• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pushing the "gay" agenda in schools..

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anarcho-fascist said:
Who cares whether there is hoopla? Is injustice acceptable just because doing something about it might make a stir?
Click to expand...

A sizable portion of society cares and the injustice here is debatable.
 
Tucker Case said:
When definitions shift according to the portion of argument being used at the time, it's called equivocation, which is a logical fallacy. thus, when arguemtns are presented which have such shifting definitions, it is important to get a straight definition in order to point out the fallacy in the argument.
Click to expand...

I have no beef with that. When I read Mac's original post, I immediately knew what he meant. I didn't see any specific need to go on about it for over 20 pages.. :)

In light of this, if one's equates homosexuality to whether one believes it to be innate, one might say in opposition that, homosexuality is not natural, that it is a manifest result of several environmental influences, that, if not otherwise present, would not cause homosexuality to occur. In that, homosexuality would not occur without interference. In this sense, assuming one ascribes to the notion that homosexuality is not innate, the context and usage of the word unnatural is appropriate.


Tim-
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Awareness.
Click to expand...

why do 1st and 2nd graders need to know that one of johnny's daddies likes to put his weewee in johnny's other daddy's booboo? I have no problem with teaching kids about sexuality, my problem is that 5,6&7 is too young.
 
mac said:
A sizable portion of society cares and the injustice here is debatable.
Click to expand...

The portion of society who cares needs to prove why homosexuality isn't just another interracial marriage or slavery. What is the real damage that homosexuality and teaching students about homosexuality does to society?

I know a lot of gay people and nothing in my experiences has told me that they are harming society or that knowing about them sooner would have hurt me.
 
Redress said:
When some of the membership of the APA(the Psychiatry one) asked for a full member vote, the vote was done and it concurred that the descission to remove homosexuality from the DSM was correct. Your unbacked claims don't stand up to examination. I can source this information when I get home tonight if you need it, about 9ish est. I am willing to back my claims.
Click to expand...

I've already sourced this information in one of my "repostable" posts. Check out a recent GM thread... I posted it within the past 2 months.
 
theplaydrive said:
The portion of society who cares needs to prove why homosexuality isn't just another interracial marriage or slavery. What is the real damage that homosexuality and teaching students about homosexuality does to society?

I know a lot of gay people and nothing in my experiences has told me that they are harming society or that knowing about them sooner would have hurt me.
Click to expand...

That's not really how it works in reality. Those that would wish to change societal norms need to prove that the norms should be changed. That's not my opinion, that's how human society works.
 
mac said:
You don't see all the hoopla stirred up in society these days over the issue?
Click to expand...

That's not homosexuality that causes the hoopla.

The other examples you gave had a direct negative effect on the "smooth operation" of society.
 
Hicup said:
I have no beef with that. When I read Mac's original post, I immediately knew what he meant. I didn't see any specific need to go on about it for over 20 pages.. :)

In light of this, if one's equates homosexuality to whether one believes it to be innate, one might say in opposition that, homosexuality is not natural, that it is a manifest result of several environmental influences, that, if not otherwise present, would not cause homosexuality to occur. In that, homosexuality would not occur without interference. In this sense, assuming one ascribes to the notion that homosexuality is not innate, the context and usage of the word unnatural is appropriate.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Regardless of what definition for "natural" is used, or whether one considers homosexuality natural or not, the use of that reasoning in a debate about the rights of homosexuals in society is fallacious.
 
Anarcho-fascist said:
So you agree that sometimes one should support something that will disrupt society, right?
Click to expand...

If they feel strongly about it sure. But you understand that just because you think something is right and good doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you, right?
 
mac said:
That's not really how it works in reality. Those that would wish to change societal norms need to prove that the norms should be changed. That's not my opinion, that's how human society works.
Click to expand...

Things like this can't be 'proven'. Society is a competition of ideas. Everyone has to make an argument, get as many people on their side as possible and then make change.

There is no way to prove that God thinks homosexuality is an abomination or that slavery is inherently immoral. Anybody who wants anything has to formulate an argument and defend it.

Societal norms change when society decides they change and the norms around homosexuality are already changing, so clearly the burden of proof lies with you. You have to convince society that we need to stop changing. You have to prove to me that my gay friends are perverse and their loving relationships are unnatural.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I've already sourced this information in one of my "repostable" posts. Check out a recent GM thread... I posted it within the past 2 months.
Click to expand...

I got links lined up at home. It's a stupid charge which is why Oscar has evaded and avoided actually defending it. It's dishonest tactics.
 
Redress said:
I got links lined up at home. It's a stupid charge which is why Oscar has evaded and avoided actually defending it. It's dishonest tactics.
Click to expand...

just can't let it go can you? :2bigcry: sad that it is more important to you to try to "gotcha" me than to actually discuss the topic.
 
mac said:
That's not really how it works in reality. Those that would wish to change societal norms need to prove that the norms should be changed. That's not my opinion, that's how human society works.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, gays are not really trying to change societal norms. Gays will still be rare and unusual. What they are trying to do is be treated by the law as just like every one else.
 
theplaydrive said:
Things like this can't be 'proven'. Society is a competition of ideas. Everyone has to make an argument, get as many people on their side as possible and then make change.

There is no way to prove that God thinks homosexuality is an abomination or that slavery is inherently immoral. Anybody who wants anything has to formulate an argument and defend it.

Societal norms change when society decides they change and the norms around homosexuality are already changing, so clearly the burden of proof lies with you. You have to convince society that we need to stop changing. You have to prove to me that my gay friends are perverse and their loving relationships are unnatural.
Click to expand...

No, I don't have to do that at all.
 
Redress said:
Just to be clear, gays are not really trying to change societal norms. Gays will still be rare and unusual. What they are trying to do is be treated by the law as just like every one else.
Click to expand...

Do you not agree that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman and that that is a societal norm?
 
mac said:
Do you not agree that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman and that that is a societal norm?
Click to expand...

Traditionally, marriage is defined as a lifelong bond between one man and one woman. But that's not how we define it anymore. We've already broken from tradition on the definition. Now it only remains to be seen how far we are willing to go.
 
mac said:
If they feel strongly about it sure. But you understand that just because you think something is right and good doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you, right?
Click to expand...
OK, why do you think homosexual acts are bad?
 
mac said:
So yuo contend that everything that has to be learned is unnatural? It's well within natural human capability to learn to drive, so in my mind, it's natural.
Click to expand...
By your definition everything people do or will do is natural.

I used the dictionary definition of natural to explain how driving was unnatural. Natural is something that isn't artificial, that doesn't have to be learned or taught, that is derived from nature and not derived from human machinations. Everything we build out of natural resources is unnatural. Sex with a condom is unnatural, sex without a condom is natural--yet I would argue that in all cases sex with a condom is safer, socially acceptable and reasonable. Not everything that is unnatural is bad, as you said earlier, I believe.
mac said:
I don't agree completely with your assessment, no.
Click to expand...
What, specifically, did you disagree with? If I may ask.
 
Anarcho-fascist said:
OK, why do you think homosexual acts are bad?
Click to expand...

Because I was taught that it is, and my religion says it is. I believe in my religion and do not think the my God would make people homosexuals then tell them not to be homosexuals. Further, I feel that homosexual acts are not supported by our evolutionary design and that the behaviors serve no valid evolutionary purpose in humans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom