|
Post by jean on Jan 14, 2010 8:49:14 GMT
i don't find Mr. Lively's views dangerous or frightening. Really not? Not even considering the Ugandan legislation they've helped give legitimacy to? But do they? I have never heard af anyone 'encouraging' any such thing. Have you any evidence that 'activists' are doing that? And is homosexuality really such an enticing option that it's likely encouragement is enough to override an individual's attraction to the other sex?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 14, 2010 10:49:04 GMT
""In this bitter and mean old world we live in love should be celebrated in all its forms."" should it?? peados say they ""love"" children.......love a much over used word to cover desire in amny cases
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 14, 2010 14:25:33 GMT
Anna, in your reply to me on the other thread you imply (I think) that this 'fairy tale about two princes falling in love' constitutes 'recritment literature' all by itself: But since the story as stated here all it seems to be doing is telling children that people do fall in love with members of their own sex. Whether their unions are called civil partnerships, or marriage, or whether they just live together without any official recognition at all, seems to me to have no bearing on whether children should be told such unions exist, which is quite a different question. But if I simply tell children something about the variety of human experience and the different groups that exist within society, am I thereby 'recruiting' into those groups? syphillis entered the human race by chaps screwing sheep. if you are going to honestly teach children true history, you have to teach them that. of course, if you fail to teach them that putting their peter in a sheep's azz is wrong, then yes, you would be condoning it. EXACTLY the same situation here
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 14, 2010 14:35:28 GMT
Dearest Jean, I realize that homosexuality may be inborn and it's debeatable as to whether or not children can be permanently indoctrinated into homosexuality by education.
I am opposed to "sex education" generally for children in the 2nd to 5th grade as Massachusetts is doing. Let them live their childhood! Sex education comes later! Why make a priority of presentating them with homosexual life styles in fairy tale form. Children are very impressionable and i believe that the school system in Massachusetts could care less if children are indeed swayed by such fairy tale presentations of homosexuality into this "life style".
Let them learn foreign languages or classical literature in simplified form. Why sex, sex and homosex? very true. of course, the salient point here is that such abjectly stupid fairy tales is NOT teaching them that homos exist, but is trying to teach them that it is acceptable, which obviously, nothing could be further from the truth
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 14, 2010 14:37:58 GMT
It's actually rather ironic because it's like political correctness gone a full circle. In the old days gays and lesbians complained about the stereotyping of relationships in fiction for children and wanted the heterosexually-orientated books changed or banned. Now that gay oriented ones are on the market heterosexuals are complaining in exactly the same politically correct way! I guess it's inevitable that this type of book will stir up controversy but eventually I suppose we'll all get used to it. no. normal people will NEVER acquiesce to such stupidity
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 14, 2010 14:45:03 GMT
Actually i'm against a lot of the stuff children are exposed to. I detest the TV cartoon show "South Park" and a lot of other twisted cartoon shows intending to target children. I admit too that if you read Grimm's fairy tales as they were originally written it's pretty gruesome stuff! The education of children has often been substandard! I have always thought of South Park as a spoof adult's cartoon, I wouldn't have any kids of mine watch it. I read the original style of fairy stories when I was a kid. Somehow, there was more personality to them, that way. Also the morals seemed to be different, more on the lines of being very wary of the unknown, that sort of thing precisely. the real fairy tales taught morality. this garbage is specifically designed to teach amorality. the simple FACT remains, what was wrong when i was in grade school, fifty years ago, is wrong now, and will be wrong forever. end of story
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 14, 2010 14:52:25 GMT
I have always thought of South Park as a spoof adult's cartoon, I wouldn't have any kids of mine watch it. I read the original style of fairy stories when I was a kid. Somehow, there was more personality to them, that way. Also the morals seemed to be different, more on the lines of being very wary of the unknown, that sort of thing Yeah like big bad wolves and witches with houses of candy trying to lure children in! As a child i saw a movie rendition of Jack and the Beanstalk and i was very frightened, but i feel that story really did stimulate my imagination. I was always imagining how it would be like to climb up into the clouds on a giant beanstalk after that film!
I'm sure we could present our children with even better fairy tales. I just don't see what homosexual fairy tales have to offer. I will really start ranting, if a homosexual pedophile can strike because a child has been so dumbed down by these pro-homosexual tolerance fairy tales. Children are naive and vulnerable! They have to be wary!
that's EXACTLY the agenda. nambla loves it. it is to teach six year old boys that there is nothing wrong with a thirty year old man playing with his pee pee. since that is the jist of the entire gay agenda, this serves the purpose
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 14, 2010 14:54:48 GMT
South Park is not aimed at children. And I feel it's up to parents to control what children see in their own homes. I see nothing wrong with the book peronally - it's one book in a million other available and tells one story that happens to include gays - so what? Dearest June, What the book ignores is the effect of captivity on animals. Animals do exhibit homosexual behavior in zoos as is the case with these penguins. Humans in prison also exhibit a much higher rate of homosexual behavior.
I'll take Peter Pan or Sleeping Beauty instead of this suspect PC stuff! that's because you are in the majority who DO know right from wrong
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 14, 2010 14:57:08 GMT
I'm sure we could present our children with even better fairy tales. I just don't see what homosexual fairy tales have to offer. I will really start ranting, if a homosexual pedophile can strike because a child has been so dumbed down by these pro-homosexual tolerance fairy tales. Children are naive and vulnerable! They have to be wary! [/color][/size][/b][/quote] By the same token, young girls are rendered vulnerable to heterosexual peadophiles by being dumbed down by fairy stories full of handsome princes bringing princesses back to life with a kiss, etc. etc. That really is an unsupportable argument against childrens stories featuring same-sex couples.[/quote] of course, it's much better than the TOTALLY unsupportable argument FOR such amoral children's stories
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 14, 2010 15:01:44 GMT
Yeah like big bad wolves and witches with houses of candy trying to lure children in! As a child i saw a movie rendition of Jack and the Beanstalk and i was very frightened, but i feel that story really did stimulate my imagination. I was always imagining how it would be like to climb up into the clouds on a giant beanstalk after that film!
I'm sure we could present our children with even better fairy tales. I just don't see what homosexual fairy tales have to offer. I will really start ranting, if a homosexual pedophile can strike because a child has been so dumbed down by these pro-homosexual tolerance fairy tales. Children are naive and vulnerable! They have to be wary!
that's EXACTLY the agenda. nambla loves it. it is to teach six year old boys that there is nothing wrong with a thirty year old man playing with his pee pee. since that is the jist of the entire gay agenda, this serves the purpose What rot! All research that has been done into peadophiles show that children are far more at risk from 'straight' men than gay men or lesbian women.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 14, 2010 15:03:16 GMT
i don't find Mr. Lively's views dangerous or frightening. Really not? Not even considering the Ugandan legislation they've helped give legitimacy to? But do they? I have never heard af anyone 'encouraging' any such thing. Have you any evidence that 'activists' are doing that? And is homosexuality really such an enticing option that it's likely encouragement is enough to override an individual's attraction to the other sex? your primary problem is that you are laboring under the delusion that anyone is born gay, instead of acknowledging the REALITY that it is strictly CHOICE
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 14, 2010 15:04:20 GMT
Really not? Not even considering the Ugandan legislation they've helped give legitimacy to? But do they? I have never heard af anyone 'encouraging' any such thing. Have you any evidence that 'activists' are doing that? And is homosexuality really such an enticing option that it's likely encouragement is enough to override an individual's attraction to the other sex? your primary problem is that you are laboring under the delusion that anyone is born gay, instead of acknowledging the REALITY that it is strictly CHOICE The scientific evidence to date would suggest that you are probably wrong.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 14, 2010 15:08:23 GMT
Anna, in your reply to me on the other thread you imply (I think) that this 'fairy tale about two princes falling in love' constitutes 'recritment literature' all by itself: But since the story as stated here all it seems to be doing is telling children that people do fall in love with members of their own sex. Whether their unions are called civil partnerships, or marriage, or whether they just live together without any official recognition at all, seems to me to have no bearing on whether children should be told such unions exist, which is quite a different question. But if I simply tell children something about the variety of human experience and the different groups that exist within society, am I thereby 'recruiting' into those groups? syphillis entered the human race by chaps screwing sheep. if you are going to honestly teach children true history, you have to teach them that. of course, if you fail to teach them that putting their peter in a sheep's azz is wrong, then yes, you would be condoning it. EXACTLY the same situation here This is news to me. I have never previously heard that syphillis was caused by human-ovine copulation. Is there any evidence for this astonishing assertion?
|
|
|
Post by june on Jan 14, 2010 19:32:53 GMT
syphillis entered the human race by chaps screwing sheep. if you are going to honestly teach children true history, you have to teach them that. of course, if you fail to teach them that putting their peter in a sheep's azz is wrong, then yes, you would be condoning it. EXACTLY the same situation here This is news to me. I have never previously heard that syphillis was caused by human-ovine copulation. Is there any evidence for this astonishing assertion? No there isn't Riot but your post made me laugh out loud!
|
|
|
Post by june on Jan 14, 2010 23:17:22 GMT
""In this bitter and mean old world we live in love should be celebrated in all its forms."" should it?? peados say they ""love"" children.......love a much over used word to cover desire in amny cases well mouse you are again talking about sex rather than love. ;D Love is wonderful sex is something quite different but can also be wonderful
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2010 11:50:59 GMT
your primary problem is that you are laboring under the delusion that anyone is born gay, instead of acknowledging the REALITY that it is strictly CHOICE The scientific evidence to date would suggest that you are probably wrong. hardly. there is NO scientific evidence which lends any credence to it being anything other than choice. they keep trying, but, as with anything else that is totally non existent, they never find it
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2010 11:55:12 GMT
syphillis entered the human race by chaps screwing sheep. if you are going to honestly teach children true history, you have to teach them that. of course, if you fail to teach them that putting their peter in a sheep's azz is wrong, then yes, you would be condoning it. EXACTLY the same situation here This is news to me. I have never previously heard that syphillis was caused by human-ovine copulation. Is there any evidence for this astonishing assertion? it's been a long time since i learned it, so i don't recall. i shall get back to you however nonetheless, it's really irrelevant. i just used it as an example. the point is that if you teach kids that something which is inherently wrong exists, without teaching them that it is inherently wrong, you are condoning the wrong
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 15, 2010 12:42:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2010 23:16:58 GMT
hardly. there is NO scientific evidence which lends any credence to it being anything other than choice. they keep trying, but, as with anything else that is totally non existent, they never find it[ scientific evidence means PROOF that there is a gene which causes homosexuality. until you find that, my statement stands as the truth
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Jan 15, 2010 23:21:23 GMT
It is bad enough that such people exist without exposing children needlessly to propaganda endorsing their perversions!
|
|