Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Same sex relationships are not NORMAL.


An exclusively hetrosexual society has never existed. The way you are culturally isnt natural. They are however legal in Canada. Did you even think maybe the school had the assembly because they were dealing with an issue? Maybe there are gay parents at your school and some kid (as kids do) asked a question. This outrages you so much that you want to put your kid into a private school? Thats a great plan, no gays there. :roll: least until university.

Quote:
I wish we could see if the % of the population that is gay has increased since the prevalence of gay media and teaching has increased
.

Why would you wish that? How would you measure the hetro population accuraterly in any society? So many of the gay people today would have been totally closeted 30-40 years ago.

The idea of gay and straight isnt even natural, its a cultural idea from the European way of classifying everything.

If two consenting adults love and are attracted to each other why should their gender matter? If you dont like it dont think about it (its always about anal between men that gets you guys all riled up).
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Do you think heterosexuality is due to genetics, or simply environment?


Theres no question genetics play a part but clearly environment is responsble for what actually happens to a person and their cultural awareness. Id say environment, probably most people could be bisexual if it was their culture.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
Not the point. It has nothing to do with SEX and everything to do with the normal nuclear family. Same sex relationships are not NORMAL. Teaching young kids that gay families are just another type of family is wrong - you might not agree and that's why I wrote the email not you.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "normal", or how that is a bad thing? If you mean that it's not normal because only the minority do it...well, then I could say that blogging is not "normal". Not sure how that is a bad thing though...
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are two potential definitions of "normal"

First, the statistical sense (another word for typical). Take, for example, a "normal distribution" of people.

Second, in a moralistic judgmental sense... (ie. "that's not normal what they do / that's perfectly normal behaviour")

In a statistical sense, homosexual relationships are not the most "normal" which is just to say in other words that they are not the most typical type of relationship.

But in the moralistic sense of the word, different people will have a different interpretation of what's "normal". Personally, I don't morally judge against people that are in gay relationships, but I will say that the raw numbers do show that those relationships aren't the most typical type.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stephen wrote:
There are two potential definitions of "normal"

First, the statistical sense (another word for typical). Take, for example, a "normal distribution" of people.

Second, in a moralistic judgmental sense... (ie. "that's not normal what they do / that's perfectly normal behaviour")

In a statistical sense, homosexual relationships are not the most "normal" which is just to say in other words that they are not the most typical type of relationship.

But in the moralistic sense of the word, different people will have a different interpretation of what's "normal". Personally, I don't morally judge against people that are in gay relationships, but I will say that the raw numbers do show that those relationships aren't the most typical type.

I agree.

The main point I was trying to get across is that just because something is not normal (according to the first definition) does not mean that it is bad. The original post appeared to be implying to the contrary. As for the second definition, I agree with you in that everyone has a different interpretation of what is "normal". In fact, I would bet that the majority of people in Canada would say that homosexuality is normal (second definition), so it is not normal (first definition) to think that homosexuality is abnormal (second definition).
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
Theres no question genetics play a part but clearly environment is responsble for what actually happens to a person and their cultural awareness. Id say environment, probably most people could be bisexual if it was their culture.

I know that for me personally, it must be genetics more than anything. I am simply not attracted to males, but that has nothing to do with my culture. I have absolutely nothing against gays, I don't judge them, I don't look down on them, but I simply don't have that attraction. If I did, I would feel comfortable with it, so it's not like my culture is suppressing it somehow. For some people it does, but not for me personally. Of course, it's impossible for me to say how many people are suppressing homosexual tendencies and how many aren't...all I can say is that I am not.
On the other hand, I have been attracted to women for as long as I can remember. I have been attracted to them before I even knew what sex was, and before I knew what homosexuality was. I know for a fact that I did not choose to be straight, because I didn't even know there was a choice at that point. Whatever it was that caused me to be straight, it must have occurred before the age of about 4. Now, if heterosexuality is caused by genetics (or other factors that are beyond a person's control) then it must be true that homosexuality is also caused by genetics. That's why I find it amazing that anyone could think homosexuality is a choice (and there are people who do). I wonder when those people "chose" to be straight?
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suggest you all should read Nation of Bastards by Douglas Farrow.

http://www.amazon.com/Nation-B.....0978440242
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stephen wrote:
Personally, I don't morally judge against people that are in gay relationships


I don't morally judge them for being in a gay relationship either. But when they try to teach my kids that gay relationships are fine and dandy THEN I get upset. What you do in the privacy of your bedroom is your business. What you teach my kid is MY business.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
I don't morally judge them for being in a gay relationship either. But when they try to teach my kids that gay relationships are fine and dandy THEN I get upset. What you do in the privacy of your bedroom is your business. What you teach my kid is MY business.

Would you have a problem with the school teaching your kids that heterosexual relationships are fine and dandy?
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Do you think heterosexuality is due to genetics, or simply environment??


We are programed to reproduce, so its genetic. Why do you think enviromental factors are simple???

Alot of behaviours occur because of the way we are raised. From choice of religion to alcoholism. This is my opinion. I acknowledge that there are others that think that homosexuality is genetic. AND I DON"T CARE TO ARGUE THE POINT!
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
We are programed to reproduce, so its genetic.

Ok, if you acknowledge that heterosexuality is genetic, what do you think might happen if a person is missing that gene(s) or has a variant of that gene(s)??
Quote:
This is my opinion. I acknowledge that there are others that think that homosexuality is genetic. AND I DON"T CARE TO ARGUE THE POINT!

Why don't you want to argue that point? Anyways, you are free to ignore me if you choose.
TealTories





Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 473
Reputation: 34.7Reputation: 34.7Reputation: 34.7
votes: 1
Location: Calgary

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Craig wrote:
I don't morally judge them for being in a gay relationship either. But when they try to teach my kids that gay relationships are fine and dandy THEN I get upset. What you do in the privacy of your bedroom is your business. What you teach my kid is MY business.

Would you have a problem with the school teaching your kids that heterosexual relationships are fine and dandy?


I dont think that is the point. I dont want some teacher teaching my kids about sexuality or divorce AT ALL!!
That is my job as a parent. Teach math, history, etc etc..
There is obviously an agenda here with that song, whether it is divorce or sexuality.
This is something that my kids should be discussing with me or my wife.
Not something that is brainwashed into their heads at a tender age.
The school board should have boundaries and this is over stepping them.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TealTories wrote:
I dont think that is the point. I dont want some teacher teaching my kids about sexuality or divorce AT ALL!!
That is my job as a parent. Teach math, history, etc etc..
There is obviously an agenda here with that song, whether it is divorce or sexuality.
This is something that my kids should be discussing with me or my wife.
Not something that is brainwashed into their heads at a tender age.
The school board should have boundaries and this is over stepping them.

And that's fine, so long as you would feel the same way if they were teaching your kids that some people have both a mommy and a daddy...or else admit that you have a prejudice.
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
What you teach my kid is MY business.


Agreed. You should have the right to raise your kids according to what you believe is best for them. This is your right as a parent. Perhaps a more appropriate solution would have been to send a letter home to parents apprising them of the situation (if any) and suggesting how to talk to your kids about it. At least it would put the responsibility in the hands of the parents.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
What you teach my kid is MY business.


If you take that arguement to its logical conclusion then you could teach your kids anything and the state shouldnt be allowed to teach them anything.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Some kids have one dad and some kids have two dads

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB