Washington has legalized gay marriage!!!! ((((Update in post 814))))

Quote from charles052 : Posted the wrong link. My bad. Here's the link where you'll find the true nature of SB-48: http://stopsb48.com/ A horrifying video of what will happen to good, honest people if they allow it to pass: http://classact2012.com/video-sto...eir-story/ Sorry, but this is not simply de-stigmatizing, but outlawing any counter views, especially Christian views, in our schools. It's telling our children the exact opposite of what the bible says, and if you're a Christian, which is a far larger group than the LGBT, it's a horrifying situation. Don't believe me? Here's what Senator Mark Leno says: http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c...&b=6451639 Hmmm.. I wonder what those 'instructional materials' could be? Probably anything and everything Christian related. I'd bet 10 to 1, that if this bill passes, a child could be, and probably will be, suspended or banned for bringing a bible into school.

What I don't understand is how anyone can read that description and think it sounds like a bad thing. It doesn't promote homosexuality. It's not convincing children to be attracted to the same sex. It's nothing but a more complete version of history. If you personally disapprove of homosexuality, you can try to explain to your children why the Stonewall raid was justified. It's within your purview to instill those values, but you don't have any right to suppress the facts of history to better reflect your personal tastes. Not, at least, in a public school system.

Quote from skiman : What I don't understand is how anyone can read that description and think it sounds like a bad thing. It doesn't promote homosexuality. It's not convincing children to be attracted to the same sex. It's nothing but a more complete version of history. If you personally disapprove of homosexuality, you can try to explain to your children why the Stonewall raid was justified. It's within your purview to instill those values, but you don't have any right to suppress the facts of history to better reflect your personal tastes. Not, at least, in a public school system.

1st of all, SB-48 was promoted as an anti-bullying bill, not as anything academic and educational. So that is a major piece of dishonesty. But, then again, what do you expect from the gay-agenda.

2nd, it should be up to educators and parents, not politicians, as to how we teach our children. The gay-agenda should have nothing to do with it.

3rd, it would prohibit anything negative, whether part of our history and such, from being taught if it reflected negatively on homosexuals. Which means that any kind of safe sex statistics regarding homosexuals, especially the high percentage of them that have contracted HIV/AIDS, their high suicide rate, and many other facts would be censored.

That's not education. That's censorship.

Quote from charles052 : 1st of all, SB-48 was promoted as an anti-bullying bill, not as anything academic and educational. So that is a major piece of dishonesty. But, then again, what do you expect from the gay-agenda.

Did it used to have a different name? Seems pretty clear. At any rate, fair and inclusive representation may very well moderate bullying. Most bullies are cured by one kind of education or another.

Quote from charles052 : 2nd, it should be up to educators and parents, not politicians, as to how we teach our children. The gay-agenda should have nothing to do with it.

Parents and educators at the local level will still be responsible for designing curriculum, they will simply have to meet these standards as they have to meet standards for fairly representing other minorities- and majorities, for that matter.

Quote from charles052 : 3rd, it would prohibit anything negative, whether part of our history and such, from being taught if it reflected negatively on homosexuals. Which means that any kind of safe sex statistics regarding homosexuals, especially the high percentage of them that have contracted HIV/AIDS, their high suicide rate, and many other facts would be censored. That's not education. That's censorship.

I don't know if you have actually read the bill, but if so, you'll want to check that section again. The proscription.is against employing texts that portray people negatively based on a listed minority status.

Quote : The state board and any governing board shall not adopt any textbooks or other instructional materials for use in the public schools that contain any matter reflecting adversely upon persons on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.

In other words, a text might still criticize the tactics of Malcolm X, but it shouldn't say that he was a bad guy based upon the fact that he was black. A text might give an unvarnished account of the exploits of John Wayne Gacy, but he was bad guy because he is a serial killer, not because he was gay. Goebbels will still be portrayed as a bad guy, but because he was a bad guy, not because all Germans are bad.

So no, it's doesn't eliminate things that might be interpreted as reflecting negatively upon persons belonging to the listed classes. It simply prohibits the sort of biased crap that some folks would like us to teach children. Perhaps something like:

Quote : J.W. Buel (who penned the Columbus pages) also credits Columbus with "the burning of villages, the massacres of defenceless natives, the inauguration of every iniquity, and the enslavement of helpless men, women, and children." But there are mitigating circumstances! Buel writes, "Cruel as these horrific measures were, and barbarous as these beliefs appear to us now, they were not the results of human depravity or moral debasement; so far from this being true, these people were wondrously devout, and it was the intensity of their religious, pietistic fervor that led them to adopt extreme methods for the conversion of all men to the true faith."

Or

Quote : Wharton believes things got worse. "These 'carpet baggers' even gave the negroes uniforms and guns, thereby making the latter very impudent and causing whites much annoyance." The solution? "Finally, a mysterious order of the southerners called the Ku Klux Klan came into existence to scare the negroes into behaving. They rode throughout the country at night clothed in white robes and high hats telling the negroes they were 'haunts' from the dead of the battlefields."

You folks have mostly gotten over the loss of gems like those, and I imagine it won't take too long to get over the tragic loss of the opportunity to villify people based on sexual orientation. If you'd like to indoctrinate your children in the traditions of bigotry and hatred, you're welcome to do so at home. We can let the subjects stick to subjects without the need for such colorful editorializing.

Quote from skiman : Did it used to have a different name?

Not that I'm aware of.

Quote from skiman : Seems pretty clear. At any rate, fair and inclusive representation may very well moderate bullying. Most bullies are cured by one kind of education or another.

Guess again. The pro-gay agenda bullies are still going strong as ever. Lying, weaseling, conniving, and forcing their perverted lifestyle upon us by whatever means necessary.

But that's nice that you're in favor of dishonesty as long as it supports whatever you agree with.

Quote from skiman : Parents and educators at the local level will still be responsible for designing curriculum, they will simply have to meet these standards as they have to meet standards for fairly representing other minorities- and majorities, for that matter.

Are you sure about this? Seems to me that the curriculum is being taken out of their hands and the government is dictating what their children will be taught.

Let's just hope the government never takes over the subject of economics. Then all of our graduates will be a million dollars in debt while making $29,000 a year and spending $100,000.

Quote from skiman : I don't know if you have actually read the bill, but if so, you'll want to check that section again. The proscription.is against employing texts that portray people negatively based on a listed minority status.

I've read the bill, but the bill doesn't state how you can promote homosexuality without telling the students that the historical figures are gay! So why tell students that some people was gay or some sort of minority, but the people that committed atrocious acts weren't of any minority? That's a double standard.

Quote from skiman : In other words, a text might still criticize the tactics of Malcolm X, but it shouldn't say that he was a bad guy based upon the fact that he was black. A text might give an unvarnished account of the exploits of John Wayne Gacy, but he was bad guy because he is a serial killer, not because he was gay. Goebbels will still be portrayed as a bad guy, but because he was a bad guy, not because all Germans are bad.

Nice theory, but I don't think it's one that'll pan out.

Quote : So no, it's doesn't eliminate things that might be interpreted as reflecting negatively upon persons belonging to the listed classes. It simply prohibits the sort of biased crap that some folks would like us to teach children. Perhaps something like: Or You folks have mostly gotten over the loss of gems like those, and I imagine it won't take too long to get over the tragic loss of the opportunity to villify people based on sexual orientation. If you'd like to indoctrinate your children in the traditions of bigotry and hatred, you're welcome to do so at home. We can let the subjects stick to subjects without the need for such colorful editorializing.

What Columbus did had little to do with bigotry, much to do with greed, and nothing to do with religion. That blog you cited doesn't seem to have complete information on the subject of Columbus, just about an author's interpretation of his exploits. But then again, I've noticed a lot of liberal members on this board like to post things with only a tiny bit of information regarding the subject, that being the info that reflects most favorably on their agenda. All other info is 'biased'.

As for the south, well, that's a whole different subject right there.

Quote from charles052 : It shouldn't be up to the schools to teach tolerance of a perversion.

It shouldn't be up to you to define what constitutes a "perversion" for the rest of the community.

Quote : This is something that should solely be up to the parents, regardless.

And all parents have the choice as to whether or not to send their child(ren) to public schools.

Quote : This is another example of the state trying to raise our children to their standards, which are pretty low standards, IMO.

IMO, judging a stranger by the gender of the persons with whom s/he has sex is about the lowest standard that one can reach.

Quote : If a parent wants to teach Christ to their child, you now have the school trying to undo that, which is wrong.

Based on such flawed logic, if parents wanted to teach racism to their child, the school would be wrong to try to "undo" that.

Quote : Where at? Do you know the true meaning of that verse you're referring to?

1 Peter 3:3-4

Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.

Timothy 2:9-10

Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

Hope your wife isn't wearing a gold wedding ring.

Quote : That's from the quote from the senator, not from the law itself. You nor I will know just how far this new law will go, but eventually, it'll mean just what I said.

How convenient... Neither you nor I know the answer, but you know the answer.

Quote : Children will no longer be able to bring a bible, or perhaps, even quote from it and such on school grounds.

... Because you, not the actual text of the law, says that's what will happen.

Quote : If this seems far fetched, remember, the separation of church and state doctrine came from these very words: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.'

Don't forget "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Quote : Now, what part of that amendment has anything to do with our schools or courts? It has only to do with congress.

The part where public schools receive federal funding under acts of Congress.

In addition, I'd be willing to bet that the state constitution establishes a similar right to freedom of religion that state schools would be prohibited from violating.

Quote : It will be considered discriminating material, and won't be allowed on school grounds. It might get studied in the religion elective you're referring to, but it's difficult to be sure.

One side of your mouth admits that you can't tell the future & don't know the real answer, while the other side continues to spout conservative talking points as if they had any resemblance to reality.

Quote from charles052 : What Columbus did had little to do with bigotry, much to do with greed, and nothing to do with religion. That blog you cited doesn't seem to have complete information on the subject of Columbus, just about an author's interpretation of his exploits. But then again, I've noticed a lot of liberal members on this board like to post things with only a tiny bit of information regarding the subject, that being the info that reflects most favorably on their agenda. All other info is 'biased'.

Irony, thy name is Charles.

:rofl:

Quote from charles052 : Not that I'm aware of. Guess again. The pro-gay agenda bullies are still going strong as ever. Lying, weaseling, conniving, and forcing their perverted lifestyle upon us by whatever means necessary. But that's nice that you're in favor of dishonesty as long as it supports whatever you agree with.

Why don't you explain to us how the objective of fair and accurate inclusion of homosexuals in curriculum "forces their perverted lifestyle upon" you.

For example, if you were to learn about Alan Turing, how would that force homosexuality upon you?

Quote from charles052 : Are you sure about this? Seems to me that the curriculum is being taken out of their hands and the government is dictating what their children will be taught.

Yes, I'm sure. It dictates nothing more thatn a standard to which curriculum must be designed.

Quote from charles052 : I've read the bill, but the bill doesn't state how you can promote homosexuality without telling the students that the historical figures are gay! So why tell students that some people was gay or some sort of minority, but the people that committed atrocious acts weren't of any minority? That's a double standard.

You mean students might know the reality that some historical people were gay? The horror! What is this world coming to when history can be a little more accurate.

And, again, you can certainly tell students that a "bad guy" was gay, or black, or disabled, but you can't embellish this to mean that they were bad guys by virtue of that status.

As in the examples I linked before, you can describe the French and Indian war, but you can't editorialize this to be the war against the inherently cowardly French and the recalcitrant, lazy savages.

Quote from charles052 : What Columbus did had little to do with bigotry, much to do with greed, and nothing to do with religion. That blog you cited doesn't seem to have complete information on the subject of Columbus, just about an author's interpretation of his exploits. But then again, I've noticed a lot of liberal members on this board like to post things with only a tiny bit of information regarding the subject, that being the info that reflects most favorably on their agenda. All other info is 'biased'. As for the south, well, that's a whole different subject right there.

Dude, that page has no new info on Columbus. It exists solely to excerpt from and make fun of old textbooks- the kind of crap that these laws try to keep out of the classroom. It is simply illustrative.

Quote from skiman : For example, if you were to learn about Alan Turing, how would that force homosexuality upon you?

Isn't that painfully obvious? Say you had a child who was defective. That is, say he was leaning towards being gay at birth. Say he also was a very weak and impressionable child. Say also that because he is somewhat of a pervert, he is libel to "choose" to be gay. Then this child, let's call him Chuck, is sent to public schools and you want to expose Chuck to Alan Turing? Have some compassion Ski. Some parent's and children's only defense against homosexuality is their God given right to be bigots. Think of the children, Ski.

Quote from charles052 : The pro-gay agenda bullies are still going strong as ever. Lying, weaseling, conniving, and forcing their perverted lifestyle upon us by whatever means necessary.

The pro-desert-tribe-mythology agenda bullies are still going strong as ever. Lying, weaseling, conniving, and forcing their religious lifestyle upon us by whatever means necessary.

Quote from charles052 : No basis in logic? Okay, 1st off, we're dealing with people, and there isn't much logic when it comes to mankind. BUT.... for the sake of argument, let's use logic.

Denying homosexuals marriage because of your personal traumatic experience is not a logical argument.
If you had been molested by a heterosexual I'm sure you wouldn't be using that experience as justification to deny heterosexuals marriage.
Using your logic, since men are far more likely to be pedophiles, we should deny them marriage altogether and only allow women to marry other women.
It's truly amazing that you never recognize the serious flaws in all of your arguments.

Quote : 1st bit of logic: 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.' -Spock. Many more people want marriage to be between a man and a woman than want gay marriage. Thus, logic is on my side.

Appeal to popularity.
Fallacious logic.

Quote : 2nd bit of logic: Gay marriage brings nothing positive to society. Nothing! It belittles a sacred institution for the sake of very few who go against their own natures and have relationships with their own sex.

Appeal to ridicule and appeal to tradition.
Fallacious logic.

Quote : 3rd bit of logic: Gay advocacy is extremely dishonest. There's no gay gene, no 10% of humans that are gay, etc... Why should anyone endorse a dishonest movement??? That's illogical!

Appeal to ridicule.
Fallacious logic.

You have no decent logical argument, and you never will, because one doesn't exist.

Quote : Now, using logic, can you tell me why people should endorse gay marriage? Can you tell us how it helps society? How does it help anything? Anything other than just the homosexuals.

You keep getting confused by this.
Nobody needs to endorse it.
Again, I don't need to endorse religion to believe that others should have the right to be religious.
I don't endorse pink polka dot cars, but if you wanna get your car painted with pink polka dots, so be it.

Quote : Drivel, drivel, drivel, drivel, drivel.......

All your arguments are fallacious.
When you have a valid argument, come back and try again.

Quote from skiman : Why don't you explain to us how the objective of fair and accurate inclusion of homosexuals in curriculum "forces their perverted lifestyle upon" you.

Why don't you explain to me how how it DOESN'T.

Quote : For example, if you were to learn about Alan Turing, how would that force homosexuality upon you?

The guy who committed suicide? A picture perfect representation of a stable minded individual.

Quote : Yes, I'm sure. It dictates nothing more thatn a standard to which curriculum must be designed.

Again, it shouldn't be up to politicians who to teach our children.

Quote : You mean students might know the reality that some historical people were gay? The horror! What is this world coming to when history can be a little more accurate.

History is inaccurate anyways. Everyone believes the Civil War was fought over slavery, when it was really fought over unfair taxation and tyranny of the north.

Quote : As in the examples I linked before, you can describe the French and Indian war, but you can't editorialize this to be the war against the inherently cowardly French and the recalcitrant, lazy savages.

Quote : Dude, that page has no new info on Columbus. It exists solely to excerpt from and make fun of old textbooks- the kind of crap that these laws try to keep out of the classroom. It is simply illustrative.

So, we'll just throw away the old textbooks which has an agenda and put in new textbooks with a different agenda. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Who are we as a society to deny anybody marriage?

Intolerant bigots!

Quote from hsjpatman : Denying homosexuals marriage because of your personal traumatic experience is not a logical argument. If you had been molested by a heterosexual I'm sure you wouldn't be using that experience as justification to deny heterosexuals marriage.

No, my experience has helped open my eyes to the world. The gay agenda is a selfish one.

Quote : Using your logic, since men are far more likely to be pedophiles, we should deny them marriage altogether and only allow women to marry other women. It's truly amazing that you never recognize the serious flaws in all of your arguments.

Using your logic, anyone should be able to do whatever they want to as long as they believe they're a minority.

BTW: homosexuals are by far more likely be to pedophiles. A fact which I've proven in another thread.

Quote : Appeal to popularity. Fallacious logic.

So, this whole democracy thing is a logical fallacy? Truly amazing how liberals fight for democracy as long as the popular vote is in their favor, If not, then they have no problem forcing their agenda on society.

Quote : Appeal to ridicule and appeal to tradition. Fallacious logic.

Really? Because every study ever done on healthy family dynamics shows that a heterosexual couple, ie mother and father, is far healthier than any other. Other studies on the life expectancy of people who are religious show that they live longer, healthier lives.

Studies on homosexuals usually show the exact opposite, and the ones that do show homosexuals to be healthy are usually psychological studies, a field which is heavily influenced by the homosexual agenda. And even they're half in half, also showing the ill effects of a homosexual lifestyle.

So, using logic, society would be far better off refusing homosexuals the privilege of marriage and any other privilege which may promote that lifestyle.

Quote : Appeal to ridicule. Fallacious logic.

How is refusing to fall for deceitful practices fallacious? How is finding the truth beyond the lies fallacious? If a group wants to change the minds of good, honest people about any particular matter, they shouldn't lie. It is proof that their standpoint is wrong to begin with.

Quote : You have no decent logical argument, and you never will, because one doesn't exist.

I'll say it one last time. Just because you close your ears and shout "I'm not listening to you.. I'm not listening to you.. " doesn't mean that someone's not talking sense to you. I've made plenty of logical arguments. Your refusal to listen to them means absolutely nothing except that you refuse to listen to them.

Quote : You keep getting confused by this. Nobody needs to endorse it.

I realize you don't need my endorsement, but you need to realize that you have no argument to convince anyone that gay marriage would be beneficial to anyone, except gays. In fact, the only argument you have for allowing gay marriage is, in itself, a fallacious one: The appeal to pity or emotional appeal.

Quote : All your arguments are fallacious.

Funny you should say that.

Quote : When you have a valid argument, come back and try again.

Right back atcha!

Quote from smegalicious : 1 Peter 3:3-4 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. Timothy 2:9-10 Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. Hope your wife isn't wearing a gold wedding ring.

So, you don't know what it really means. Just the usual, ignorant, anti-theistic use of the bible to try and prove a point.

If you're going to use the bible to prove something, you need to understand it first.

Quote from charles052 : No, my experience has helped open my eyes to the world. The gay agenda is a selfish one.

Are you now gonna claim that your past sexual experiences somehow make you an authority on homosexuality?

Quote from charles052 : BTW: homosexuals are by far more likely be to pedophiles. A fact which I've proven in another thread.

Making crap claims has a bad side effect. Others are gonna ask you to prove your point and you are gonna be shown to be irresponsible.

But it also has a good side effect. Once you endure the humility of people shredding your claim into pieces, you can the later refer to the episode as "a fact which I've proven in another thread."

But seriously Charles you have proven no such thing. In fact I do not recall you ever proving anything.