Ramblings Of An Old Man

[Dutch-NJ]

Yeah, if our tax revenues from all of the oil that we sell to yas'alls dried up we'd be in a real pickle!

Sounds just like American liberals. They will spend all the money they can get their claws on, as long as it isn’t their money.

Over spending on things that have no value or return is the faster way to run a country into the ground.

The land I live on was battlefield in that war and it is not in the U.S..

I suppose you feel fortunate. Just imagine if you had been an American citizen..........

How close did you come to being an American?

Check out Articles in the Treaty of Ghent to find out what land England surrendered to America when they "won" the War of 1812.

I liken the Canada/U.S. border to the England/Scotland border - "let's let those crazy bstards live up there in that godforsaken land if they want it."

That's European mentality.

Americans have always had a knack for turning something or someone others viewed as "God-forsaken" into a valuable asset.

 

[BoneheadNW]

I just read this whole thread. How entertaining! How enlightening! I have learned several things:

When 9/11 happened it was like "how dare you attack us, we are a Christian nation and God will make us victors".

That is certainly not how I felt, although maybe it's because I'm Jewish.

God has been taken out of the public school, God is not allowed in public government displays, Murder is now legal only we call it birth control. Homosexiality is not only rampant, but we throw it in Gods face like it is normal. Read what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah in the bible and see if judgment isn't gonna come here too. We are only a Christian nation by name anymore.

Ah, that is what my problem is! I need God in my public schools, God in my government displays, outlaw birth control, and ban homosexuals. Then everything will be alright!
Durwood, thanks for the enlightenment.
Bonehead

 

[Dutch-NJ]

I just read this whole thread. How entertaining! How enlightening! I have learned several things:

That is certainly not how I felt, although maybe it's because I'm Jewish.

Ah, that is what my problem is! I need God in my public schools, God in my government displays, outlaw birth control, and ban homosexuals. Then everything will be alright!
Durwood, thanks for the enlightenment.
Bonehead

Here’s some more that may entertain or enlighten you.

It’s a fact that America’s founders believed in a Creator or Supreme Being....... God if you will.

The fact that you’re Jewish should have nothing at all to do with your being American. When I hear “we are a Christian nation,” I interpret that as a term used to describe the body of concepts and values.

I’m a Christian. When I hear, “America is a Judeo/Christian nation” I’m not offended. But I’m not an overly sensitive, politically correct extremist either. American values are based on common Judaism and Christianity beliefs.

You may not need God in your public schools, but you don’t have the right to keep God out. Read the 1st amendment of our Constitution.

You may not need God in your government, but you don’t have the right to keep God out of government either. That’s why “Under God” is in the Pledge of Allegiance, and “In God We Trust” is on our money. Again read the 1st amendment of our Constitution.

The government should not have any say on birth control, that is a private matter. As for abortion, that should be a state issue, not a federal issue ........... unless the abortion is in the third trimester. Then abortion is murder. If a woman doesn’t know she’s pregnant or can’t make up her mind what to for 6 months, then she’s an idiot. Idiots suffer.

How are homosexuals identified, much less banned? All they have to do is keep their personal business private. I don’t want to hear heterosexuals proclaiming their personal business either.

 

[mtntopper]

Now that America has groomed and buffed that “refuse” into a valuable resource, foreigners are jealous.

I really do not imagine they give a hoot and this is what stirs up all the controversy as many Americans then are offended when they do not kiss our arse….

 

[Dutch-NJ]

I really do not imagine they give a hoot and this is what stirs up all the controversy as many Americans then are offended when they do not kiss our arse….

You can imagine anything you want.

But if you don’t think foreigners give a hoot about America, it is your imagination.

If you don’t think foreigners are jealous of America, it’s your imagination too.

In only 230 years, this county grew from 13 little backwoods colonies to the world’s richest and most powerful nation that has ever existed.

Have you ever entertained someone who has visited America for the first time? As much as they think they know, and as much as they try to hide their feelings, their jaw drops.

“Only one family lives here?” as they enter an average home.

“I thought there were racial problems?” as they see everyone polite to each other.

“If this is Pennsylvania, how big is Texas?” after 6 hours on the PA Turnpike.

I can understand why foreigners are jealous. What I can’t understand is Americans who don’t appreciate how much God has blessed them just by living in this glorious land of freedom and opportunity.

BTW - I don’t know any American that wants their arse kissed, much less being offended if it isn’t. You must be hanging around a strange group of so-called Americans.

 

[XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq]

Yes, I do stand corrected. The subtleties of our education systems. I'm still pretty certain that the youth of Canada were being taught that millions of Europeans fought for the "North" but what was not taught was that they were actually European emigrants.

My kids are going through French Immersion and French first language education here, and I recall my son's Canadian history teachings were a little biased towards France when they discussed the formation of Canada. I said to him, "that's wrong", but of course it was just the British-influenced version of my history teachings versus his French-influenced versions.

Hey Beds!

Here's a good book on Canadian History (in spite of the title):
Canadian History for Dummies by Will Ferguson (Author of "Why I Hate Canadians")

http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0470836563/qid=1147268953/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/701-2302331-7915562

He covers a lot of the US vs. Canadian "Scuffles" and puts them into good perspective. He's actually kind of a humorous writer so it makes a good read.

 

[Durwood RIP]

I just read this whole thread. How entertaining! How enlightening! I have learned several things:

That is certainly not how I felt, although maybe it's because I'm Jewish.

Ah, that is what my problem is! I need God in my public schools, God in my government displays, outlaw birth control, and ban homosexuals. Then everything will be alright!
Durwood, thanks for the enlightenment.
Bonehead

I think it's hard to argue that when you look at the moral decay of our country. Especially in just our schools alone, and it doesn't take any special insight to see that.

 

[jdwilson44]

I think it's hard to argue that when you look at the moral decay of our country. Especially in just our schools alone, and it doesn't take any special insight to see that.

The problem with this viewpoint is that it mixes up God, religion, and morality. Quite frankly I do not believe that you need to believe in a certain religion, or even God for that matter - to be a moral person. Some things are just innate and most of it can be summed up with the "do unto others as you would have them do to you " rule. If you have some common sense and are the least bit empathetic to other people you can figure out what is moral for yourself - you don't need somebody telling you what is and isn't moral.

 

[Dutch-NJ]

The problem with this viewpoint is that it mixes up God, religion, and morality. Quite frankly I do not believe that you need to believe in a certain religion, or even God for that matter - to be a moral person. Some things are just innate and most of it can be summed up with the "do unto others as you would have them do to you " rule. If you have some common sense and are the least bit empathetic to other people you can figure out what is moral for yourself - you don't need somebody telling you what is and isn't moral.

JD:

The REAL problem is, you’re viewing this from an adult perspective. Your moral base has already been formed. You have the right to worship or not worship God. Schoolchildren do not have that right.

Our family says a prayer of thanks before every meal. I say a prayer of thanks when I am alone in a restaurant. Many schools do not permit children to pray before they eat.

Some may argue that belief in God, religion, and prayer are the responsibilities of the parents.

That’s okay IF as the parents do it, or IF the playing field is level.

Another REAL problem is, the playing field isn’t level. While belief in God, religion, and prayer is not permitted in schools, our children are taught that homosexuality, abortion, and promiscuity are acceptable lifestyles. Any problems with drugs or STDs can be treated by man. Religion and even patriotism are mocked in many schools. That is NOT a level playing field.

If children had an innate sense of morals, that’s one thing. BUT children’s morals are influenced by their environment. That’s why childhood is called the formative years.

If you have any common sense, you will understand that. Hitler youth was educated to view killing Jews as the right moral thing to do. Stalin taught children that spying on parents and turning them in was the right moral thing to do.

Our Supreme Court rulings regarding the so-called separation of church and state is as wrong as their ruling that slavery was perfectly legal and morally acceptable.

Views like yours are steering America on the wrong road.

 

[beds]

Another REAL problem is, the playing field isn’t level. While belief in God, religion, and prayer is not permitted in schools, our children are taught that homosexuality, abortion, and promiscuity are acceptable lifestyles. Any problems with drugs or STDs can be treated by man.

Ummm, if homosexuality is a genetic pre-disposition, I'd have to disagree with you there, old Dutch!

 

[Dutch-NJ]

Ummm, if homosexuality is a genetic pre-disposition, I'd have to disagree with you there, old Dutch!

First off, there are no studies that have concluded all homosexuality is a genetic pre-disposition.

Quite the contrary. Studies have proven that many young people have “merely” experimented with homosexuality or lesbianism because of peer pressure, or because it's the "in" thing to do.

Regarding genetic pre-disposition, studies have shown that some serial killers have a genetic pre-disposition. Should children be taught that serial killing is just the way some people are born, and to accept that?

How about pedophiles? Couldn’t it be argued that is a genetic pre-disposition?

How about children born with birth defects? Don’t we spend money for cures? Don’t we try and overcome birth defects?

Why is homosexuality any different? Homosexuality is NOT normal. If it was, mankind would cease to exist.

I’m not a homophobe. I understand people can’t control how they were born, or how some people develope. But people like you should face reality and stop degrading the rest of us.

************************** continued ******************************

If one of my children or grandchildren was homosexual or suffered from Down Syndrone, I wouldn't love them any less. But I sure wouldn't insult other parents by telling them that either was perfectly normal............ and that's what many of our schools are teaching about homosexuality.

Another issue is hypocrasy. Liberals “understand” these things, but John Kerry tried to make a political issue from the fact that Dick Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian.

So Dick Cheney's daughter is lesbian. So what?

If hypocritic liberals believe homosexuality is so freakin’ normal, where’s the freakin’ issue? Why even mention it?

 

[jdwilson44]

JD:

The REAL problem is, you’re viewing this from an adult perspective. Your moral base has already been formed. You have the right to worship or not worship God. Schoolchildren do not have that right.

Our family says a prayer of thanks before every meal. I say a prayer of thanks when I am alone in a restaurant. Many schools do not permit children to pray before they eat.

Some may argue that belief in God, religion, and prayer are the responsibilities of the parents.

That’s okay IF as the parents do it, or IF the playing field is level.

Another REAL problem is, the playing field isn’t level. While belief in God, religion, and prayer is not permitted in schools, our children are taught that homosexuality, abortion, and promiscuity are acceptable lifestyles. Any problems with drugs or STDs can be treated by man. Religion and even patriotism are mocked in many schools. That is NOT a level playing field.

If children had an innate sense of morals, that’s one thing. BUT children’s morals are influenced by their environment. That’s why childhood is called the formative years.

If you have any common sense, you will understand that. Hitler youth was educated to view killing Jews as the right moral thing to do. Stalin taught children that spying on parents and turning them in was the right moral thing to do.

Our Supreme Court rulings regarding the so-called separation of church and state is as wrong as their ruling that slavery was perfectly legal and morally acceptable.

Views like yours are steering America on the wrong road.

Again I disagree. My experience with children is that absent teachings to the contrary they can very moral - more moral on the average than the typical adult. They know right and wrong - they know instinctually what is fair and unfair etc. Children will point out when they see something they perceive to be unfair. In fact I would argue that immorality is the result of teaching much more than morality is. Say to a child - it is wrong to hit another person, would you like them to do that to you? - and they usually pick that up quickly. The argument is simple because the child already understands what you are talking about. The arguments used by advocates of homosexuality and abortion etc. are much more involved and obtuse because the inherent truth that they are wrong must be obscured somehow to convince people that they are "ok".

If a child thinks it is okay to say tell jokes about a certain ethnic group, kill small animals, cheat and steal from his friends etc. where do they pick that up from? In my experience they pick it up from adults - they don't make this stuff up themselves.

You brought up the whole homosexuality, abortion and promiscuity thing - why do you think that the people who promote these things are trying to teach it to younger and younger children? Because absent teachings to the contrary children inherently know these things are not right. It isn't until you fill their heads with psychobabble, political theory, and sociological bullshit that they start to think otherwise. It isn't until they are infected by "adult" thinking and ideas that they start to accept these things.

If you want to read some stuff that will probably send you off the deep end check out this website: http://www.article8.org/ - especially the part about the Little Black Book. I do agree with you that the current situation is not a level playing field - the above site has the example of a father who objected to some of what his son was being taught in the public schools - he ended up getting arrested for his objections. I also agree with you that teaching things like morality and acceptance of differences are the domain of the parents - not the goverment funded public schools.

You are making my point for me with your examples of Hitler and Stalin and what they did to the youth. Do you think the children would have done these things without being "taught" that they were "moral" - I don't. Children look up to adults because we tell them that we are the ones who know everything - so we are the ones who corrupt them and undo what they inherently know to be right. Whether this innate morality was put there by God because a child is his creation or it is some sort of instinct, or is something they pick up subtly from their environment is irrelevant to this argument - I still believe that children have an innate sense of morality that can either be brought out of them or corrupted by what you teach them or the environment they are exposed to.

 

[Dutch-NJ]

Again I disagree.

I do agree with you that the current situation is not a level playing field.....

I also agree with you that teaching things like morality and acceptance of differences are the domain of the parents - not the goverment funded public schools.

After reading your post several times, I’m not sure why you disagree.

You and I agree that the current situation is not a level playing field. That is a fact, as evidenced by the link you provided..

Little Black Book - Hard-core pornographic homosexual "how-to" booklet given to hundreds of kids at Brookline High School. http://www.article8.org/docs/news_events/glsen_043005/conference.htm
​

Schools are not allowed to teach the theory of intelligent design, but schools are allowed to teach the theory of evolution. What makes one theory acceptable but not the other?

You and I also agree that teaching things like morality and acceptance of differences are the domain of the parents - not the goverment funded public schools.

Then why are schools teaching children about radicalism and infiltration? That fact is also evidenced by the link you provided..

Kids (and teachers) given workshops on homosexuality, radicalism, how to organize & infiltrate schools. http://www.article8.org/docs/news_events/glsen_043005/program/program_text.htm
​

What happens if schools teach children that 2+2=3 and you teach your children that 2+2=4. Why should parents have to undo what children are erroneously taught?

Your belief that schools should not teach morality may work if they didn’t. But they do...... the wrong kind of morality. How about if the same class was called “ethics,” would that make a difference? Probably not. The forces of anti-American evil are at work.

Teachers are not robots (yet). Humans are not impartial. Human beings have opinions.

Can you imagine if a math teacher was asked where numbers came from? The teacher replies that the numbers we use are Arabic. “Arabic?” a student asks. Yes Arabic, like Muslim Arabic. The class is off and running discussing social isues and religion.

How can humans teach other humans without human opinions and emotions? Just look at this thread.

 

[beds]

Homosexuality is NOT normal. If it was, mankind would cease to exist.

Sorry there, Dutch, if it is a genetic predisposition, I'm afraid it is normal. Not that the race will proliferate if everyone is homosexual, but everyone's not - only a small percentage - if any - have a genetic predispsition.

 

[Dutch-NJ]

Sorry there, Dutch, if it is a genetic predisposition, I'm afraid it is normal. Not that the race will proliferate if everyone is homosexual, but everyone's not - only a small percentage - if any - have a genetic predispsition.

Beds................. I'm going to lay on the ropes this round.

Why don't you explain to all of us how any living thing that doesn't reproduce or procreate is normal.

Why don't you explain to all of us how "a small percentage," that is different than the majority is normal.

 

[jdwilson44]

I wasn’t referring to the War of 1812, but since you mentioned it, why do you claim Canada won?

Read the Treaty of Ghent. That proves England didn’t win anything. In fact, England gave up land.

After the Treaty was signed, but before it was ratified, the Battle of New Orleans was fought.

Although grossly outnumbered, General Andrew Jackson and his group of “Hill Billy” volunteers, Cajuns, Barataria pirates, Choctaw Indians, and former black slaves kicked the British army’s ass.

Where do screaming liberals get their distorted views about facts and history?

They dont "get" it anywhere - they make it up because reality screws around with their distorted views of the way things "should" be.

 

[Dutch-NJ]

They dont "get" it anywhere - they make it up because reality screws around with their distorted views of the way things "should" be.

In some cases, you’re right. However, I believe there is a concerted conspiracy to revise American history, culture and values. I don't know why. It doesn't make sense to me.

I have a tenant who has several children. About 5 years ago, I was working on another building on the same property. The tenant’s 10 year old boy came running out of his house and was screaming f*** you to his mother and father.

Didn’t ask him to, but the kid came over to where I was working and started to help me clean up. For whatever reason, I took a liking to the kid. For the next few days he helped me again. He seemed smart but uneducated. His language was atrocious.

He started referring to the President of the United States as “That f****** Bush,” and his “f****** teachers, the f****** school, and some God d*** test.” I got right in the kids face and reminded him that he never heard me using that kind of language, and I didn’t want some “punk kid” using it around me. I told him if he wanted me to treat him like a man, he should act like a man.

After his shock wore off, he told me that he had a test the following day that he expected to fail. The test was about the branches of government. I told him there were only three branches, what those branches did, and that if he couldn’t remember three things he was stupid and deserved to fail.

The next day, he came running off the school bus right over to me. He passed the test. I told him that didn’t surprise me at all because I knew he was smart.

Over the next few weeks, the kid asked me one question after another, and was surprised at how easy it was for him to learn. I also learned from him. Some of his teachers were teaching him the most outrageous things that were nothing more than their political and social opinions, and had nothing to do with what they were supposed to be teaching.

I showed him how to use a computer for research instead of just playing games. That kid did a complete turn-a-round. He is now on the honor roll and is talking about college.

Oh, another time I saw that kid and his brother standing outside listening to music coming from a church down the road. With the parents’ permission, I took the kids to that church, introduced myself and asked if the kids could sing along. They were welcomed with open arms (the church people even tried to hook me). They now go to church every Sunday and I never hear them using foul language anymore.

It’s amazing how little effort it takes to mold young minds.

Since the NEA is “progressive”, and some teachers support “progressive” causes for self serving reasons, and since many parents have abdicated their responsibilities to their children, it’s little wonder why perverted thinking permeates our society.

 

[jdwilson44]

I have actually been reading quite a bit about this type of thing lately and I think you are right - there are people who actually are doing this on purpose, there are however a larger group of people who could be called "useful idiots" (Stalin's term not mine) who just go along because all this crap because it just sounds good to them. It seems like there is more and more of the thing you are talking about where teachers teach social theory and crap like that instead of reading, writing, and arithmetic.

I read a book a month or so ago called " Send in the Waco Killers" by VIn Suprynowicz:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0967025907/qid=1147452743/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-4377443-3208108?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
This book is definitely worth a read if you want to learn a little more about how our goverment and schools are being manipulated by politicians and other groups who want to turn this country into a socialistic state. Vin is a Libertarian but much of what he says is echoed by religious groups who are fighting to end the homosexual lobby's influence in the public schools (the article8.org group in MA is one of those).

If there is a conspiracy it is because those who want to change this country don't want us to learn or remember the type of people who founded this country because it gives people a clear example that refutes everything the revisionists say. When I was a kid I used to stay at my grandparents every April 19th and we would go watch the reenactment on Lexington Common. At a young age I also started reading books that these days we wouldn't even think of giving young children, books like Guadacanal Diary and Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and stuff like that. Maybe that is why when I finally got into real history in middle and high school I just didn't believe much of what they said so it really did not affect my way of thinking.

One of the major topics in Send in the Waco Killers is goverment mandated public schools - Vin makes the point pretty well that home schooled children do at least as well and in most cases much better than public schooled kids. He also says something very intuitive - something that I have never thought of before - something that applies directly to those children you were dealing with - he says that if you look at the behavior of many children these days, the piercings, the drug use, tatoos, the acting out, sexual behavior, etc. it is the same type of behavior you get from prisoners. Basically he says that children recognize - even if it is subconciously - that they are in a prison of sorts and they act out in rebellion. Once you start to teach them - really teach them that is, and respect them and show them the proper ways of doing things they respond. The bureacrats who are in charge of our public schools however just see unruly children as a something that needs to be medicated which accounts for the high prevalence of kids on prescription drugs like Ritalin and stuff like that.

There is a woman running as the libertarian candidate for governor of Alabama who has had many of these same experiences:

http://nallforgovernor.com/

The example you gave of that child getting on the honor roll and going to church with his brother is a good example of what I argued before - that children have an innate sense of right and wrong. Once you showed him some sanity and kindness and the proper way of doing things and showed him how to learn he responded well to it - because it just made sense to him.

If you think this country has problems now wait 20 years or so when all the kids who are in our public schools now getting brainwashed grow up. We will have to bring in immigrants from everywhere just to keep the country up and running because it's own citizens will be a complete bunch of idiots.

 

[jdwilson44]

Sorry there, Dutch, if it is a genetic predisposition, I'm afraid it is normal. Not that the race will proliferate if everyone is homosexual, but everyone's not - only a small percentage - if any - have a genetic predispsition.

You know I hear this argument all the time - if it's genetic it's "normal." Normal is not defined by the mere existence of a genetically based characteristic. If that was so then we would consider Downs Syndrome to be normal , we would consider Sickle Cell Anemia to be normal. We would alchoholism to be normal. We would consider dwarfism, propecia, etc. and all of the other genetically based diseases and mutations to be "normal"

Since this seems to be a topic that generates constant arguments I came up with my own way of defining something as "normal". If you take any given behavior or way of being and you then assume that the entirety of the human population has that characteristic - can the human population still survive?

Here are some examples:

- Skin color - whether a human is dark skinned or light skinned has absolutely no bearing on whether the human race survives as a whole - we could all be black, white or any color in between and the race as a whole would continue.

- hair color - again hair color is an adaptation of the human body to a specific environment, it alone however is not enough to keep the human race from survival, blondes could survive and propagate just fine in Africa as could Africans in Sweden.

- Sharing - some scientists argue that sharing is not a Darwinian way of propogating one's genes. The reality is that if every person is as likely to share as every other person than in the end everybody makes out better on the average. Therefore sharing could be considered "normal".

- Murder - if everybody had the opportunity to commit murder without repercussion or mental anguish then murder would be much more common. The problem is that it is much easier to kill than it is to bring to life - I am sure a social scientist could lay this out better than I can but in the end the acceptance of murder means the inevitable extinction of the species because everybody would kill everybody else. Hence murder is not considered "normal".

- Reproduction - humans are not fish - we are not asexual - we are sexual, it takes an egg and a sperm to produce a human life therefore since a normally functioning male and normally functioning female are required this is "normal". All of the old arguments about race mixing and such are just crap - in the end a human female and human male can propagate no matter what race they are from.

- homosexuality - if every single person on the planet was homosexual - and they kept to what they consider to be their "normal" behavior, I.E. males only had sex with males and females only with females this would be our last generation on this planet. Since gay advocacy groups always want to claim that their sexual behavior is just as "normal" as heterosexual sexual behavior what they are basically admitting is that in order for homosexuals to reproduce they would have to resort to an "abnormal" (for them) behavior in order to have children. Since there is no species on the planet whose "normal" behavior is to plan their own extinction homosexuality cannot possibly be normal.

You do not need God, morality or any other of the other contested ways of thinking about things to figure this out - it is simple common sense.

The other thing that really burns me up is that homosexuality is lumped in as discrimination the same way as being biased against black people or women is. Having a skin color or a gender is an immutable condition ( at least it was until Michael Jackson and transgender surgery came along). In the end homosexuality is a behavior whether that behavior is genetically influenced or not. The reality is that if I decided I wanted to I could walk out this weekend - go to a gay bar and pick up a man and be a homosexual. There is no way that I could walk out the door and be a black man or a woman.

Again to me figuring out discrimination is easy - imagine you are standing on one of those roads thru the Arizona desert - one of the roads where you can see for miles in either direction. Off in the distance you see a person walking towards you in your binoculars, as soon as the person comes into focus you see that he is a black man, or is an Asian woman, or any of the other minority groups of color that are typically portrayed as being oppressed. The reality of discrimination is that if I am inclined to do so I can start discriminating against that black man from miles away -even though I know nothing about him. He could be a Nobel Prize winner for science, the priest at his local church, and the most moral man on the planet. I can discriminate against him simply by the color of this skin. Now imagine that off in the distance I see a mid 40's slighty balding white man wearing a nice looking suit and carrying a briefcase. My first impression of him is going to be that he is probably successfull and maybe has some money. Different people might have different impressions but by his looks alone you will make a mental assessment of the person. If there are no visual clues to give it away you will probably presume the white guy is a heterosexual. And he will be accorded all the privileges and lack of discrimination that mid 40's white guys are allegedly given in this country. It isn't until he finally reaches me and says "hey you're cute, why dont you pull down your pants and show me what you've got" that I will know he is a homosexual. That is because homosexuality is based on behavior - not looks like other discriminated against groups.

Behavior in society has always been judged - hence my murder example above. When behavior affects others in society it should be judged. The homosexual lobby constantly tries to argue around this fact because they are trying to get you to forget this simple piece of common sense. Genetics have nothing to do with it - it's the behavior.

 

[Dutch-NJ]

JD:

You and I seem to have a similar outlook.

When I was a kid in New York City, my father was a seaman who I only saw 2 days every 6 weeks. Other men in our neighborhood were my male role models. Many of them would probably be called “mobsters” today. But I learned a lot about real life from them.

My mother was concerned about the direction I may be taking, so we moved to the country. Other high school kids seemed immature to me. I didn’t fit in well and wanted to quit.

My mother and guidance counselor convinced me to graduate. My guidance counselor wanted to keep me busy, so he made me go to vocational school in the morning and regular high school in the afternoon. He also made me take difficult college prep courses. No study periods or free time for me.

My history teacher was Mr. MacKinnon. He was a WW II Marine combat veteran. Mr. MacKinnon specialized in teaching “problem” students like me.

Ritalin didn’t exist in those days, so Mr. MacKinnon did the next best thing. He would meet the “tough guys” after class in the gym and knock the $h!t out of us. It worked. Thank God for teachers like Mr. MacKinnon and a system that supported them.

 

[beds]

You know I hear this argument all the time - if it's genetic it's "normal." Normal is not defined by the mere existence of a genetically based characteristic. If that was so then we would consider Downs Syndrome to be normal , we would consider Sickle Cell Anemia to be normal. We would alchoholism to be normal. We would consider dwarfism, propecia, etc. and all of the other genetically based diseases and mutations to be "normal"

Since this seems to be a topic that generates constant arguments I came up with my own way of defining something as "normal". If you take any given behavior or way of being and you then assume that the entirety of the human population has that characteristic - can the human population still survive?


The other thing that really burns me up is that homosexuality is lumped in as discrimination the same way as being biased against black people or women is. Having a skin color or a gender is an immutable condition ( at least it was until Michael Jackson and transgender surgery came along). In the end homosexuality is a behavior whether that behavior is genetically influenced or not. The reality is that if I decided I wanted to I could walk out this weekend - go to a gay bar and pick up a man and be a homosexual. There is no way that I could walk out the door and be a black man or a woman.

Genetics have nothing to do with it - it's the behavior.

Okay, so it's "natural" and not normal. It's natural to be born with genetic defects. As a society we don't exterminate or even chastise people born with genetic defects.

IF (and that's still an IF) homosexuality is genetic, then it is NOT a choice or a behaviour. Sure, you, JD, may choose to put on your leather chaps and go to the gay bar one night, but alot of these people who discover they are homosexual would rather not need to go through a divorce, or to tell their young children why they are leaving their daddy.

 

[Dutch-NJ]

Okay, so it's "natural" and not normal. It's natural to be born with genetic defects. As a society we don't exterminate or even chastise people born with genetic defects.

Nor do we shrug and say, okay that child was born blind. It's genetic, so what? That's an acceptable alternative lifestyle.

We try and find a cure for genetic blindness.

Can you imagine the uproar if someone suggested a cure for genetic homosexuality?

There's a hidden agenda with the gay pride movement.

IF (and that's still an IF) homosexuality is genetic, then it is NOT a choice or a behaviour. Sure, you, JD, may choose to put on your leather chaps and go to the gay bar one night, but alot of these people who discover they are homosexual would rather not need to go through a divorce, or to tell their young children why they are leaving their daddy.

If homosexuality is genetic, I would think the person would know it before they got married and had children.

If someone "discovered" their homosexuality later in life, after they had a wife and children, that is their problem. There are plenty of people who discover later in life that they would rather be something they are not. They made their choice, they should live with it.

There is a thing called "commitment." If you made a commitment to buy a steak, took a few bites and then decided you would really like fish, what would you expect a restaurant to do?

Your position sounds like the partial birth abortion issue. I can see both sides of the abortion issue, but when a mother waits until the child has to be ripped apart and have it's brains sucked out........... that's MURDER.

Why should a child suffer because a mother couldn't make a decision for 9 months?

 

[Melensdad]

Dutch, no offence but I think much of what you are saying, while seemingly logical, is so full of hot air that it is unrealistic.

You are making arguements based on "IF" and further suggesting that things set in place should never be changed. So while there is a thing called "commitment" what if your parents pledged you, at a young age, to marry into a family that you, when you reached the age of reason, could simply not tolerate? Or what if you commited your daughter to marry a man twice her age so you could receive the dowery? Are those commitments less viable simply because our culture does not adopt them but other cultures do?

While I am not siding with the "liberal" agenda, I certainly can't buy into some of the stuff you are writing as much more that "hooey"

 

[jdwilson44]

Okay, so it's "natural" and not normal. It's natural to be born with genetic defects. As a society we don't exterminate or even chastise people born with genetic defects.

IF (and that's still an IF) homosexuality is genetic, then it is NOT a choice or a behaviour. Sure, you, JD, may choose to put on your leather chaps and go to the gay bar one night, but alot of these people who discover they are homosexual would rather not need to go through a divorce, or to tell their young children why they are leaving their daddy.

I would not call it "natural" either. Now you are playing word games the same way a lot the gay agenda apologists do trying to degrade the meanings of words or find a word that does not seem so abrasive so people will accept it. Again back to my earlier posting - how could it be natural?

Here is the definition of natural according to the internet:

nat·u·ral (n

ch

r-

l, n

ch

r

l)
adj. 1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
4. a. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.
b. Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.
c. Biology Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.

5. Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive.
6. Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.
7. Faithfully representing nature or life.
8. Expected and accepted: "In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love" Duff Cooper.
9. Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights.
10. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.
11. a. Related by blood: the natural parents of the child.
b. Born of unwed parents: a natural child.

12. Mathematics Of or relating to positive integers, sometimes including zero.
13. Music a. Not sharped or flatted.
b. Having no sharps or flats.


n. 1. a. One having all the qualifications necessary for success: You are a natural for this job.
b. One suited by nature for a certain purpose or function: She is a natural at mathematics.

2. Music a. The sign (

) placed before a note to cancel a preceding sharp or flat.
b. A note so affected.

3. A yellowish gray to pale orange yellow.
4. Games A combination in certain card and dice games that wins immediately.


While some of the definitions of natural could be applied to your interpretation of homosexuality - 1) and 4 b ) - for instance, there are others like 8) that are at odds with saying that homosexuality is "natural".

Again - the problem goes back to behavior, just because you have a predisposition to a certain type of behavior does not mean you have to engage in it if that behavior has detrimental consequences. Alchoholics Anonymous is founded on this very principle. In fact alchoholism is a pretty good comparison, it has been proven that there are people who are genetically predisposed to alchoholism - and there are plenty of other people who become alchoholics thru exposure to the behavior. Homosexuality is the same thing - in the end it is a behavior that is under your control. What the gay advocates are trying to do is change the morals, laws, and generally accepted behaviors of society so that they can get away with their behavior without having to suffer for the consequences. I have been following this stuff since I was in college 20 years ago and the utter lack of a real argument for the laws that have been put into place continues to amaze me. I remember when AIDS first started to make inroads into the US and how the media stories always mentioned that it was gay men that were catching it. There was no call from the leaders of the gay community to stop engaging in multiple sex partners and stop the behaviors that were known to spread the disease - instead their tactics were to blame the goverment for either spreading the disease on purpose to wipe out homosexuals or blame the goverment for holding back the cure on purpose. If somebody in the gay community had come out and urged responsibility I might have formed a different opinion of them as a whole but that did not happen then and it has never happened since then. Instead their tactics are to bludgeon public opinion with political correctness, obscure the real issues thru word games and denigration of the English language, and put people in positions of goverment power to spread their own agenda.

 

[beds]

Homosexuality is the same thing - in the end it is a behavior that is under your control.

We will have to disagree on this one. I say that if you have a genetic predisposition (and I'm not saying anyone does) then you have no choice. You are saying they do have a choice. We will contiinue to disagree on that point

I remember when AIDS first started to make inroads into the US and how the media stories always mentioned that it was gay men that were catching it. There was no call from the leaders of the gay community to stop engaging in multiple sex partners and stop the behaviors that were known to spread the disease - instead their tactics were to blame the goverment for either spreading the disease on purpose to wipe out homosexuals or blame the goverment for holding back the cure on purpose. If somebody in the gay community had come out and urged responsibility I might have formed a different opinion of them as a whole but that did not happen then and it has never happened since then.

Now you're talking about promiscuity and a behaviour has impacted your decision. This is your opinion, but certainly no basis for any kind of logical, scientific conclusion.

 

[Dutch-NJ]

Dutch, no offence but I think much of what you are saying, while seemingly logical, is so full of hot air that it is unrealistic.

You are making arguements based on "IF" and further suggesting that things set in place should never be changed. So while there is a thing called "commitment" what if your parents pledged you, at a young age, to marry into a family that you, when you reached the age of reason, could simply not tolerate? Or what if you commited your daughter to marry a man twice her age so you could receive the dowery? Are those commitments less viable simply because our culture does not adopt them but other cultures do?

While I am not siding with the "liberal" agenda, I certainly can't buy into some of the stuff you are writing as much more that "hooey"

Unlike some people on this forum, if you offend me, I can defend myself. I don’t go secretly whining to moderators with my tales of woe. I may be a lot of things, but I’m not a sissy.

Instead of claiming that I’m “full of hot air” or that my opinions are “hooey,” why don’t you enlighten me what is illogical about my opinions that are only “seemingly logical” to you?

This is America. Certainly, some other cultures have customs that are not only less viable in the American culture, they are flat out illegal.

In America, parents can’t legally commit their children to marry anyone even if they wanted to. So why do you even give an example that is so meaningless and ridiculous?

Homosexuals are routinely executed in most Muslim countries. Should America embrace that culture?

I don’t care if an opinion is liberal or not. I agree with many liberal positions, as long as those positions are rational. Justify your opinions with logical specifics rather then name calling.

 

[DaveNay]

In America, parents can’t legally commit their children to marry anyone even if they wanted to.

Bullshit.

I have first hand experience of a friend of mine who was part of an arranged marriage right after she graduated high school. Marriage contracts and arrangements are a pure religious issue, and as long as the promised husband and wife are believing members of their religion and are of the legal age (the only thing the law is concened with is age) to be married, it is completely legal.

Obviously, if the person or persons does not wish to complete the arranged marriage, they have the option to break from their family and religion and move on with their life down a different path.

 

[Dutch-NJ]

In America, parents can’t legally commit their children to marry anyone even if they wanted to.

Bullshit.

I have first hand experience of a friend of mine who was part of an arranged marriage right after she graduated high school. Marriage contracts and arrangements are a pure religious issue, and as long as the promised husband and wife are believing members of their religion and are of the legal age (the only thing the law is concened with is age) to be married, it is completely legal.

Obviously, if the person or persons does not wish to complete the arranged marriage, they have the option to break from their family and religion and move on with their life down a different path.

Bullshit? Bullshit? What is Bullshit about my statement?.

You're saying the same thing as I am.

You say, "Obviously, if the person or persons does not wish to complete the arranged marriage, they have the option to break...... "

That's not the way it is in some foreign cultures.

Do you guys shift into "think" before you type?

 

[OhioTC18]

Do you guys shift into "think" before you type?

Most of us do Dutch and wish you'd do the same. Now, Get rid of your racist signature.

 

[DaveNay]

Do you guys shift into "think" before you type?

Listen up you schizophrenic fücktard.

Your incoherent ramblings are getting really goddamn annoying.

You said that it is not legal for an arranged marriage.

I said it is.

I don't know how the hell you figure we are saying the same thing.

My suggestion is that you hoist sail and depart these waters before someone turns their guns broadside on you.