Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
But tolerance is NOT teaching that being gay is ok, it's teaching that you don't treat them badly because they are gay.
But tolerance is NOT teaching that being gay is ok, it's teaching that you don't treat them badly because they are gay.
True. But as we've discovered, tolerance is just a euphamism for approval according to Sky Dancer. Scroll back a few pages and you'll see where she more or less acknowledged as much. What you won't find however, is any "facts" about homosexuality that she believes all school children should be taught.
Those lying fuckers always go after the kids. There's nothing normal about homosexuality. They are 1% of the population and most, if not all, chose this perverted lifestyle.....
The 24-page booklet by the National Education Association and American Psychological Association, tells students that homosexuality is a "normal expression of human sexuality"....
Interesting that you're taking one person's inarticulated opinion as proof of your theory.But tolerance is NOT teaching that being gay is ok, it's teaching that you don't treat them badly because they are gay.
True. But as we've discovered, tolerance is just a euphamism for approval according to Sky Dancer. Scroll back a few pages and you'll see where she more or less acknowledged as much. What you won't find however, is any "facts" about homosexuality that she believes all school children should be taught.
Interesting that you're taking one person's inarticulated opinion as proof of your theory.But tolerance is NOT teaching that being gay is ok, it's teaching that you don't treat them badly because they are gay.
True. But as we've discovered, tolerance is just a euphamism for approval according to Sky Dancer. Scroll back a few pages and you'll see where she more or less acknowledged as much. What you won't find however, is any "facts" about homosexuality that she believes all school children should be taught.
ww.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022106.tml]Pro-Homosexual Booklet to Be Distributed to All 16,000 US School Districts
Nice edit.Interesting that you're taking one person's inarticulated opinion as proof of your theory.True. But as we've discovered, tolerance is just a euphamism for approval according to Sky Dancer. Scroll back a few pages and you'll see where she more or less acknowledged as much. What you won't find however, is any "facts" about homosexuality that she believes all school children should be taught.
What theory is that? That Sky Dancer considers tolerance a euphamism for approval? In that case, yes, one person's opinion is certainly proof of my theory regarding that one person's opinion.
btw: It's really more of an observation than a theory anyway. But I'm not surprised that you'd confuse the two.
I don't think schools should be in the business of taking sides in moral debates, especially those related to religious belief. From a strictly secular point of view, sexual preference is a complex and varied topic. Sexual preference can take many different forms, whether it's attraction to skinny people, large people, people of different ethnic groups, tall people, short people, or people of the same sex. Depending on one's religious belief (or lack thereof) any or all of these may or may not be forbidden.
Anything which conveys a moral message accepting or condemning any of these practices should be restricted from the role of public schools. A health class which discusses human sexuality and the various forms it takes would be appropriate as long as it does not accept a specific moral position. Additionally, it could explicitly state that while various beliefs may discourage or encourage certain sexual practices, it is not the role of the course to confirm nor deny the validity of those beliefs. There may be a point where homosexuality is discussed and in the context of that discussion, homosexuality's presence throughout history, and different views that accompanied it could be illustrated. (Rejection by early hebrews, acceptance by early greeks, etc...) It would also be appropriate to note that the general consensus among the medical community is that it is not abnormal nor reflects any sort of mental illness or defect.
Overall, I think using phrases like "homosexuality is okay" is where trouble really starts. What does that mean? Is it morally ok? That depends upon one's personal belief. Is it ok in the sense that it is accepted in most free societies? I suppose so, since it is legal in most western democracies. I think it should be much more specific than "OK". Homosexuality is a form of sexual preference and even if your beliefs prohibit it, your beliefs are not universal and so in a free society we must learn to tolerate behaviors that we may personally find inappropriate, especially those that do not directly deprive us of property or life. This is the lesson that kids really need.
I don't think schools should be in the business of taking sides in moral debates, especially those related to religious belief. From a strictly secular point of view, sexual preference is a complex and varied topic. Sexual preference can take many different forms, whether it's attraction to skinny people, large people, people of different ethnic groups, tall people, short people, or people of the same sex. Depending on one's religious belief (or lack thereof) any or all of these may or may not be forbidden.
Anything which conveys a moral message accepting or condemning any of these practices should be restricted from the role of public schools. A health class which discusses human sexuality and the various forms it takes would be appropriate as long as it does not accept a specific moral position. Additionally, it could explicitly state that while various beliefs may discourage or encourage certain sexual practices, it is not the role of the course to confirm nor deny the validity of those beliefs. There may be a point where homosexuality is discussed and in the context of that discussion, homosexuality's presence throughout history, and different views that accompanied it could be illustrated. (Rejection by early hebrews, acceptance by early greeks, etc...) It would also be appropriate to note that the general consensus among the medical community is that it is not abnormal nor reflects any sort of mental illness or defect.
Overall, I think using phrases like "homosexuality is okay" is where trouble really starts. What does that mean? Is it morally ok? That depends upon one's personal belief. Is it ok in the sense that it is accepted in most free societies? I suppose so, since it is legal in most western democracies. I think it should be much more specific than "OK". Homosexuality is a form of sexual preference and even if your beliefs prohibit it, your beliefs are not universal and so in a free society we must learn to tolerate behaviors that we may personally find inappropriate, especially those that do not directly deprive us of property or life. This is the lesson that kids really need.
[These findings were publicized in an article titled Sick Again, by Time Magazine in its Feb. 20, 1978 issue. You can read it at Time Magazine.
[These findings were publicized in an article titled “Sick Again”, by Time Magazine in its Feb. 20, 1978 issue. You can read it at Time Magazine.
Do we really have to mention that this was 30 years ago?
[These findings were publicized in an article titled Sick Again, by Time Magazine in its Feb. 20, 1978 issue. You can read it at Time Magazine.
Do we really have to mention that this was 30 years ago?
Only if your only aim is to try to discredit its findings.
But, the reality is that even today, 30 years later, homosexuals and their proponents, are quick to cite the 1973 APA declassification decision as proof that there is some kind of general agreement in the medical community that homosexuality is normal.
If you think that the findings of the 1978 study are somehow no longer valid, I invite you to take up my invitation to N4mddissent to present some new research that contradicts it. It shouldnt be that difficult, the internet being what it is these days assuming, of course, that it exists and is credible.
I don't think schools should be in the business of taking sides in moral debates, especially those related to religious belief. From a strictly secular point of view, sexual preference is a complex and varied topic. Sexual preference can take many different forms, whether it's attraction to skinny people, large people, people of different ethnic groups, tall people, short people, or people of the same sex. Depending on one's religious belief (or lack thereof) any or all of these may or may not be forbidden.
Anything which conveys a moral message accepting or condemning any of these practices should be restricted from the role of public schools. A health class which discusses human sexuality and the various forms it takes would be appropriate as long as it does not accept a specific moral position. Additionally, it could explicitly state that while various beliefs may discourage or encourage certain sexual practices, it is not the role of the course to confirm nor deny the validity of those beliefs. There may be a point where homosexuality is discussed and in the context of that discussion, homosexuality's presence throughout history, and different views that accompanied it could be illustrated. (Rejection by early hebrews, acceptance by early greeks, etc...) It would also be appropriate to note that the general consensus among the medical community is that it is not abnormal nor reflects any sort of mental illness or defect.
Overall, I think using phrases like "homosexuality is okay" is where trouble really starts. What does that mean? Is it morally ok? That depends upon one's personal belief. Is it ok in the sense that it is accepted in most free societies? I suppose so, since it is legal in most western democracies. I think it should be much more specific than "OK". Homosexuality is a form of sexual preference and even if your beliefs prohibit it, your beliefs are not universal and so in a free society we must learn to tolerate behaviors that we may personally find inappropriate, especially those that do not directly deprive us of property or life. This is the lesson that kids really need.
I'd be interested to know where you get the idea that there is any agreement, let alone a consensus, in the medical community that homosexuality is normal???
And, before you cite the 1973 American Psychiatric Association (APA) vote to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder, you should be aware that the vote was far less than a consensus, and that the vote was preceded by three years of disruption and threats of violence at each years conventions and discussions of the issue.
Furthermore, 4 years after the declassification decision by the APA, a survey of 10,000 APA members revealed that of those answering, 69% said they believed 'homosexuality is usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation,' 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain. Similarly, sizable majorities said that homosexuals are generally less happy than heterosexuals (73%) and less capable of mature, loving relationships (60%). A total of 70% said that homosexuals' problems have more to do with their own inner conflicts than with stigmatization by society at large." These findings were publicized in an article titled Sick Again, by Time Magazine in its Feb. 20, 1978 issue. You can read it at Time Magazine.
Perhaps you can give us an up to date survey of medical professionals, particlarly of APA members, that contradicts these findings???
I don't think schools should be in the business of taking sides in moral debates, especially those related to religious belief. From a strictly secular point of view, sexual preference is a complex and varied topic. Sexual preference can take many different forms, whether it's attraction to skinny people, large people, people of different ethnic groups, tall people, short people, or people of the same sex. Depending on one's religious belief (or lack thereof) any or all of these may or may not be forbidden.
Anything which conveys a moral message accepting or condemning any of these practices should be restricted from the role of public schools. A health class which discusses human sexuality and the various forms it takes would be appropriate as long as it does not accept a specific moral position. Additionally, it could explicitly state that while various beliefs may discourage or encourage certain sexual practices, it is not the role of the course to confirm nor deny the validity of those beliefs. There may be a point where homosexuality is discussed and in the context of that discussion, homosexuality's presence throughout history, and different views that accompanied it could be illustrated. (Rejection by early hebrews, acceptance by early greeks, etc...) It would also be appropriate to note that the general consensus among the medical community is that it is not abnormal nor reflects any sort of mental illness or defect.
Overall, I think using phrases like "homosexuality is okay" is where trouble really starts. What does that mean? Is it morally ok? That depends upon one's personal belief. Is it ok in the sense that it is accepted in most free societies? I suppose so, since it is legal in most western democracies. I think it should be much more specific than "OK". Homosexuality is a form of sexual preference and even if your beliefs prohibit it, your beliefs are not universal and so in a free society we must learn to tolerate behaviors that we may personally find inappropriate, especially those that do not directly deprive us of property or life. This is the lesson that kids really need.
I'd be interested to know where you get the idea that there is any agreement, let alone a consensus, in the medical community that homosexuality is normal???
And, before you cite the 1973 American Psychiatric Association (APA) vote to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder, you should be aware that the vote was far less than a consensus, and that the vote was preceded by three years of disruption and threats of violence at each years conventions and discussions of the issue.
Furthermore, 4 years after the declassification decision by the APA, a survey of 10,000 APA members revealed that of those answering, 69% said they believed 'homosexuality is usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation,' 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain. Similarly, sizable majorities said that homosexuals are generally less happy than heterosexuals (73%) and less capable of mature, loving relationships (60%). A total of 70% said that homosexuals' problems have more to do with their own inner conflicts than with stigmatization by society at large." These findings were publicized in an article titled Sick Again, by Time Magazine in its Feb. 20, 1978 issue. You can read it at Time Magazine.
Perhaps you can give us an up to date survey of medical professionals, particlarly of APA members, that contradicts these findings???
Please put down the wide lapels and step away. How about some more recent info?
For example, this position statement from May 2000 from the APA which not only reaffirmed their position that homosexuality is not a disorder, it sums up the idea nicely,
Several major professional organizations including the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all made statements against reparative therapy because of concerns for the harm caused to patients. The American Psychiatric Association has already taken clear stands against discrimination, prejudice and unethical treatment on a variety of issues including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation.
Link
Or June 2006 when the APA asked the military to update instruction that still listed homosexuality as a mental disorder.
Link
The American Academy of Pediatrics certainly didn't seem to see it as a disorder when they suggested, "Give evidence of support and acceptance to adolescents
questioning their sexual orientation." in this clinical report from 2004.
And broadening our horizons to look more international, homosexuality was removed as a disorder from the World Heath Organization's ICD10 in 1993.
I feel comfortable calling that a "general consensus".
Do we really have to mention that this was 30 years ago?
Only if your only aim is to try to discredit its findings.
But, the reality is that even today, 30 years later, homosexuals and their proponents, are quick to cite the 1973 APA declassification decision as proof that there is some kind of general agreement in the medical community that homosexuality is normal.
If you think that the findings of the 1978 study are somehow no longer valid, I invite you to take up my invitation to N4mddissent to present some new research that contradicts it. It shouldnt be that difficult, the internet being what it is these days assuming, of course, that it exists and is credible.
Well, to be honest, homosexuality is NOT normal. <-- no matter what any medical or science study says.
There's a reason humans evolved or were created with opposite sexual organs. I don't have any problem with gay men or women....if they want to do things that way, it doesn't bother me any; however, to suggest that homosexuality is normal would be a stretch. All political correctness aside, do you see two male horse humping each-other's brains out and think that "oh that's just normal, and they're in love."??? No, because you know the two horses obviously have a problem and think they're pro-creating. NORMAL mammals were made to seek male-female relationships to carry on the species.
a lot of social conservatives go to great lengths to claim they don't "hate" gays.
Hate is a charged word. But its pretty simple to determine if they have a bias or prejudice against gays.
Homosexuality is a natural condition in the animal world, and in mammals broadly. When you see a social conservative say its "not natural", its pretty clear they are excersing a deep seated personal prejudice against gays; one that is not surpported by science in any way . The other possibility is that, like charlie bass and larry craig, they are secretly terrified of their own closet gay fantasies, and it comes out hatred towards openly gay people. Its self-loathing, a well established concept in psychology.
the other type of soicial conservative will hide behind the bible as a smokescreen to justify their prejudice. The bible hardly says anything about gays; and Jesus never said not one word. But these social conservative obsess about the few and sparse biblical admonitions about homosexuality. You know what? The bible says a LOT of shit is sinful. Shit that nobody pays attention to and ignores. Like stoning adulterers to death, or beating the crap out of an unruly child. There's a lot things the bible claims is sinful, but are roundly ignored by everyone including social conservatives.
Why then, do they pick out one or two passages in the bible about two guys getting it on? Why pick on that one sin, to the exclusion of all the other silly "sins" that are roundly ignored in the bible?
Obviously, its because they use the bible as a smokescreen to justify their own prejudice.
Why not be honest about it? Don't hide behind the bible. We all have biases and prejudices, including myself.
