Posted on 03/01/2006 12:01:59 PM PST by Jim Robinson
"All of her writings were designed to point out the evils of socialism"
Not necessarily. Big-government socialism and small government socialism are two different things. She's an anarchist on a personal level, but anarchy is a myth when more than one person is present. Not all will have the same ideals, and those of one may conflict with those of another. There have to be limits for interpersonal relations.
In a world unconstrained by morals, the rules have to be set-in-stone and rigorously enforced by the state, lest they be ignored by people who see no real need for rules in the first place. Leads to totalitarianism, or a breakdown in order (chaos).
I used to read In THese TImes avidly in the late 60s , when I was a lefty. I know all about this rag, and it was actually an 8-12 page NEWSPAPER when I read it.
This particular "issue" reeks of every kind of dishonesty and is SO typical of Leftist strategies:
they really have no interest in participating in such a square event as the White House Easter Egg roll, and EVEN IF INVITED, would probably not want to come back more than
once---they are no more interested in this event, or want their "exclusion" to be "righted" than they are about joining the Boy Scouts, using the ACLU as a battering ram.
They are provocateurs, who are personally so miserable inside they can't leave anyone alone to pursue his or her own life. Ultimately, they want to destroy their "enemies" through slander, intimidation, and legal wrangling. But as I have said before, someday the tipping point is going to be reached, and we finally really WILL have a culture war, and it may very well LOOK like war.
Wow, your posts on this latter part of the thread are as good and direct as anything I've seen on FR. You are like willyboyishere on his best day. (Today is not his best day)
And I always appreciate any references to the estimable Michelangelo Signorile, who will always serve as a high (or low?) watermark of perverse gay behavior, in his mission to OUT gays who just want to be left alone, in a way that would have to make the most zealous gay-basher proverbially green with envy.
"What happened to the love that dare not speak its name?"
Heh, Pat Buchanan says it's become "the love that won't shut up".
That's a great quote---"the love that won't shut up" !
BTT
I see Mr Ireland hasn't bothered to respond to any replies.
Gidget7 addresses the controversy surrounding the presence of the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in schools (#451). She states, “Zero tolerance policies are in effect everywhere. I have spoken with many students from many different schools, and bullying of homosexuals does not exist.” I will disagree and illustrate with my own experience.
When I was a kid, no one beat me up for being gay. I didn’t even really know I was gay until I hit puberty. Well before then, however, I knew I would not want to be gay, whatever that meant. “Fag” and “homo” were words I used myself on the playground—they were put-downs. They didn’t mean anything sexual in elementary school. In Junior High, they became sexualized. A “fag” liked other boys and a “dyke” was a girl who wanted to have sex with other girls… or the gym teacher. These words mushroomed in meaning and became truly dangerous, especially when I realized they applied to me.
I became an expert at the “faggot” jokes in high school. I didn’t dare act on crushes I felt for my classmates. I was cool, big man on campus, and no one suspected. I significantly shut-down my emotions to put off my internal monologue of sexuality—I was asexual, which, I might add, I think is a very good thing for teenagers. I’ll be clear, though, I was definitely gay. Although it was not the case for me, many kids who are perceived to be gay will become sexually active with the opposite sex to prove to their peers that they are not.
It worries me that Gudget7 thinks GLSEN advocates teaching “the ins and outs (no pun intended) of homosexual acts.” She goes on to say that, “sex, any kind of sex, is personal, private, and intimate.” I agree. According to their mission, GLSEN “strives to assure that each member of every school community is valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.” It is every teacher’s responsibility to maintain an environment of respect in the classroom and on the playground. In my opinion, teachers who want all of their students to learn, and that is the point of school, are invested in providing a safe place for all. GLSEN helps give them the tools to confront putdowns and verbal harassment among their students.
Every day, teenagers tease, harass, cajole, and pressure each other. It’s an age-appropriate form of communication. School is a place where adults model behavior that is expected of adults—the students watch and learn. When a student calls another “queer,” most teachers will stop the exchange with a prompt, such as, “cut it out, guys” or “no more” and turn back to the chalk board. Often, both students are punished. Very few teachers will stop the situation and use it as a “teachable moment.” “Queer is an inappropriate word to use at school. It’s a powerful word that has been used to put people down and we don’t do that here. Everybody has the right to feel safe in my classroom, so if you choose to use words like that, you’re out.” For elementary teachers, GLSEN trains how to explain that that type of word is hurtful and that “we don’t use hurtful words at school.”
Gidget7’s thinks that “children should be left alone, to grow at their own pace, learning what they need to learn as is age appropriate.” DirtyHarryY2K asks, “Why burden children with sexual issues?” I believe it is important to teach human sexuality classes in junior high and high school. Misinformation is dangerous—kids learn a lot from each other and very little of it is accurate. Abstinence is not likely to be valued, nor the concept that each person’s sexuality is private.
If we neglect sexuality in the curriculum, we, as parents, miss the window of opportunity. Pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are real issues for teens. Personally, I think abstinence is ideal and that it promotes teenage physical and emotional health. It’s extremely important to teach it, along with other reproductive health and family planning curriculum. I respect that many parents would rather handle these issues at home—I support opt-out permission slips for those families, but the vast majority of parents will never address the issues, so it’s a public health issue, and therefore, a public school issue. Gidget7 suggests, “you do not throw at kids, things they are not mentally or emotionally mature enough to handle.” I agree. Public health nurses, physicians, and mental health professionals should develop age-appropriate materials, not activists from either side of the debate.
I guess the core issue here is sexuality vs. sex. How many parents actually talk about the sex act? If a person has a photograph on his desk at work of his wife and child, no one thinks twice. If that frame contains a man and child, as mine does, some people become extremely uncomfortable. I guess they have vivid images of gay sex flash though their minds. I can imagine how uncomfortable I would be if I felt that way every time I saw a family portrait. But I don’t. I see the people smiling alongside their family members.
DirtyHarryY2K posits a fairly clear view of equality: “We are equal. You are legally allowed to do every thing I am legally allowed to do. You can legally marry someone of the opposite sex just like I can. And like me, you cannot legally marry someone of the same sex. That's equality, No?” Under that scenario, I guess, I have the right to be like you. That’s not equality. Looking at the diversity of human beings and assigning equal intrinsic value to each is equality. Do I have the legal protections that all Americans have? Can I equally protect those I love with health benefits and inheritance laws? As I face inequality, I do my best to address it.
My partner and I adopted a child in California. If we move to Oklahoma, which does not recognize gay adoptive parents, what would happen? How could we protect our child. If we vacation at Disney World and I should be hospitalized, the emergency room personnel could exclude my partner, since, in Florida, we have no legal relationship to one another. That also means I might not see my son. When one considers the patchwork of laws across the county, it personalizes the concept of equality. I am a proud American, but my America has shrunken down significantly because of the views of the majority in some areas.
I understand that DirtyHarryY2K feels that we are “playing house” by adopting children and that he does not allow us into his definition of family. I also read on this forum that there is some disagreement as to who should parent. Single people, single men, older heterosexual men are suspect… I’m sure some people agree that a marriage without procreation is pointless. We will always disagree. Marriage provides stability for society. And for some of us, we’re just pre-wired to settle down with one person.
Lentulusgracchus writes “White House social affairs are usually invitation-only, and this one is. What SoulForce contemplates doing is, indeed, defined socially by the word "crash, crashed." Actually, George W. Bush calls it, “one of the oldest and most unique traditions in presidential history,” and a chance for all Americans to visit “their house.” According to the White House website, “Children of all ages are welcome to attend, as long as there is at least one child six years old or under and no more than two adults per group.” Different from a state dinner or a private function, this event is designed to welcome all Americans for some good old-fashioned fun.
We are unable to attend the event this year, but if we were to attend, it would be for the benefit of our son, not to serve the message of inclusion. As parents, we cancel plans all the time because our son has a cold or hasn’t napped sufficiently. We’ve all seen the parent trying to eek out the most value of an all-day pass at Disneyland—the kids do not benefit. So, I would never use my child in this way. Anyone who does is missing the point of parenting.
DirtyHarryY2K wonders why I “would edit the word ‘pride’ out of [my] statement about gay pride parades? He even spelled ‘gay’ with a lower case ‘G.’” Again, I am not some amorphous “gay agenda” needing to keep my terminology consistent. There was a time when I used an upper case “G,” mostly when I was struggling with my sense of pride in my life. Now that I’m settled down in what I consider to be a very stable life with home and family, I have little need for the linguistic reinforcement. My “issue” these days is encouraging my boy to learn how to use his sippy cup. :-) Lentulusgracchus pits my statements against those of Michael Swift and Michelangelo Signorile (#456), both extreme writers not universally accepted by gay people. Swift may dream of “a society without families or marriage,” but I do not. What a sad dream.
I appreciate the time and thought many of you have invested in this conversation. I am learning more though this interaction what your concerns are, than through any dialogue I could have with those who agree with me on every issue. Thanks.
My, and I would venture to say most others here, opinion is not changed. Nor will it. You are raising a child in a home that is unhealthy morally, ethically, emotionally, or mentally. That isn't judgment, it is just fact.
As I said, my opinion, my convictions, my values and my beliefs remain unchanged. This is a matter which is either black or white, no gray, and it is pointless to say any more in the way of reasons, as they would fall on deaf ears.
And they still are. The beautiful thing about children is they see right through all the PC BS to the truth of the matter. Some things, such as homsoexual behavior, are just wrong. These things offend the child's inner sense of right and wrong , their conscience if you will.
This is why the homosexual activists keep having to move their indoctrination efforts to younger and younger kids. Just doing it in high school fails to twist the children because they've already learned right from wrong in the early grades. This progression of trying to indoctrinate younger and younger children is blatantly obvious to anyone who bothers looking.
These words mushroomed in meaning and became truly dangerous, especially when I realized they applied to me.
Which should have been a strong clue that you were not right. If 98% of the world sees something you are doing as unnatural and unhealthy, it likely is and you should re-examine yourself. If you had received proper guidance and counseling then you could be living a healthy life now.
I was asexual, which, I might add, I think is a very good thing for teenagers.
No. Teenagers should be heterosexual (as everyone really is anyway), and celebate
I’ll be clear, though, I was definitely gay.
No. You sounded very unhappy. Not gay at all. You may have been suffering from Same-sex Attraction disorder, or even Gender Identity disorder but having a mental illness does not 'make' you anything.
It worries me that Gudget7 thinks GLSEN advocates teaching “the ins and outs (no pun intended) of homosexual acts.”
Why, because the agenda is exposed? Why else would anyone be teaching perverse sexual activity in the schools if not to recruit/indoctrinate?
According to their mission, GLSEN “strives to assure that each member of every school community is valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.”
In other words "We demand the right to be in your face about our chosen sexual perversions and their nothing you can do about it. Every child deserevs the right to practice perversion in their school."
Obviously some of us disagree. Every child needs to keep their sexual ideas/activity to themselves. It is never an appropriate subject at school. Never.
GLSEN helps give them the tools to confront putdowns and verbal harassment among their students.
No it doen't. It exists to normalize sexual perversion. Face it, the big way to express something as being bad or uncool or horrible on the middle school campus today is to say "That's so gay". This will never change. Kids know what is unnatural and wrong.
GLSEN keeps trying to push the indoctrination into lower and lower grades to overcome these children's inate sens of right and wrong.
School is a place where adults model behavior that is expected of adults—the students watch and learn.
So we should never let a sexually perverted person teach children because the children will watch and learn? We know that the 'homosexual' lifestyle leads people to die earlier, sacrifice what most of us call a normal life, be greatly exposed to more and unusual STD's, practice promiscuity (which is always bad) and a host of other negative effects. So why would we want to model that for our children. We don't. GLSEN however does, because they are recruiting.
I believe it is important to teach human sexuality classes in junior high and high school. Misinformation is dangerous—kids learn a lot from each other and very little of it is accurate.
Children don't need sexuality courses in school. It is not the school's purpose to teach children about sexual activity. Certainly schools should not be teaching harmful practices or indoctrinating children who should not be exposed to these issues at all.
Abstinence is not likely to be valued, nor the concept that each person’s sexuality is private.
If we teach abstinence as the only acceptable practice, and remove all social endorsements of other practices, then abstinence will work as well as it did for the first 200 years of our history (until the libertines messed things up in the sixties). The bright cloud on the horizon is that the sixties hippies are dying off and their grandchildren tend to be more conservative so the pendulum is swinging back towards sanity
If we neglect sexuality in the curriculum, we, as parents, miss the window of opportunity.
No. If we beglect teaching our children proper behavior at home we fail our responsibility. The curriculum should have nothing to do with it.
Pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are real issues for teens.
Not if their abstinent. "If you don't want to get pregnant or die from a STD, keep your pants zipped" MAkes perfect sense
I respect that many parents would rather handle these issues at home—I support opt-out permission slips for those families,
No. Any permission should be written opt-in. Opt-out is never effective at insuring parents rights are preserved. Opt-in gives a much stronger basis for protecting our kids from sexual deviancy in the schools.
Public health nurses, physicians, and mental health professionals should develop age-appropriate materials, not activists from either side of the debate.
It's already been done. For grades 1 through 5: "Kissing is something only married grown-ups do. It's real icky and involves swapping spit". For grades 6 through 8: (beyond basic biology explaining what is happening to them) "sex is for married grown-ups. It can be very dangerous to unmarried people and if they catch the wrong disease, may even kill you". For high schoolers: "Sex is for married adults. Sexually active unmarried people expose themsleves to diseases that may kill them or cause them to never bea able to have children. Unintentional pregnancy will destroy your life. As a girl it will burden you with a child. While all your friends are going to the dance or to the game you will be at home taking care of your baby. As a boy it willcost you roughly 50% of everything you earn for the next 18 years. Abortion is the act of murdering your unborn baby. It has been linked to breats cancer, greatly increased mental disease in those who undergo one and greatly decreased quality of life in those who've had one."
What more would they need to know? Certainly children don't need to know how to perform any sexual activity. They are supposed to be abstinent
How many parents actually talk about the sex act?
Beyond explaing what is happening at puberty, hopefully none. Plenty of time for the kids to learn the hows when they get married
If that frame contains a man and child, as mine does, some people become extremely uncomfortable. I guess they have vivid images of gay sex flash though their minds.
Heterosexual sex is normal. Husbands and wives sleep together to produce children (and have fun). It's physically, mentally and morally healthy. If someone sees a picture of me and my wife their mind does not picture our private activities as those activities are normal and ok.
If someone sees a picture of two guys then the mind recoils at the concept of what actually happens. Kind of like driving past a bad car accident. We look for the dead bodies in a kind of morbid fascination. Homosexual activity is mentally the same. It is a horror that shouldn't exist.
Of course it doesn't help that the 'homosexuals' trumpet their perversion relentlessly
Under that scenario, I guess, I have the right to be like you. That’s not equality.
You can do everyting DHY2K can do. How is that not equal.
Looking at the diversity of human beings and assigning equal intrinsic value to each is equality.
Already done. You can do everything DHY2K can do. That's equal
Do I have the legal protections that all Americans have?
Exactly the same.
Can I equally protect those I love with health benefits and inheritance laws? As I face inequality, I do my best to address it.
As long as you choose to love someone of the opposite sex then you have all the same benefits. I do not have the right to protect my brother, or my cousin or the guy next door or my dog with health benefits either.
So what you are really looking for is public endorsement and subsidation of your chosen abnormal sexual behavior. Not equal rights but special rights.
in Florida, we have no legal relationship to one another.
That's because you have no relationship to one another other than as sexual partners. You have no family. I'm sorry but that is truth, and change=ing laws or even changing social more willnever changethat basic fact. The best you and your partner can evr be is unrelated adults living inthesame house
I also read on this forum that there is some disagreement as to who should parent. Single people, single men, older heterosexual men are suspect… I’m sure some people agree that a marriage without procreation is pointless. We will always disagree. Marriage provides stability for society. And for some of us, we’re just pre-wired to settle down with one person.
Heterosexual marriage does stabilize society because the woman stabilizes the man's normal sexual aggressiveness. In a 'homosexual marriage' that civilizing presence is not seen. Which may explain why most 'homosexual marriages' tend to be opena nd promiscuous, and short lived.
It is good to be wired to settle down with one person. Everyone is. Most of us are mentally healthy enough to realize that men settle down with woman and vice versa
it would be for the benefit of our son, not to serve the message of inclusion. So, I would never use my child in this way. Anyone who does is missing the point of parenting.
Unfortunately most 'homosexuals' with children, either their own or ones they've been entrusted with, use the kids to further the agenda. "Look at us we're a family just like you, We even have kids" Then they take those kids to 'gay pride' events and expose them to even more perversion.
If it'snot to advance an agenda why do the 'homosexual' activist insist on attacking family values by overrunning places such as Disney world or the White House Easter egg hunt?
You say that it'snot about the sex, but the moment anyone identifies themselves as 'gay' they are stating tat it's all about the sex. The only thing that defines someone as 'gay' is who they choose to have sex with.
(sorry for any typos have to run)
They can come into churches but not as a gay person.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.