would you? Because they're gay and being gay is "wrong" even if you don't have a sexual relationship of any kind.
What about bisexuals? Are they right, wrong or only right if they act on one side of their sexual desires?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun May 29, 2005 5:44 pm |
|
| madlilnerd wrote: | But what? I can guess... but you wouldn't really accept a gay monk or nun, would you? Because they're gay and being gay is "wrong" even if you don't have a sexual relationship of any kind.
What about bisexuals? Are they right, wrong or only right if they act on one side of their sexual desires? |
It is wrong if they act on their homosexual feelings.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Sun May 29, 2005 5:47 pm |
|
What if they don't have sexual relations? Is saying that they love someone acting on homonsexual feelings? Kissing? Is it wrong for a woman to kiss another woman?
Would you still think being gay was wrong if a gay man saved your life?
The guy who cracked the enigma code in WW2 (which led to us winning the war) was gay and because of anti gay people he commited suicide.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sun May 29, 2005 5:51 pm |
|
| madlilnerd wrote: | | Would you still think being gay was wrong if a gay man saved your life? |
I would still think that being a murderer was wrong if a murderer saved my life. (Now would I let them go? That's a different, Pirates of the Caribbean question.  )
(Edit: And this, boys and girls, is why you don't watch TV and type at the same time. Stupid typos.)
Last edited by Hitchhiker on Sun May 29, 2005 5:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Sun May 29, 2005 5:54 pm |
|
I think you mean murderer not murder. Murder is a taking of human life, being gay does not hurt anyone any more than being straight (unless a gay person gets beaten up for being gay)
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
