Uechi-Ryu.com

Oh, and that invitation is open to anyone else here, even if you don't support my civil rights! Especially to those who've stuck up for them here. Thanks.

Valkenar wrote:Also, I'm curious what you consider pro-gay propaganda to be? Are you using propaganda as a pejorative, or just descriptively? Is there such a thing as pro-heterosexual propaganda as well? I haven't been in public school for many years now, but I don't remember anything advocating homosexuality and would be very surprised to find that schools are doing so. Note that there's a difference between advocating homosexuality and advocating tolerance of homosexuality.

I have made my views on "marriage" clear on this forum. I was lambasted at one point because I made a statement that I thought that sometimes the gay movement was their own worst enemy. In truth, as I said at that time, that is very true about a LOT of different advocacy movements, not just the gay movement. Having said all that, here is a place where a poster is completely correct in using the term propaganda descriptively rather than perjoratively...

Just because YOU didn't see any advocacy or teachings on this when you were in school (at my age, I didn't either, but my teenage daughters have told me about this stuff being taught), do not be surprised that has and is happening. And understand that such actions and advocacy (we are not talking about simply teaching tolerance) have played a significant role in the backlash against the entire gay rights movement. PLEASE NOTE, I am NOT painting the entire group with a broad brush here... I want to be VERY clear about that. Just because one small group of people do something that isn't right, doesn't mean that ALL of that segment of the population would go along with that or condone those actions. On this forum over the years, I feel very confident in my knowledge that the posters here wouldn't condone or participate in any the following situation that has and is being perpetrated by a segment of the gay rights movement.

On this subject, it is easy to follow the rules regarding sources and cites...

Simply do an internet search on "Massachusetts" and "Fistgate". You might want to also check into the "teachings" of a "William Pollack" in Massachusetts.

Here is a link to an affidavit about what occurred at one such (PUBLICLY FUNDED DURING SCHOOL HOURS) session...

http://www.americansfortruth.com/glsen_ ... final3.htm

No, Kerry is a catholic anyway. Every president has been religious. My only point is that a president has to balance promoting an ideology while accepting diversity. If I became president you wouldn't see me pressing for legislation that explicitly promotes atheism or agnosticism, even though that's what I am.

Actually, Kerry can now go back to skipping going to weekly services (Mass) for the cameras and again be the agnostic that he is... Just as the mainstream media found out and were completely surprised about, moral values was a big issue to the majority of Americans. The fact that the liberal Northeast and left coasts can't understand the importance of that is not really surprising at all. And I disagree that every President has been religious. What I do agree with is that every President has put on a show of being religious.

And I think that matters. You don't want the government propagandizing ideas you don't agree with, right? How would you feel if the government wanted to start a program of some kind, and it just so happened that the Church of Satan had a strong track-record in that area? Would you want your tax dollars spent that way, I know I wouldn't. The fact is that giving money to religious organizations helps to spread that religion, and I don't want to be a part of that.

Gene DeMambro wrote:And we aren't a majority rules. The rights of the minorty must also be protected, which means that sometimes the majority might get pissed off if a mixed race couple want to get married, or if colored parents wish to send thier children to a neighborhood school that happens to be all-white. Extreme hisorical examples, to be sure. But they illustrate the point. We follow the wished of the majority, protect the rights of the minority and provide equal rights for all.

No one citizen, Bill, gets to decide what money gets spent where. That job belongs to Congress. Ordinary folk like you and me do not have veto power over the budget. That's whu we have a Republic.

Well... I'm glad to see the comments against majority rules, against funding things that some people don't want, supporting the protection of the minority's rights, and the knowledge that we live in a Constitutional Republic not a democracy. What I find amusing is the difference in the way these things are put forth between the 8 years that Clinton was in office and stomping on the rights of the conservative minority and now. Before it was all about what the majority wanted and some of us were posting time and time again about how democracy = = majority rules = = mob rule. And those posts fell largely on deaf ears. Now that a pseudo-conservative President has garnered more than 50% of the popular vote for the first time since 1988 AND, in a huge surprise to the liberal media, one of the main deciding issues was/is moral values (the disdain the media had when reporting this... even going so far as to refer to them as "so-called 'moral values'" is both enlightening and disgusting)... well, NOW those (such as Bill, Rich, myself...) can come here and read posts that show an epiphany against majority rules.

Oh, the irony...

I think I'll go have some pumpkin pie!

...and around the same time, Panther, that you were posting about mob rule and all that, I was posting about compelling government interest and rational basis. Perhaps this was falling on the same deaf ears?

Gene

Panther wrote:

there's a difference between advocating homosexuality and advocating tolerance of homosexuality.

http://www.americansfortruth.com/glsen_ ... final3.htm

I honestly don't see this as being a big deal revealing advocacy by schools. I don't see anything indicating it was a required student activity. It was held at Tufts University, not on school grounds, not even during school hours (March 25, 2000 was a Saturday). Further, what in that page do you call advocating homosexuality? The role-play was about the closest I can see.

Note that it was a question and answer session, not just a freeform lecture. If the students had asked "what kind of sex should I have" and they had suggested the practice fistgate is named for, then you might have a point.
But given that a student asked the question "What is [it]" I don't see a problem with the presenters aswering the question honestly, to the best of their knowledge.

I did not read anything suggesting that they urged the students to experiment for themselves. The site quotes a sentence fragment ("put them into an exploratory mode.") and attaches it to imply some nefarious motive ("Margot Abels provided comfort to the children to..." I would be interested to see the larger context of those words as it could be either urging, as the quoter asserts, or entirely benign depending on what she said around it..

Sex education for youth is a difficult topic for many, and if parents don't want their kids to know about sex then they shouldn't allow them to attend meetings like this. But if you're basically comfortable with sex education then I fail to see how this consitutes the schools trying to get kids to experiment.

I will note that it was publically funded, however, and that means it does pertain to this discussion of when and how money should be spent when some of the population doesn't want it spent that way. So in that respect perhaps it should not have been publically funded. I don't have an answer for when the government should and should not spend money in a way that someone might not like, since there's always going to be some people who don't like it. I am interested to hear your opinion on that.

However, regardless of whether it should have been funded, I do not think this event does not constitute advocacy of homosexuality.

[qupte] And I disagree that every President has been religious. What I do agree with is that every President has put on a show of being religious. [/quote]

All right, I can accept that version. My point was just that the president's religion doesn't matter to me. Maybe I was duped into believing he is religous when he's not, but my point still stands.

Well... I'm glad to see the comments against majority rules, against funding things that some people don't want, supporting the protection of the minority's rights, and the knowledge that we live in a Constitutional Republic not a democracy. What I find amusing is the difference in the way these things are put forth between the 8 years that Clinton was in office and stomping on the rights of the conservative minority and now.

I'll eat as much crow as you like if you can find any place where I said we should limit the rights of the conservative mintority because the majority said so.

I'd better go look up some raven recipes just in case.

Ian wrote:You know how many more people are perfectly fine with gay marriage so long as it doesn't have the same name? All you have to do is tell some people "it's ok, it's not a marriage, its a civil union. There there. The M word is still solely yours." And this makes them feel safer. I don't know about you, but this is an astonishingly (sic) situation. To me, it makes the point that this is a psychological issue, a matter of unease, a matter of learned culture. Not of principle and government policy.

This pattern of thinking is very revealing to me, Ian.

During the election night, news analyst Tim Russert was making some very revealing comments about this election. He's the first person I've ever heard use the expression "flyover states." How appropriate. I tried to articulate the concept to Justin once, but couldn't quite. I really wanted to describe some of his New-England-centric thinking as "provincial." One could arguably use the expression in a reverse kind of way. But it might not be constructive dialogue.

What Tim was referring to is a kind of elitist thinking, where folks in the northeast (where most of the media is) and folks on the west coast (where much of entertainment comes from) ignore those in the center of the country. These are the states that they "fly over" when going from one "cosmopolitan" area to the next.

Indeed, this is provincial thinking.

I will give you this, Ian. You actually were the first acquaintence I know of who called the importance of the "moral agenda" in this election. You viewed it as a negative I might add, but you did indeed call it. Touche, my friend.

But...do you see how narrow-minded and egocentric you appear to those in this vast expanse of the United States, which contains such an incredibly large proportion of the population? To them, YOU have it all a$$-backwards.

It isn't just a label, Ian, and it isn't just psychology. You of all people should remove that from your thinking. This is biology. It's about DNA. It's about procreation. It's about "the selfish gene." This is different - period. Different doesn't mean bad; different means different. It is what it is.

If you believe in a Divine Entity, then the sanctity of heterosexual pairing is completely obvious to you. If you instead view religion as an important tool for managing stress and maintaining order in society (which it does quite well, BTW), then it's a bit more complicated. In that case, you at least need to acknowledge that homosexual pairing and heterosexual pairing involve different acts, needs, issues, and outcomes.

In an odd way, to think otherwise is IMO still staying in the same closet that GLB have been in for generations.

Like it or not, Evangelical Christians occupy a large proportion of the central U.S. When Hollywood and the media ridiculed those they didn't like and told liberals to get off their a$$es and vote, there was an unintended consequence. They energized a very large, active, and organized group of people who don't care to let either Hollywood or the media tell them how they should live. They have their own ways, thank you very much.

I'll never forget my trip to Russia in 1993. American culture was starting to penetrate the big cities there. And do you know what I saw? Cigarette commercials, soft porn, fast food, and (gasp) disco. Everywhere. THIS is what they think of America?

Imagine devout Muslims getting glimpses of whom we are. What are their sources? Aggressive marketers. They get the New York media. They get spam and porn from the Internet. They see cigarette commercials. And they get, yes, DISCO! Aaarrrggghhh!!!

Each culture has a unique identity, and those cultures resent being told how they are to live. Sometimes different is perfectly fine, right? Whom are we to tell devout Muslims how to live and what they should or should not allow?

Why do you think they hate us so much?

No one type of thinking, way of life, religion, language, or what not should be considered the center of the universe. To use a line from Covey, we should seek first to understand, and then to be understood.

Off of soap box...with apologies.

- Bill

Valkenar wrote:I honestly don't see this as being a big deal revealing advocacy by schools. I don't see anything indicating it was a required student activity. It was held at Tufts University, not on school grounds, not even during school hours (March 25, 2000 was a Saturday).

{snip for brevity}

I will note that it was publically funded, however, and that means it does pertain to this discussion of when and how money should be spent when some of the population doesn't want it spent that way. So in that respect perhaps it should not have been publically funded. I don't have an answer for when the government should and should not spend money in a way that someone might not like, since there's always going to be some people who don't like it. I am interested to hear your opinion on that.

However, regardless of whether it should have been funded, I do not think this event does not constitute advocacy of homosexuality.

Sorry... double negatives mess with my brain... Anyway, as I previously posted, do a search on it... That affidavit came from ONE such session that a someone who disagreed with the indoctrination had gotten into... there weren't originally accounts from other sessions because the perpetrators did not allow adults or parents who weren't on their side in the room, they just misjudged someone on one occasion who had heard about it. It was a travelling show that went from school district to school district. It was a "health curriculum credit" course in most and was actually required by others under the guise of "tolerance education". The reason it was held at Tufts on that day was because students came from different schools.

I'll eat as much crow as you like if you can find any place where I said we should limit the rights of the conservative mintority because the majority said so.

I'd better go look up some raven recipes just in case.

Well I guess it's a moot point since the map indicates that the majority is conservative at this point in time...

Gene DeMambro wrote:...and around the same time, Panther, that you were posting about mob rule and all that, I was posting about compelling government interest and rational basis. Perhaps this was falling on the same deaf ears?

Oh, no... not at all... I am smiling even now... It is interesting how you can claim "compelling government interest and rational basis" when it's a position you are advocating that stomps on someone else's rights, but when a different set of values and beliefs is in power you immediately start with the "this isn't majority rule" talk, which was what others of us were saying while you were telling us that our position should be trumped by "compelling government interest and rational basis". OK... I'll go with that... because of the way things are within the Constitutional Republic and seeing that there is NO "compelling government interest and rational basis", maybe now we can start repealing most of the oppresive anti-freedom, Un-American legislation that's been forced down our throats.

Bill Glasheen wrote:During the election night, news analyst Tim Russert was making some very revealing comments about this election. He's the first person I've ever heard use the expression "flyover states." How appropriate.

And it went beyond that. Russert was the first to also coin them "so-called" moral values. What arrogance. The hardworking people in the Plains and South are fed up with it. Travelling South to visit family was a real eye-opener as well. In New England, folks are acting like they're better than people in the South and "flyover states" because they are supposedly more educated, more tolerant, more new age. Go to other parts of the country (besides the Northeast and left coast) and people are tired of being told by blond headed bimbos entertainers and "news" entertainers what to believe, what to support, what to like, what to hate, that they're intolerant, that they're uneducated, that they're stupid, that they're inbreed, that they're rednecks, that the sports they like makes them morons, that the activities they enjoy and have traditionally done are wrong and makes them hicks... tired of being made the brunt of snobby entertainers' jokes, having their speech made fun of, being told they aren't charitable enough, being told that they are "nut cases" because they believe in God and attend Church, being told that their moral values aren't right and that morality is subjective... I could write literally PAGES more. They're sick and tired of it... ESPECIALLY from the hollywierd, liberal biased media which doesn't show ANY of the tolerance they demand FROM the people in the South and the flyover states TO those same people. I actually think that some of the reality shows have finally taught the hard-working folks in those parts of the country that they've been duped. Why? Simple... Michael Moore has shown his true arrogant despicable colors... When the blond bimbos are trying to tell these people that Conservatives are evil and Liberals are saviours, they have a credibility problem BECAUSE they have SHOWN those people they are complete idiots by not being able to do simple household chores and believing that "buffalo wings" come from "buffalos" and going out and spending more money on one set of sheets than 99.9% of these people make in a couple of MONTHS... and by topping ALL of that off by then claiming that the tax cuts are wrong! They've been digging their own hole for a long time... Let them lie in it and let the people from those (upto now) discounted areas of the country have shovels.

Panther wrote:

Valkenar wrote: However, regardless of whether it should have been funded, I do not think this event does not constitute advocacy of homosexuality.

Sorry... double negatives mess with my brain...

That's what I get for rephrasing in an effort to be more clear. I should probably try proofreading my posts sometime. Anyhow, that sentence was supposed to be "However, regardless of whether it should have been funded, I do not think this event constitutes advocacy of homosexuality."

Anyway, as I previously posted, do a search on it... That affidavit came from ONE such session that a someone who disagreed with the indoctrination had gotten into..

I did do a search and I didn't come up with anything much on fistgate that the first article you linked didn't include. I listened to clips of the tapes interspersed with commentary. In one audio clip I listened to the commentator made a reference to a pamphlet (that didn't come from fistgate but rather a different homosexuality awareness program) that said something to the effect of "how do you know you won't like homosexual sex if you hadn't tried it" I couldn't find anything further about this pamphlet so I have no idea what it said. Even from the perspective of a homosexuality tolerance group, it doesn't make a lot of sense for a pamphlet to say that. If that is what the pamphlet said, and it isn't in some extenuating context (such as answering the question rhetorically by saying "because most homosexuals report feeling the difference from a young age" or some such) then I can see how you would call it advocacy of homosexuality.

If you have more information on this pamphlet I'd be interested in hearing it. Beyond that I don't see anything here that constitutes encouraging kids to try homosexuality.

I do disagree with the gag order and supression of reporting about it, I think that is wrong. The only possible reason would be to protect the kids themselves from being targetted by the media, but that's insufficient justification.

When I searched for William Pollack all I found was some links to his books, and an interview where he talked about problems with boys' education. I didn't see anything even related to sexuality there at all. He said some things that made sense and some that just seemed silly, but what are his offensive "teachings" as you put it?

maybe now we can start repealing most of the oppresive anti-freedom, Un-American legislation that's been forced down our throats.

Which ones? Aside from gun/weapon legislation, which we've discussed at length previously (and which I mostly agree with you about at this point), which anti-freedom legislation are you talking about? I'll nominate the USAPATRIOT Act, the DMCA, CALEA... what are some of your favorite pieces of awful legislation?

Talk about Red vs Blue....

check out this map... http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsel ... ntymap.htm

cheers,
ljr

Just a quick note that I agree about the disdain for the south and west. The attitude some northeasterns have towards the south and west, is no different from the hatred, racism and homophobia that they ascribe to the "rednecks".

Of course, it's not a one-way street and never has been. It's hard to tell backlash from backlash-backlash. At some point it's just a cycle. There's a perception that the south and west thinks the northeast is all evil people bent on the destruction of all goodness too. Which came first? Who knows, but either way that crap needs to go.

This thread is the most all-over-the-place I've seen here I think.

Actually, Kerry can now go back to skipping going to weekly services (Mass) for the cameras and again be the agnostic that he is... Just as the mainstream media found out and were completely surprised about, moral values was a big issue to the majority of Americans. The fact that the liberal Northeast and left coasts can't understand the importance of that is not really surprising at all. And I disagree that every President has been religious. What I do agree with is that every President has put on a show of being religious.

Just because one does not go to church doesn't lessen the fact that they believe in something. My grandmother is a strong Catholic, yet has not gone to church for years. It is not because she is unable to get there; just that she has found that it is not useful to her to go anymore. This does not change the fact that she is very religious. Every morning she kneels beside her bed with her rosary beads and prays. She has cards with the Virgin Mary and St. Michael and holds them in her hands and reads the prayers on them. She is part of a prayer group that prays for those hurt, in need, or going through a tough time in life. She believes in the Bible and the Catholic religion, yet she does not attend mass.

Now this is not to say that I necessarily believe that Kerry is as devote as my grandmother, but it is an example that shows church attendance does not necessarily correlate with religious beliefs.

there's a difference between advocating homosexuality and advocating tolerance of homosexuality.



http://www.americansfortruth.com/glsen_ ... final3.htm

The approach of the seminar leaders may have been blunt, but I for one find it refreshing. You get students engaged and receptive to the subject if you are take a more relaxed and nonchalant approach. If you are uptight or uncomfortable they are not going to take the presenter seriously. There is no reason not to be honest about sex and to answer student’s questions candidly. If they are going to learn about sex, whether it be homo- or heterosexual, it might as well be from someone who has experience in the subject and that can dispel any myths. Please note that for any sexual education class, parents have to sign a permission slip allowing their child to partake in the seminar. This policy may have changed since 1998 when I took the high school class, but I doubt it. In fact, I was a senior in high school in Athol, MA at the time of the seminar in the article.

I found it interesting that the author of the letter seemed very concerned that condoms were so readily available to the seminar participants, yet was upset when the seminar leaders only began talking about it 55 minutes into the seminar. She wants students to learn about the having safer sex, yet she doesn’t want to give them the condoms that allow them to do so.

I have seen nothing in the article that leads me to believe that the leaders of the seminar are advocating homosexual sex. The author seems to have many of the same concerns that make people question sex education in general. She implies that by talking about homosexual acts will make students want to go and have sex. This is simply not supported.

“Some people are concerned that providing information about sex and sexuality arouses curiosity and can lead to sexual experimentation. There is no evidence that this happens14 . It is important to remember that young people can store up information provided at any time, for a time when they need it later on.” http://www.avert.org/sexedu.htm (under “When should sex education start?” heading)

-Amanda Lohnes

Excellent points, Amanda.

A few quick comments.

Just because one does not go to church doesn't lessen the fact that they believe in something.

Good point. As Jethro Tull says, "He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sunday."

However, Panther knows his stuff. You subsequently wrote

My grandmother is a strong Catholic, yet has not gone to church for years.

...and I reply that your grandmother may be a strong Christian, but not a strong Catholic. One of the rules the Catholic church clearly states is that you MUST attend Mass every Sunday and on every Holy Day.

If your grandmother has health issues, that's fine. But if she isn't going because she feels she doesn't need to, then by definition she cannot call herself a strong Catholic.

This was the point that Panther made, I caught, and others missed.

About the classes on gay sex...

I have some serious concerns with things being taught there. I will defer to Dr. Ian who has the broadest perspective but...they came pretty close to advocating sex practices that have substantive health risks without also providing vital health information to the participants. I have a problem with that. They also came pretty close to advocating statutory rape. I have a problem with that as well. BIG problem.

I know Ian, and I know his character. I know he would not endorse all of what was on the link Panther provided.

Justin

Thanks for your understanding.

- Bill

Bill Glasheen wrote:Excellent points, Amanda.
I have some serious concerns with things being taught there. I will defer to Dr. Ian who has the broadest perspective but...they came pretty close to advocating sex practices that have substantive health risks without also providing vital health information to the participants.

They didn't provide health information pertinent to the various sexual practices they described? That is surprising... I know it's almost impossible to document the lack of something like this, but I'm curious on what basis you say they left out that sort of health information.

I have a problem with that. They also came pretty close to advocating statutory rape. I have a problem with that as well. BIG problem.

What? How did they do that? Even if they were advocating sexual activity between teenagers (which I don't think they were), statuatory rape as I understand it requires either a spread in ages, or one of the participants to be past the age of majority. Did they say anything about going out and finding older people to experiment with? I didn't see anything like that.

Like it or not, teenagers have sex. Educating them on it is not a bad thing, imho. But like I said before, I recognize that not everybody shares that opinion.

I know Ian, and I know his character. I know he would not endorse all of what was on the link Panther provided.

I'm not endorsing all of it unequivocally, either, I'm just saying that I don't think it constitutes advocating homosexual activity.

Bill Glasheen wrote:I think it's inappropriate to imply that religion is the determing factor on whether or not the GOVERNMENT has to PAY for stem cell research. As a citizen of any (non)religion, I have a right to say what I believe government should or should not pay for with MY tax dollars, using whatever internal yard stick I choose.

Sounds good to me.

This is the same as the abortion issue. Government allows abortion. But don't expect government to pay for it. Sounds like a deal to me!

Sounds great. I do have an exception, though. I often see teenagers who need to have a cut stitched up, or a bone fracture set, who have to call their parents in to give permission for treatment. A lac suturing is a hell of a lot less than an abortion, all things considered, yet in this country a child can get an abortion without their parents knowing about it. I have issues with this. I also have issues with the safety of the abortion pill, and so-called PBAs. I'm in full agreement that abortion shouldn't be funded by the government, but I also think that more regulation is needed in this area.

And frankly, Bush's administration is THE FIRST to - yes - pay for ANY kind of stem cell research with MY tax dollars.

I wasn't aware that Bush was the first... unbiased media my foot. I can't believe California's been hoodwinked into paying for this pipe-dream.

ljr wrote: Med Tech,
are you saying that you believe being gay or living an alternate lifestyle is morally wrong or evil?

Just because someone does not want to live a life you see a "normal" does not make them evil.

ljr, no, I am not saying that 'being gay' is morally wrong. I do believe that some alternative lifestyles are morally wrong. I do not view GLBTs as evil. I do believe that the things some GLBT groups have done, such as the aforementioned 'fistgate,' ARE evil and morally repugnant. I view homosexual sex as immoral, true. I do not care what people do in their own bedroom, home or even hotel room. God knows there are worse things that people do to one another. But I draw the line at someone telling me that homosexual sex equates to, or is morally equal to that sacred bond found in marriage. You can imagine how infuriating it is to find books normalizing GLBT ideas in an elementary school library. THAT, in my opinion, IS evil.

ljr wrote: Should we outlaw divorce? Maybe we should take the "to death do us part" section of the catholic ceremony iterally.

Outlaw divorce? To what purpose? Increase the murder rates? I really can't comment on the Catholic ceremony, since I am Protestant, but we had the "till death do us part" included in our vows as well. Something I take very seriously. I have every intention of loving, honoring and cherishing my wife all the way to my grave, however long or short that journey may be.