Posted on 09/19/2010 12:54:50 AM PDT by Stoat
Town Hall bosses are asking staff to take part in a 'heterosexuality quiz' so they can gain a greater understanding of what it is like to be gay.
The quiz, devised by managers at Buckinghamshire County Council, is part of an equality and diversity course called 'Respecting Sexuality'.
Questions, which are described as a 'twist' on those routinely asked of homosexuals, include 'What do you think caused your heterosexuality?', 'Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?', and 'If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?'
(edit)
The Buckinghamshire council course is just one of a series of publicly funded equality and diversity sessions uncovered in a series of Freedom of Information requests by The Mail on Sunday. Cardiff, Slough and Cheshire West and Cheshire councils have also incorporated quizzes in their sessions. In Slough, employees ask colleagues questions from a specially prepared grid such as 'Can you sing a few lines from a Supremes song?' and 'Do you read The Guardian?' Staff at Cardiff City Council are challenged to name the inventor of the 'great British classic car the Mini', and to identify the symbol used to celebrate the Chinese New Year. (edit) 'To see councils wasting money on such a ludicrous, politically-correct exercise in that environment is disgusting. 'Ensuring that councils don't discriminate doesn't require such insane attempts at a superficial understanding of different communities.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
They're read online in debates and repeated.
So who posted 193 to me, then? Did someone hijack your account just for that one post?
C'mon . . .
Frankly, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit.
Check my posting history.
Oh and, I was responding to YOUR post about.....GUESS WHO?!
I don't think you need to be so paranoid.
God. And it's perfectly reasonable to discuss God, or one's notion of God, without invoking the Bible.
There is no authority on God outside of the Bible.
Goodness. I do believe I may have struck a nerve. My apologies.
OK, then the description is inclusive, not exclusive.
"Are you suggesting heterosexual rape would be a free trip to Disney World?"
Are you suggesting that the description is exclusive rather than inclusive?
" . . . or perhaps this is a bit of a stretch . . . "Let's see, homosexual rape is so bad that instead of allowing two complete strangers to be raped by every man-jack in town, I'd rather see everyone rape my own flesh and blood instead. Because heterosexual rape is far better than homosexual rape." Patently ridiculous on its face. No human parent in the world, except for the most depraved ones, would make that trade."
Except that Pashtun tribesmen protected Marcus Luttrell, a Navy Seal, at the risk of their own and their families' lives from the Taliban.
It's part of a culture that you simply don't understand and would rather label 'patently ridiculous' and 'depraved' before you would learn from it.
"Okay, but to believe this, you'd have to believe that every single male in Sodom was, in fact, a homosexual rapist. You'd have to believe that a human settlement would have been able to be established, maintained, etc., with all the daily intercourse of human activity like trade, co-operation, etc., over time enough to maintain it to the degree where it was so memorable to human history as for us, in this modern age, to know about it now, where the entire male population of that settlement was both a homosexual and a rapist."
Fallacy of the false dichotomy noted.
"You believe this?"
You? No.
Well said.
I'm suggesting that "rape" is "violent and hostile" to strangers.
Except that Pashtun tribesmen protected Marcus Luttrell, a Navy Seal, at the risk of their own and their families' lives from the Taliban.
Can you point me to the part where the Taliban soldiers wanted to rape Marcus Luttrell, and where the Pashtun tribesmen offered up their daughters instead? I couldn't find that part in the public record.
And finally, "false dichotomy" be damned: I'm talking about real history here. The Bible says that "all" the men in Sodom were gay rapists. Do you honestly believe a human civilization could have existed in any point in human history where the entire male population consisted of homosexual rapists?
Not at all; no apologies necessary.
Which version?
Awww. You’re not even trying.
There aren’t different “versions”.
Nope.
It appeared that you wanted to exclude homosexual rape from the reasons that Sodom was destroyed and replace it with 'violence' and 'hostility to strangers'. Glad to see you acknowledge that the 'violent' and 'hostile to strangers' description is inclusive and therefore irrelevant for excluding homosexuality as the reason that Sodom was destroyed.
"Can you point me to the part where the Taliban soldiers wanted to rape Marcus Luttrell, and where the Pashtun tribesmen offered up their daughters instead? I couldn't find that part in the public record."
Can you point me to the part where offering your life and your families' lives in defense of a guest is any less valuable?
"And finally, "false dichotomy" be damned: I'm talking about real history here."
Well of course you want the fallacy of the false dichotomy to be damned. It doesn't allow you to present a scenario of your own making as the only acceptable alternative.
"The Bible says that "all" the men in Sodom were gay rapists."
No it doesn't. You are defining it as such in order to commit the fallacy of the false dichotomy.
"Do you honestly believe a human civilization could have existed in any point in human history where the entire male population consisted of homosexual rapists?"
Again, the fallacy of the false dichotomy is noted.
I see. So the New Testament canon did not develop over time? I’m trying to learn, here.
No you're not.
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.