Sodom, Greece, Rome and homosexuality.

[AlAyeti]

Does allowing for diversity include parents having no voice in what their children are forced to be taught and have to accept?

Do Christians and the many other cultures and belief systems opposed to homosexuality have the right to have their culture and religious views respected in society when it comes to decent and natural sexual behavior in the education system and in public?

Are homosexuals demanding accesss to children under the label of diversity and anti-hate legislation?

This seems the number one issue between average and normal "family" people and the homosexual agenda.

Can there be laws passed that keeps homosexuality from becoming forced on children and families that oppose it, without the homosexual community and homosexual action organizations crying discrimination?

Is there such a thing anymore as heterosexual rights?

[MagusYanam]

Why? Should a high-school student be able to decide whether or not to cut maths altogether from the curriculum? What about social sciences, or English? People are educated for a reason - you go to high school to learn what's valuable for your life, not just what you want to learn.

And evolutionary theory, in most educators' opinions, is as valuable as English grammar or the social sciences, and I wouldn't make any of these subjects entirely elective. There's a reason we've got graduation requirements for high school, you know.

[perplexed101]

Why? Should a high-school student be able to decide whether or not to cut maths altogether from the curriculum? What about social sciences, or English? People are educated for a reason - you go to high school to learn what's valuable for your life, not just what you want to learn.

And evolutionary theory, in most educators' opinions, is as valuable as English grammar or the social sciences, and I wouldn't make any of these subjects entirely elective. There's a reason we've got graduation requirements for high school, you know.

why should there be an essence for choice? why do we have the basis to reserve electives? ought this be nurtured as well? dont hypocritically expect to exert a "no choice" policy but then QUESTION others on their views when it seems to contradict yours to the point that they should be flexible and not YOU.

[sin_is_fun]

perplexed 101.

Do you argue that a student should decide what is to be taught by teachers?Should he decide what to learn and what not to learn?If 60 students in a class reject one theory per head, finally there wont be anything left out to teach.If one student rejects english,another rejects maths and another rejects entire field of science saying 'science is contradictory to my religion' what will we teach students?

schools are there to teach science and maths.It is scientists and mathematicians who decide what is science and what is maths.It is educational researchers who decide what will improve knolwedge of the student.Where does choice of student comes here?

A student should learn the basics.what is basics is determined by educational authorities and not by students.

If all students reject total state education and say 'we wont learn anything,teach me only the holy book' can the state do so?'

If a student says 'we dont want teacher x.She belongs to religion y.change her,give us choice' can we accept it?

Students go to school to learn.Not to make choices.choice comes at college level.

[perplexed101]

perplexed 101.

Do you argue that a student should decide what is to be taught by teachers?Should he decide what to learn and what not to learn?If 60 students in a class reject one theory each finally there wont be anything left out to teach.If one student rejects english,another rejects maths and another rejects entire filed of science saying 'science is contradictory to my religion' what will we teach students?

schools are there to teach science and maths.It is scientists and mathematicians who decide what is science and what is maths.It is educational researchers who decide what will improve knolwedge of the student.Where does choice of student comes here?

A student should learn the basics.what is basics is determined by educational authorities and not by students.

If all students reject total state education and say 'we wont learn anything,teach me only the holy book' can the state do so?'

If a student says 'we dont want teacher x.She belongs to religion y.change her,give us choice' can we accept it?

Students go to school to learn.Not to make choices.choice comes at college level.

i already explained it to you in full detail sin and perhaps you should go back and re-read what i posted. i present a choice, do you have a problem that there are people who are pro-choice? i already realize that people have choices and then decide from there but you propose to exert a "no choice" policy while hypocritically questioning others to see it your way while rejecting anyone that disagrees. Are you then going to propose a policy of tyranny?

[sin_is_fun]

i already explained it to you in full detail sin and perhaps you should go back and re-read what i posted. i present a choice, do you have a problem that there are people who are pro-choice? i already realize that people have choices already and then decide from there but you propose to exert a "no choice" policy while hypocritically questioning others to see it your way while rejecting anyone that disagrees.

I read what you wrote.Prochoice and choice of evolution are not same.You argue for unlimited choice which is not what pro choice people support.You have certain choices and dont have certain choices.

If I go to hospital with a disease I cannot decide what treatment I should get for my disease.Only the doctor can decide it.I dont have a choice here.Either I get the prescribed treatment or stay at home and suffer.

If students dont want evolution they can stay at home.They cannot decide what is to be taught at schools.

[perplexed101]

i already explained it to you in full detail sin and perhaps you should go back and re-read what i posted. i present a choice, do you have a problem that there are people who are pro-choice? i already realize that people have choices already and then decide from there but you propose to exert a "no choice" policy while hypocritically questioning others to see it your way while rejecting anyone that disagrees.

I read what you wrote.Prochoice and choice of evolution are not same.You argue for unlimited choice which is not what pro choice people support.You have certain choices and dont have certain choices.

If I go to hospital with a disease I cannot decide what treatment I should get for my disease.Only the doctor can decide it.I dont have a choice here.Either I get the prescribed treatment or stay at home and suffer.

If students dont want evolution they can stay at home.They cannot decide what is to be taught at schools.

Are you then going to propose a policy of tyranny? A student should be given the right to choose to exclude macro-evolution. If you go to a hospital for treatment for a disease, would that treatment entail a theory on aquatic apes? or millions upon millions of missing strata while getting a haircut? or if you go to a dentist would you have to know about a pig's tooth with a name entailed to it as lucy?

[MagusYanam]

why should there be an essence for choice? why do we have the basis to reserve electives? ought this be nurtured as well? dont hypocritically expect to exert a "no choice" policy but then QUESTION others on their views when it seems to contradict yours to the point that they should be flexible and not YOU.

It isn't hypocritical; it's realistic. You can have your own opinions all you want - no one's going to stop you. But you don't have the right to decide what facts should be taught to other people, or at least what the educational community considers fact. You definitely don't have the opportunity to decide what your future employer considers desirable background. This is not an issue of choice. Students can take electives, and they can take whatever electives they want - that's fine. But if they don't take the requirements, they don't graduate.

In this case, the scientific community deems evolutionary theory the prevalent model. As such, it is useful in the educational field. ID is not, since it is vastly undersupported by the scientific evidence and therefore relegated to the realm of philosophy. If you want to study ID in a philosophy course, that's fine and dandy, but don't go pushing it as a 'choice' in science when there is none. The scientific (and educational) communities are flexible and willing to consider the possibilities, but when it comes down to the bottom line, they go with what works. And right now, evolutionary theory is what works. It's the best tool in the field - what 'choice' is there?

[perplexed101]

why should there be an essence for choice? why do we have the basis to reserve electives? ought this be nurtured as well? dont hypocritically expect to exert a "no choice" policy but then QUESTION others on their views when it seems to contradict yours to the point that they should be flexible and not YOU.

It isn't hypocritical; it's realistic. You can have your own opinions all you want - no one's going to stop you. But you don't have the right to decide what facts should be taught to other people, or at least what the educational community considers fact. You definitely don't have the opportunity to decide what your future employer considers desirable background. This is not an issue of choice. Students can take electives, and they can take whatever electives they want - that's fine. But if they don't take the requirements, they don't graduate.

In this case, the scientific community deems evolutionary theory the prevalent model. As such, it is useful in the educational field. ID is not, since it is vastly undersupported by the scientific evidence and therefore relegated to the realm of philosophy. If you want to study ID in a philosophy course, that's fine and dandy, but don't go pushing it as a 'choice' in science when there is none. The scientific (and educational) communities are flexible and willing to consider the possibilities, but when it comes down to the bottom line, they go with what works. And right now, evolutionary theory is what works. It's the best tool in the field - what 'choice' is there?

it's realistic since it is hypocritical and tyranically irrational to hold the established traditional paradgm of macro-evolution when students should be given the right to choose as to whether or not they want to exclude macro-evolution within an elective towards evidential analysis with the exclusion of the theory of macro-evolution. Maintaining rational concepts observable to whatever means necessary.

[MagusYanam]

it's realistic since it is hypocritical and tyranically irrational to hold the established traditional paradgm when Students should be given the right to choose as whether or not they want exclude macro-evolution as an elective.

Why should students be shouldered with that burden? The 'established traditional paradigm' is that way for a reason - namely, it's supported by the evidence. It has been challenged time and time again, and it has withstood the challenges. It is still widely accepted by the scientific community.

It's not the place of schools to let the students cheat their own ways out of jobs because of their opinions. It is the place of the schools to prepare students for the workforce or for the profession, and it is the place of the schools to make sure that students are well-educated. Knowledge of evolution is vital for people who want to enter, for example, any profession pertaining to biology, geology, or anthropology. If you do away with biology and geology by making evolution completely elective, you're handicapping the next generation of students in those fields. I don't know how it can be spelled out any clearer.

Making evolution not mandatory doesn't give students a choice, it cuts down on their choices. It's a choice the same way as 'here's a gun; choose whether or not you want to shoot yourself in the foot' is a choice.

[perplexed101]

it's realistic since it is hypocritical and tyranically irrational to hold the established traditional paradgm when Students should be given the right to choose as whether or not they want exclude macro-evolution as an elective.

Why should students be shouldered with that burden? The 'established traditional paradigm' is that way for a reason - namely, it's supported by the evidence. It has been challenged time and time again, and it has withstood the challenges. It is still widely accepted by the scientific community.

It's not the place of schools to let the students cheat their own ways out of jobs because of their opinions. It is the place of the schools to prepare students for the workforce or for the profession, and it is the place of the schools to make sure that students are well-educated. Knowledge of evolution is vital for people who want to enter, for example, any profession pertaining to biology, geology, or anthropology. If you do away with biology and geology by making evolution completely elective, you're handicapping the next generation of students in those fields. I don't know how it can be spelled out any clearer.

Making evolution not mandatory doesn't give students a choice, it cuts down on their choices. It's a choice the same way as 'here's a gun; choose whether or not you want to shoot yourself in the foot' is a choice.

LOL, im speaking towards a change that does not necessitate your "no choice" policy on towards students who have the capacity to choose. An elective that proposes evidential analysis with an exclusion of the traditional paradgm theory being macro-evolution. Students have the capacity to choose as it is quite evident when choosing an elective, they would shoulder their own decisions rather than from a "no choice" policy being purported by pompous tyrants.