It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

School Clams Up on 'Gay' Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners

page: 16
15
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
it is impossible for anyone to make someone else feel bad about who they are.




It is very possible.

Especially when prejudice and hate is legitimized through public policy.




posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by fmcanarney
it is impossible for anyone to make someone else feel bad about who they are.




It is very possible.

Especially when prejudice and hate is legitimized through public policy.



Yeah, seriously. I think fmcanarney needs to talk to developemental psychologists since they all feel that not only can you, but people do and it destroys. I am so sick of experts, doctors, scientist, educators doing studies and writing books and peer reviewed papers when any random poster on ATS can tell them why they are wrong based on nothing more than.....well, nothing.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Wow, I take one day off to watch the elections, and look what happens...

reply to post by Jezus

I just don't understand how you don't see a problem with "hateful language" but even mentioning the fact that a penis fits into several different orifices (basic biology and fact) is offensive.

I don't find it offensive. I've heard much worse. Don't pat yourself on the back too hard.

You seem to have some problem with understanding the difference between adults and children. The offense was that children can read these posts, and children should be shielded from such language. Adults, on the other hand, should be able to handle language such as you used.

There is a difference between the two. Children do not have the intellectual and emotional maturity to handle the issues that adults tend to take for granted. Children cannot sign contracts for this very reason. Children cannot drive cars for this very reason. Children are (supposedly
) not allowed to drink for this very reason. Children are not allowed to vote for this very reason. Need I go on?

I am assuming (hopefully correctly, but you do make me wonder sometimes) that you are an adult. As such, you have implicitly accepted responsibility to act as an adult. A part of that is to protect children from vulgar or suggestive language. In no way was your description required to make the point you were trying to convey. It was shock language, used for one simple reason: to anger and frustrate your opponents. You gave no thought to decorum or audience.

And yet, you seem to take offense at anyone who does not think being gay is somehow 'wonderful'. strange that you take such offense at points which were obviously (to me anyway) not intended to offend, then wave around offensive language yourself and complain when called on it.

I can imagine you as one of those people who parade down Main Street wearing cross-gender underwear. Your intention is to shock and anger and antagonize your opponents, but in reality you are allowing yourself to be shocked even by words and phrases that have no intention to offend, but rather to inform and debate. You are the reason for the setbacks endured by homosexuals yesterday. Understand that fact, and perhaps, just perhaps, you will learn how to actually further a cause rather than destroy it.

Hint: You do the former by showing maturity. You do the latter by making kindergartners sign pledge cards to uphold your agenda.


This is probably one of the most ridiculous, absurd, and offensive arguments are person can make on this topic.

...

'since it feels good, it must be OK' + It doesn't hurt anyone and doesn't involve any unwilling participants.

...

And this is really the point, as a whole we are moving forward. We are becoming more accepting of people's differences.

Wow, that is amazing! If I say 'the sky is blue', can you twist that around to mean 'airplanes are fast'?


Schism85 pretty much covered what I would say in my defense, so I'll let this lie for now. But the last paragraph quoted above simply has to be addressed. After posting offensively explicit material on a website capable of being accessed by children, you claim to be somehow offended that someone doesn't believe forcing kindergartners to sign sexually-suggestive pledge cards in support of your agenda is as great idea. Then, after berating others for not feeling the same as you on this subject, you claim that we are becoming more 'accepting of other's differences'?

It appears to me that you, sir, are the one not accepting of the opinions/sensibilities of others in this thread.

TheRedneck


[edit on 5-11-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 




I'm sorry but my language had nothing to do with "shock". Talking about a penis or vagina or even an anus is not at all offensive or shocking to me.

The fact of the matter is that considering a person to be defective is a lot more offensive than talking about basic biology.

I'm not berating anyone. Being prejudice or hateful is not a characteristic that I'm going to respect as a difference.

Again, I have nothing personally against you, there is no reason to make the discussion so petty.

I believe you are more intelligent than this ignorant point of view conveys. I don't believe you are a hateful person, but you are still expressing hate out of ignorance.

We don't need to divide each other, we are all in this together.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Could you please tell us what was so 'ignorant' about TheRedneck's post? I thought it was one of the better posts in this thread.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



I won't defend Redneck again, because he is doing a great job of it himself anyways. I just wanted to point out how weak you argument has become. Noone said anything about dividing each other. Noone here is for the idea of segregating gays. You keep round and round with the same posts, and can not convey a single intelligent point to anyone on this thread. You are acting like some kind of martyr, just because you are gay. Give it a rest.

I haven't seen Redneck be petty whatsoever, he is simply trying to reason with you, and you won't even listen to a word in his posts. Can you please point out where Redneck said being gay is defective? You are putting words into peoples mouths, and are not even disscussing the topic at hand. Once again.

And I know I said I wouldn't defend Redneck, but I couldn't help myself.







[edit on 5-11-2008 by schism85]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus

I'm sorry but my language had nothing to do with "shock". Talking about a penis or vagina or even an anus is not at all offensive or shocking to me.

I hope you don't mind my bolding of a couple of words in your post that I find key. Now, I know you are not so arrogant and ignorant to believe that because something isn't shocking to you, it can't possibly be shocking to others. That leaves me with only one other alternative: you know it is, and you simply don't want to acknowledge the fact.


The fact of the matter is that considering a person to be defective is a lot more offensive than talking about basic biology.

I really don't see where I have called anyone 'defective', nor insinuated anything of the sort. I really just do not care if someone is gay. More power to ya! Hope you have a good time!

But you apparently do find somehow offensive that others do not share your 'joy of gayness', to coin a phrase. The thing about this I find amazing is that your attitude on this point seems to be somewhat prevalent among gay men (I haven't noticed it among gay women; note to self: I have to think on that). Now, at one time in my life, I was indeed a bit homophobic. That was back when puberty was in full force and I had blood in my hormones (as opposed to the opposite
). I was naive and inexperienced back then, and thus unsure of myself.

Now I know exactly who and what I am. As a result, I really do not care if someone is gay or straight, or bisexual, or tri-sexual, or they like to wear scuba suits with red leggings and kiss green sheep... I simply don't care! The ones who care are the ones who are not comfortable with who they are and what they are. So why do you care? Are you uncomfortable with yourself?


I'm not berating anyone. Being prejudice or hateful is not a characteristic that I'm going to respect as a difference.

Then, again, why does it bother you? As an adult, you have the power to control which words bother you and which words do not.


Again, I have nothing personally against you, there is no reason to make the discussion so petty.

Yeah, those petty opinion thingys do get in the way, don't they?


I am stating my views on the subject of the thread, and attempting to debate the finer points of such. You are busy throwing those shock words around.


I believe you are more intelligent than this ignorant point of view conveys. I don't believe you are a hateful person, but you are still expressing hate out of ignorance.

Ummm... thank you?

'Hate out of ignorance'. Is it your position that one must be knowledgeable about a subject or they will be expressing hate? If so, then I am doomed to a lifetime of such 'hate'. I have absolutely no intention of turning gay to sooth your feelings. As a matter of fate, wasn't it you who stated emphathetically that one was born gay, and that such was not a choice?

I guess that means you must 'hate' straight people? Or have you lived in a stable male-female marriage and raised children? If not, you are ignorant of the finer points of such a lifestyle, as I am ignorant about the gay lifestyle.

We are all ignorant on certain subjects. You cannot completely rectify that situation. In some cases, you have to respect the fact that everyone else will not know everything you do. Rejoice in that; it is a part of what makes you a special and unique individual.


We don't need to divide each other, we are all in this together.

Wasn't that essentially what I called you out for, re-phrased? Respect for those who may be reading?

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Hey, leave the green sheep kissing scuba divers out of this.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Okay...I'm not going to bother responding to your assumption that I hate straight people and other strange things in your post.

I'll get right to the point.

I'm not gay. I simply recognize that the situation that homosexuals face in this country and in this world is difficult.

Kindergartners should be able to understand that you don't treat people differently because of their inherent differences. A teacher should be able to express this without getting into the mechanics of sex. What is on the actual card is of little importance, as long as the point is conveyed.

The reason the card was about LGBT is because it is probably the area that people are MOST comfortable with using hateful language (gay, fag, homo).

This would never even be posted if the card had been about racial hate language.

If you guys really don't have a problem with homosexuality then who cares about this? I couldn't care less about this subject specifically I only entered the thread at the sight of ignorance to the fact that homosexuality is natural.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
If you guys really don't have a problem with homosexuality then who cares about this?


There you go making baseless assumptions again. People care because the card was age inappropriate. I have posted several times before, that the school officials have stated that the card is intended for middle, and high schoolers. It uses words like transexual, and bisexual on a card, that 5 yr olds are supposed to sign. They will not be able to grasp what those words mean, and shouldn't be subjected to having to know these words or there meanings. That is why people are posting.

You don't even know the point of our argument, and you are arguing with it, for no reason. That shows alot about your character, and your cause.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by schism85]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus

Ah, now isn't it much better to address the issue?



I'm not gay.

My apologies. I assumed you were.


Kindergartners should be able to understand that you don't treat people differently because of their inherent differences. A teacher should be able to express this without getting into the mechanics of sex.

Agreed, that is my position also. I also think that pledge cards are not needed; what is needed is an enforced expectation of civility.


What is on the actual card is of little importance, as long as the point is conveyed.

But here I cannot agree. What is on the card is indeed relevant. Were the card to have said something to the effect of "I promise not to be mean to other people", I would probably still have some of the problems with it (as mentioned above), but certainly not to the extent I do this one.


The reason the card was about LGBT is because it is probably the area that people are MOST comfortable with using hateful language (gay, fag, homo).

No doubt you have simply seen it more often. People in general, in my experience, are quite good at using words such as 'fatso', 'four-eyes', 'ugly', 'Quasimodo', 'gimp', 'hick', and yes, even 'redneck'.
Children are even more prone to use such words, because they do not understand the meaning of them.

Gays do not have a lock on hurtful speech. This card, by specifically addressing one particular group, showed bias in itself. And of course, the reason for much of the outrage is that the specification had to do with a sexual activity which is beyond the complete understanding of any kindergartner. It does not have to give mechanical specifics to address them and bring up disturbing questions that should not be brought up this soon in life.


This would never even be posted if the card had been about racial hate language.

Perhaps, but I would hope it would have been addressed with the same eye to appropriateness this one is being addressed with.


If you guys really don't have a problem with homosexuality then who cares about this?

Er, for the umpteenth time... I don't care if someone is homosexual. It does not concern me.


I couldn't care less about this subject specifically I only entered the thread at the sight of ignorance to the fact that homosexuality is natural.

I think the term 'natural' is a bit out of place here, agreed. Homosexuality exists; that much is a fact. Whether or not it is 'natural' seems to me to be a bit subjective. It would not be natural for me, but I can understand where someone else might consider it to be natural for them.

Perhaps another, more appropriate term would be useful here? 'Normal' comes to mind, meaning the usual propensity of the species, but I can see where that too would have negative connotations. Anyone got any ideas?

TheRedneck

edit to add:
reply to post by schism85

Now, now, schism... jezus is being nice, let's return the favor. The ability to overlook errors made by others is a noble attribute.


TheRedneck


[edit on 5-11-2008 by TheRedneck]

[edit on 5-11-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Perhaps another, more appropriate term would be useful here? 'Normal' comes to mind, meaning the usual propensity of the species, but I can see where that too would have negative connotations. Anyone got any ideas?


Perhaps 'normal variation', as in 'blonde, brown, red and black are normal variations of hair color.' That's the best I can come up with.

Edit to say: Of course hair color is just an example of something with normal variations, there are others and I figure sexual preferences would fall in the category of having normal variations. And to clarify before anyone reads more into that sentence than what is there, as has been known to happen on this board, I would not include anything as a normal variation of sexual preferences aside from consensual adult relationships regardless of gender of those adults.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Jenna]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


It just blew my mind that he didn't even know what he was arguing about. I believe I have been very cordial with him so far. I think we both have been reasonable. This is nothing compared to some of the crap I have taken around here.


I do respect that he is being nice and is now staying on topic.



[edit on 5-11-2008 by schism85]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna

I like that suggestion! But I would equate any sexual deviation as a bit more involved than hair color (no, I'm not suggesting you hold any hidden meaning there, just an explanation), so may I respectfully suggest 'sexual variation'? It would accurately describe the situation, as a variation is a deviation from the usual, and by adding the prefix 'sexual', it also indicates the range of variation. And no negative connotations, as having a serious propensity for redheads above blonds might be seen as a sexual variation.

Any complaints to 'sexual variation'?

TheRedneck

edit because I can't keep two terms separate in my warped little brain... sigh...


[edit on 5-11-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Oh man, you are becoming more politically correct by the moment being in this thread.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I think I like your alternative better than mine.
My thinking was it's a variation, but it's still normal. (Or at least it should be considered normal.) And thus it's a normal variation.

And yes it is a bit more involved than hair color, that's why I added in my disclaimer.
I'm slowly learning that a few people who frequent this board like to read extra things into my sentences so I've been trying to cover all my bases with disclaimers. I find it sad that I have to do that, but eh what can you do?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck I think the term 'natural' is a bit out of place here, agreed. Homosexuality exists; that much is a fact. Whether or not it is 'natural' seems to me to be a bit subjective. It would not be natural for me, but I can understand where someone else might consider it to be natural for them.


This is really the base of the disagreement. (different points of views on what is natural, and if unnatural is negative)

I agree their really isn't a need for children that young to sign something with those words on it. However, I do hold that it wouldn't be a bad thing. My experience in developmental psychology has shown me that children respond very well to simplified explanations of complex concepts rather than misinformation or complete avoidance of the subject.

Overall I would guess that homosexuality is biologically natural for humans. This is debated but since both animals exhibit the trait and a few other reasons I believe homosexuality is natural. I agree that heterosexulaity is the default.

If you think about it we are literally debating whether it as appropriate for society to publicly act as if homosexuality is acceptable.

Truthfully, neither of what we think matters that much, nature and society have made the decision.

Homosexuality is going to increasingly be “in your face”, if you want to look at it that way.

But It makes people happy and leave more girls for the rest of us...

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Jezus]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by TheRedneck I think the term 'natural' is a bit out of place here, agreed. Homosexuality exists; that much is a fact. Whether or not it is 'natural' seems to me to be a bit subjective. It would not be natural for me, but I can understand where someone else might consider it to be natural for them.


My experience in developmental psychology has shown me that children respond very well to simplified explanations of complex concepts rather than misinformation or complete avoidance of the subject.

How do you explain to a 5 year old child what a transgender, and a bisexual is, without it being complex and confusing?

Complete avoidance of the subject of transgenders, and bisexuals to 5 year olds is the best way to go imo.







[edit on 5-11-2008 by schism85]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus

This is really the base of the disagreement. (different points of views on what is natural, and if unnatural is negative)

I agree, and it's a real shame. There is no such thing as a 'normal' human. We differ in size, in intelligence, in sexual preferences, in color, in customs, and in speech patterns, just to name a few things. But there is nothing wrong with us being a bit 'abnormal'. It is those differences that enable society to operate to accomplish so many different things. The problem only seems to come about when one side feels themselves to be under some sort of attack form the other, whether that attack is real or imagined.


I agree their really isn't a need for children that young to sign something with those words on it. However, I do hold that it wouldn't be a bad thing. My experience in developmental psychology has shown me that children respond very well to simplified explanations of complex concepts rather than misinformation or complete avoidance of the subject.

OK, you just confused me. You agree there isn't a need for it, but you think it's a good thing? I need some more explanation of your position, please.

On the simplified explanation, if the card were worded a little less 'specifically', then that would be an option for the teacher/parent besieged with questions. The wording is the problem, due to the specific nature of the questions it would raise in a child's mind.


Overall I would guess that homosexuality is biologically natural for humans. This is debated but since both animals exhibit the trait and a few other reasons I believe homosexuality is natural.

My experience with gay individuals would tend to disagree with that. The people I know who are gay seem to have something in their childhood that served as a trigger to seemingly confuse the heterosexual impulse. It also appears that once that impulse is disturbed, it is fairly easy for a person to have gay leanings, as socially we tend to be drawn to those of the same gender for friendship (birds of a feather, flock together). Of course, none of that is to disparage anyone who is gay; most of those situations also have in common that they were not in the direct control of the individual; that is, they happened to them, not because of them.


I agree that heterosexulaity is the default.

No argument here.


Homosexuality is going to increasingly be “in your face”, if you want to look at it that way.

As long as it is, it will be denigrated by the majority and will continue to be a source of hatred and violence. This is the sole reason Prop 8 passed in California and the reason Arkansas just passed a bill barring adoption by gay people in cohabitation. Society will never respond to force; it will respond to reason, albeit not as fast as some would like.


But It makes people happy and leave more girls for the rest of us...

Yes, it does!


reply to post by schism85

Oh man, you are becoming more politically correct by the moment being in this thread.

Hey, hey, hey! No need to get nasty here, schism! what are you, a fag-lover/fatso/pinko-commie/green-sheep-kisser or something?


(for those intellectually challenged enough to not get that, it's called 'sarcasm'...)

TheRedneck


[edit on 5-11-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


You sheep bashing hate mongerer.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join