Masculinity: A Mental Health Issue

[Roy]

No, Carp, these are my tax dollars too. And most families have two working parents so homeschooling is not an option, or they can't afford private schools.

Some-one who wasn't a hypocrite would have also noted that when claiming that school prayer isn't mandatory because parents can always home-school.

[seer]

Some-one who wasn't a hypocrite would have also noted that when claiming that school prayer isn't mandatory because parents can always home-school.

I never said that.

[carpedm9587]

Yet you are forcing your view on unsuspecting school children, and of course that is tyranny.

All education is "forcing information on unsuspecting children." Should we not teach about the civil rights era because some people are still bigoted against black people? Should we not teach about the causes of poverty because some people think "poor people are just lazy?" You objection is no different. Society is embracing the new civil rights issue of our time - the LGBTQ community. Deal with it.

Your definition makes no sense. Communists leaders forced their view on the entire population, and practiced it themselves. Unless you don't think that Communism was tyrannical.

Every society builds a school program that reflects the values and priorities of that society. Communists will teach communism is great and the dangers of capitalism. Same for socialist countries, democracies, dictatorship, republics, capitalists, and any other -ism or -ist you can think of. Those who disagree will view it as "indoctrination." Obviously you disagree. You are free to. You are free to advocate for what you want to happen. But the majority will out and you'll have to adjust accordingly. You can always find another country if you don't like this one. I've certainly given it some thought.

No, Carp, these are my tax dollars too. And most families have two working parents so homeschooling is not an option, or they can't afford private schools. We can settle all this with vouchers. And at one point do you get to call something a norm? After 10 years, 20 years? When 60% of the population agrees? 51%? And not teaching about homosexual behavior in school harm no one.

So if you lack the means, or you lack the desire, or the initiative, you'll have to deal. That you contribute tax dollars doesn't mean you get to dictate to the majority what is done.

As for vouchers, I'm undecided on that one. As with so many things, economies of scale impact cost. When you split up the economies, you drive up costs and everyone ends up paying more. That suggests no vouchers. You also have the problem of tax dollars being used to support institutions that teach a particular religious creed. There is no easy solution to this problem that I can tell.

As for your question - in general - it is a societal norm when it is wanted/supported by the majority. The bigger that majority - the more of a norm it is. Some of us have recognized the need for LGBTQ rights for decades and have been the minority all those years, fighting to be heard alongside those who are actually LGBTQ. Now the tide is shifting and more and more are realizing that there is a problem.

[carpedm9587]

Sometimes you get the bear - sometimes the bear gets you.

[seer]

All education is "forcing information on unsuspecting children." Should we not teach about the civil rights era because some people are still bigoted against black people? Should we not teach about the causes of poverty because some people think "poor people are just lazy?" You objection is no different. Society is embracing the new civil rights issue of our time - the LGBTQ community. Deal with it.

Again, having black skin is not the same as engaging in a behavior, one that 40% of the country finds immoral.

Every society builds a school program that reflects the values and priorities of that society. Communists will teach communism is great and the dangers of capitalism. Same for socialist countries, democracies, dictatorship, republics, capitalists, and any other -ism or -ist you can think of. Those who disagree will view it as "indoctrination." Obviously you disagree. You are free to. You are free to advocate for what you want to happen. But the majority will out and you'll have to adjust accordingly. You can always find another country if you don't like this one. I've certainly given it some thought.

In a Republic, I do not have to adjust, or deal with it, I get to fight against it. Guys like you would have told Martin Luther King to adjust, just deal with it... I mean Carp, do you really hear yourself? You are telling us to shut up and listen to our betters...

So if you lack the means, or you lack the desire, or the initiative, you'll have to deal. That you contribute tax dollars doesn't mean you get to dictate to the majority what is done.

Well good! 70% of the population believe that students should be able to opt out of sex ed. So you would agree with the majority - correct?

As for vouchers, I'm undecided on that one. As with so many things, economies of scale impact cost. When you split up the economies, you drive up costs and everyone ends up paying more. That suggests no vouchers. You also have the problem of tax dollars being used to support institutions that teach a particular religious creed. There is no easy solution to this problem that I can tell.

There is no downside - let the money follow the student, it will foster competition, and people like me won't have much to bitch about...

[carpedm9587]

Again, having black skin is not the same as engaging in a behavior, one that 40% of the country finds immoral.

40% and falling...

Objecting to behavior that is associated with a sexual orientation is a problem. Sex is sex. To tell one person they can participate in this wondrous human experience because they are heterosexual and another that they cannot because they are homosexual is bigotry - pure and simple. And the old canard, "we're not being selective - we're telling EVERYONE they can't have sex with a person of the same sex is ludicrous. You and I both know that principal impacts homosexuals - not heterosexuals.

Sometimes, I think the right doesn't "get it." We have evidence that homosexuality is not just a casual preference - it is an integrated sexual orientation. So it is analogous to "being black" and not to "preferring the missionary position." ANY suggestion that members of the LGBTQ community should be held to a different standard is NO different than the "separate but equal" of the pre-civil rights era, and the Jim Crow laws, and the various other ways the black community has been (and continues to be) targeted in so many ways. So when someone says, "we're not discriminating - we just are pointing out this behavior is immoral" I am hearing, "I'm not bigoted; I just want them to sit at the back of the bus." I understand the causes of bigotry and prejudism. Understanding them does not excuse them. Bigotry and prejudice ALWAYS have to be hauled into the light and called by their name.

In a Republic, I do not have to adjust, or deal with it, I get to fight against it. Guys like you would have told Martin Luther King to adjust, just deal with it... I mean Carp, do you really hear yourself? You are telling us to shut up and listen to our betters...

Nope. Fight away. I'm just pointing out that you're losing.

Well good! 70% of the population believe that students should be able to opt out of sex ed. So you would agree with the majority - correct?

The majority is not going to tell me what my son will or will not do with regard to opting out of anything. That is a decision that will be made by my son and his parents. However, if what you're saying is that the majority want that option to be available to parents/students, yes - I think that should be available to parents/students.

There is no downside - let the money follow the student, it will foster competition, and people like me won't have much to bitch about...

We don't mind your bitching. We're kind of used to it. Indeed, the "poor me victim" thing that the right used to accuse the left of doing appears to happen just as much on the right. As for the vouchers, as I said, there are downsides that have to be dealt with. If they can be - fine. If not - then I oppose them.

[seer]

40% and falling...

What goes down, can come up again, after all its all relative...

Objecting to behavior that is associated with a sexual orientation is a problem. Sex is sex. To tell one person they can participate in this wondrous human experience because they are heterosexual and another that they cannot because they are homosexual is bigotry - pure and simple. And the old canard, "we're not being selective - we're telling EVERYONE they can't have sex with a person of the same sex is ludicrous. You and I both know that principal impacts homosexuals - not heterosexuals.

Objecting to homosexuality is not bigotry, it shows that one is morally rational, keeping with what human sexuality was created for.

Sometimes, I think the right doesn't "get it." We have evidence that homosexuality is not just a casual preference - it is an integrated sexual orientation. So it is analogous to "being black" and not to "preferring the missionary position." ANY suggestion that members of the LGBTQ community should be held to a different standard is NO different than the "separate but equal" of the pre-civil rights era, and the Jim Crow laws, and the various other ways the black community has been (and continues to be) targeted in so many ways. So when someone says, "we're not discriminating - we just are pointing out this behavior is immoral" I am hearing, "I'm not bigoted; I just want them to sit at the back of the bus." I understand the causes of bigotry and prejudism. Understanding them does not excuse them. Bigotry and prejudice ALWAYS have to be hauled into the light and called by their name.

Oh please, cry me a river. And you calling me bigoted Carp has exactly zero meaning. Homosexuality is immoral and always will be, no matter how you couch your argument.

Nope. Fight away. I'm just pointing out that you're losing.

No Carp, you are hypocritical, you would have had no problem with King or the early gay movement, going against the social norms of the day, but you tell us to just deal with it, and adjust. Would you really have said that to King?

The majority is not going to tell me what I am or am not going to do with my son with regard to education. He'll opt out of sex ed if I want him to opt out - he won't if I don't. However, if what you're saying is that the majority want that option to be available to parents, yes - I think that should be available to parents.

Good we agree on something, an option, like I said, my son did not have.

We don't mind your bitching. We're kind of used to it. Indeed, the "poor me victim" thing that the right used to accuse the left of doing appears to happen just as much on the right.

Why not support vouchers? That would settle a lot of this.

[carpedm9587]

What goes down, can come up again, after all its all relative...

Possible. Based on the history of expanding civil liberties rather than contracting them, I think it doubtful. And the successive generations do not seem to have the hang-ups of their parents. But time will tell..

Objecting to homosexuality is not bigotry, it shows that one is morally rational, keeping with what human sexuality was created for.

Your opinion is duly noted. For those of us who see homosexuality as a state of being - it's bigotry/prejudice. It treats people differently because of their membership in a class based on personal attributes.

Oh please, cry me a river. And you calling me bigoted Carp has exactly zero meaning. Homosexuality is immoral and always will be, no matter how you couch your argument.

I have never met a person who likes being told their point of view is bigoted or prejudicial. I don't expect you to be any different, Seer. Normally, I'd walk carefully to try to convince - avoiding inflammatory language. But there comes a time when you realize the person you're dealing with is intransigent, and there is nothing to be gained by soft-pedaling the message.

No Carp, you are hypocritical, you would have had no problem with King or the early gay movement, going against the social norms of the day, but you tell us to just deal with it, and adjust. Would you really have said that to King?

If MLK were taking a position against the LGBTQ community (and that is entirely possible), I would have absolutely pointed out the inconsistency of his call for civil liberties and social justice.

Good we agree on something, an option, like I said, my son did not have.

There is no such thing. My son was "required" to take a course that he and I felt was not in his best interests. We met with the school. They explained their position for making it a requirement. I told them they needed to figure it out because what path my son's education took was something we had ultimate authority over. We were not dictating what the school could and could not teach, but we were insisting on our rights to influence which classes he took. It took a bit - but we prevailed and they switch him to a different course.

Why not support vouchers? That would settle a lot of this.

I've explained this.

[seer]

Your opinion is duly noted. For those of us who see homosexuality as a state of being - it's bigotry/prejudice. It treats people differently because of their membership in a class based on personal attributes.

I have no idea what you mean by "state of being." That they have particular sexual inclinations? Of course we treat all kinds of people differently on the basis of personal attributes.

have never met a person who likes being told their point of view is bigoted or prejudicial. I don't expect you to be any different, Seer. Normally, I'd walk carefully to try to convince - avoiding inflammatory language. But there comes a time when you realize the person you're dealing with is intransigent, and there is nothing to be gained by soft-pedaling the message.

Right, like your intransigent religious bigotry. I'm glad we agree...

If MLK were taking a position against the LGBTQ community (and that is entirely possible), I would have absolutely pointed out the inconsistency of his call for civil liberties and social justice.

No Carp, we were discussing social norms, and going against them. You told me/us to "just deal with it" and that we need to "adjust." So to be consistent, you would need to tell a King the same thing since he was going against the prevailing social norms. If not your whole appeal to cultural norms as a standard is meaningless.

There is no such thing. My son was "required" to take a course that he and I felt was not in his best interests. We met with the school. They explained their position for making it a requirement. I told them they needed to figure it out because what path my son's education took was something we had ultimate authority over. We were not dictating what the school could and could not teach, but we were insisting on our rights to influence which classes he took. It took a bit - but we prevailed and they switch him to a different course.

Lucky you, I met twice with the teacher and principle - bottom line, if he did not attend those specific classes he would fail the course, freshman and sophomore year, and be held back both years.

I've explained this.

Right, so would keep forcing kids in to government school to be indoctrinated with leftist sexual moral ideals.

[carpedm9587]

I have no idea what you mean by "state of being." That they have particular sexual inclinations? Of course we treat all kinds of people differently on the basis of personal attributes.

There is a difference between recognizing and acknowledging differences, and bigotry. If a person has a sensitivity to gluten, recognizing it and preparing meals they can eat is not bigotry. If a person is short, recognizing that they might need assistance to get things from high shelves is not bigotry. I think we all pretty much know the difference between honoring and recognizing differences, and prejudicially altering behavior.

Right, like your intransigent religious bigotry. I'm glad we agree...

Since I have no implicit views rejecting people of any belief...
But if not permitting someone to use the smokescreen of religion to justify bigotry/prejudice is itself bigotry/prejudice, I'll be happy to plead guilty.

No Carp, we were discussing social norms, and going against them. You told me/us to "just deal with it" and that we need to "adjust." So to be consistent, you would need to tell a King the same thing since he was going against the prevailing social norms. If not your whole appeal to cultural norms as a standard is meaningless.

MLK was going against the moral norms to encourage an end to bigotry/prejudice and point out social injustice. You are going against moral norms to encourage bigotry/prejudice and foster social injustice. They are nowhere near each other in my moral framework. I aligned with the POV I see as moral. With MLK, I aligned with the minority and it became the majority. I am basically doing the same thing with LGBTQ - I aligned with the minority and it has become the majority. Until it was, we were the ones being told "deal with it." Now you are the ones in the minority (thankfully) and your being told "deal with it."

Lucky you, I met twice with the teacher and principle - bottom line, if he did not attend those specific classes he would fail the course, freshman and sophomore year, and be held back both years.

So then the courts...or move...or home school...or religious school...or build up a network and resist...or deal with it. But really, Seer, whining about it just doesn't seem all that productive. Move on, for Pete's sake.

Right, so would keep forcing kids in to government school to be indoctrinated with leftist sexual moral ideals.

Or I suppose we could let them be indoctrinated with the right's prejudicial and homophobic views. Personally, I'm glad it's moving in the direction it is. I recognize you aren't. I don't have much respect for your views because I see them as bigoted and prejudicial. You don't have much respect for mine because you see them as leftist and "against the will of god."

Such is life.

[Tassman]

No, there is no reason to teach most sex education in the first place. Teach simple, straightforward, protection, and how to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Nothing more is necessary, anything more is leftist indoctrination.

It's not leftist indoctrination, it's "sex education" and education is a function of schools. This is especially important for children who come from homes where rigid or distorted values prevail.

[seer]

MLK was going against the moral norms to encourage an end to bigotry/prejudice and point out social injustice. You are going against moral norms to encourage bigotry/prejudice and foster social injustice. They are nowhere near each other in my moral framework. I aligned with the POV I see as moral. With MLK, I aligned with the minority and it became the majority. I am basically doing the same thing with LGBTQ - I aligned with the minority and it has become the majority. Until it was, we were the ones being told "deal with it." Now you are the ones in the minority (thankfully) and your being told "deal with it."

That is not the point Carp, it doesn't matter what the cause was, whether you agreed with it or not. King was going against the majority, you told me and my ilk to "just deal with it" and that we need to "adjust" because the majority was against us. That is a double standard.

So then the courts...or move...or home school...or religious school...or build up a network and resist...or deal with it. But really, Seer, whining about it just doesn't seem all that productive. Move on, for Pete's sake.

Or I suppose we could let them be indoctrinated with the right's prejudicial and homophobic views. Personally, I'm glad it's moving in the direction it is. I recognize you aren't. I don't have much respect for your views because I see them as bigoted and prejudicial. You don't have much respect for mine because you see them as leftist and "against the will of god."

Such is life.

Right, so why not let the money follow the student? Most people, like me back in the day, had to work two jobs just to make ends meet. I could not afford a private school nor did I have the time to do justice to homeschooling. Vouchers would prevent unwanted indoctrination from either side, you choose the school you want and I do the same. It allows more freedom. The fact that you would not support that hints at a streak of fascism in your personality.

[seer]

It's not leftist indoctrination, it's "sex education" and education is a function of schools. This is especially important for children who come from homes where rigid or distorted values prevail.

Who are you to tell parents what to teach or not concerning sex ed? And no, sex education is not a function of schools, not for the major part of US history.

[Cow Poke]

It's not leftist indoctrination...

Only because it's something you approve!

[JimL]

Who are you to tell parents what to teach or not concerning sex ed? And no, sex education is not a function of schools, not for the major part of US history.

Who are you as an individual to tell the education system what not to teach our children? If I don't think that children should be taught math, should schools then stop teaching children math because i'm against it, or history, or english, whatever? You can hem and haw all you want, but most of us disagree with you and are not afraid of our kids learning about reality.