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?
Sodom, Greece, Rome and homosexuality.
Moderator: Moderators
Post #51
So, if the kid really believes that 2+2=5, we should accommodate him?perplexed101 wrote:LOL, im speaking towards a change that does not necessitate your "no choice" policy on towards students.
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
-
sin_is_fun
- Sage
- Posts: 528
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:58 pm
- Location: Eden
Post #52
Does a school student have the capacity to choose?perplexed101 wrote: LOL, im speaking towards a change that does not necessitate your "no choice" policy on towards students who have the capacity to choose.
To choose among evolution and creation he should learn evolution,right?
Without learning evolution how can he reject it?
Let school teach him evolution.Let his parents teach him creation.Then he can choose whichever theory he likes.
Frankly nobody will become a biologist without learning evolution
maybe future biology students will have creation as an elective.In future science exams the question paper will look like
question:How did life form in earth?
Answer:God created it.
question:How did sun come into existence?
Answer:God created it in second day.
question:Why do people die?
Answer:Because they sinned.
question:why do we have diseases?
Answer:Because eve sinned.
question:when did earth come into existence?
Answer: oct 12 4004 BC 9 am.
Is this what creationists call as science?Is it what schools are supposed to teach students?
we dont need any fields of science for getting these answers.we can close down every single field saying "God created everything".Why do we need schools and scientists?God created everything.So what are scientists researching?why not close down all research labs?
-
perplexed101
- Sage
- Posts: 539
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 10:55 am
Post #53
i think you missed my post:sin_is_fun wrote:Does a school student have the capacity to choose?perplexed101 wrote: LOL, im speaking towards a change that does not necessitate your "no choice" policy on towards students who have the capacity to choose.
To choose among evolution and creation he should learn evolution,right?
Without learning evolution how can he reject it?
Let school teach him evolution.Let his parents teach him creation.Then he can choose whichever theory he likes.
Frankly nobody will become a biologist without learning evolution
In future science exams the question paper will look like
question:How did life form in earth?
Answer:God created it.
question:How did sun come into existence?
Answer:God created it in second day.
question:Why do people die?
Answer:Because they sinned.
question:why do we have diseases?
Answer:Because eve sinned.
question:when did earth come into existence?
Answer: oct 12 4004 BC 9 am.
Is this what creationists call as science?Is it what schools are supposed to teach students?
we dont need any fields of science for getting these answers.we can close down every single field saying "God created everything".Why do we need schools and scientists?God created everything.So what are scientists researching?why not close down all research labs?
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.
-
sin_is_fun
- Sage
- Posts: 528
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:58 pm
- Location: Eden
Post #54
Ok,now I got you.You want creationism to be taught in school as an elective.That cannot be permitted.perplexed101 wrote: i think you missed my post:
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.
It is because a school shall not teach religious doctrines to students.Creationism is a religious concept,particularly christian concept.Teaching it in schools means government propogates religion,particularly christianity in schools.That is not correct.
Teaching creation in schools means government accepts 'God is there,he created world,bible is true".That goes against seperation of church and education.
Further creationism is not scientifically accpeted.So how can it be taught as science?
-
MagusYanam
- Guru
- Posts: 1562
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
- Location: Providence, RI (East Side)
Post #55
perplexed101:
This is a formal warning: you have been observed on multiple occasions making unconstructive posts that are often derisive toward other posters. I would encourage you to please keep the debate civil. Also, it should be noted that deliberately placed duplicate posts like the last one are discouraged by the forum rules:
This is a formal warning: you have been observed on multiple occasions making unconstructive posts that are often derisive toward other posters. I would encourage you to please keep the debate civil. Also, it should be noted that deliberately placed duplicate posts like the last one are discouraged by the forum rules:
Please try to provide some argumentation when replying to a post and not just repeat what you've already said. Thanks.Forum Rules wrote:9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates (Do not simply say "Ditto" or "I disagree" in a post. Such posts add little value to debates).
10. Spamming (duplicate posts, advertisements, etc) is not allowed.
-
FreddieFreeloader
- Student
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 11:09 am
- Location: Denmark
Post #56
To what extreme do you want to take this "pro-choice" policy? Is it entirely up to a student to decide all of the subjects he/she takes?perplexed101 wrote: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.
I don't see how a meaningful corriculum is possible without a healthy amount of mandatory subjects. The mandatories are the basis of continuing education in college and universities, and if there is no set curriculums, what point should further education start at? It is the purpose of mandatory subjects to establish certain basic skills in different fields of study. (Such as math, history, first and foreign languages, litterature, physics, chemistry, biology, geography etc.) The curriculum of any school reflects what policymakers deems an educational foundation and allowing students to pick and choose with 100% freedom threatens to destroy that foundation, especially if some of the electives add no value to the "knowledge pool" (lack of a better word) of a student. Creationism as a mythological concept can appropriately be covered in any religion class, creationism in science classes has no place until creationism is scientifically proven (though that is another debate completely).
-
trencacloscas
- Sage
- Posts: 848
- Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:21 pm
Post #57
Imagine the "pro-choice" as Hitler did, and then Einstein's theory of relativity wouldn't be taught because it was "jewish physics".
Post #58
Christianity is a Jewish phenomenon. Anti-Semitism is not a logical ideology for Christians.
The Gospels and the letters in the New Testament amount to a what to do and what not to do list.
Back on topic.
Homosexuality taught in schools is like teaching that 2+2= whatever a loud-mouthed group of radicals say it means.
And of course that is how secualrism became sexualism.
But empiricism is still observable truth.
The Gospels and the letters in the New Testament amount to a what to do and what not to do list.
Back on topic.
Homosexuality taught in schools is like teaching that 2+2= whatever a loud-mouthed group of radicals say it means.
And of course that is how secualrism became sexualism.
But empiricism is still observable truth.
-
sin_is_fun
- Sage
- Posts: 528
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:58 pm
- Location: Eden
Post #59
Nobody is encouraging school children to become homosexuals.The negative portraying of homosexuals will stop,that's all.Making fun of somebody's sexual orientation is not correct.Schools are there to teach science,maths and Language,not to teach that homosexuals are bad.AlAyeti wrote: Homosexuality taught in schools is like teaching that 2+2= whatever a loud-mouthed group of radicals say it means.
And of course that is how secualrism became sexualism.
But empiricism is still observable truth.
Post #60
From McC: "AlAyeti, I hope you don't mind if I try to summarize your aguments in a logical sort of way.
Premise: Homosexual behaviour is an unnatural sexual activity.
Conclusion: Homosexuality is immoral.
Now, any first year logic student can see that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. To be a complete logical argument, you must add another premise.
Premise: Homosexual behaviour is an unnatural sexual activity.
Premise: All unnatural sexual activity is immoral.
Conclusion: Homosexuality is immoral.
This is now a complete logical argument. You have spent a lot of time trying to prove the first premise. Although, I don't think that you have adequately dealt with how if homosexual behaviour is unnatural, then how does it appear in nature, even in higher primates.
You have spent virtually no time trying to prove the second premise.
/ / /
Morality is a purely human concept. Animals are unreasoning beasts. And although in looking at homosexual lifestyle, there may be some equation, I don't want to declassify homosexuals from the human race. Which, is where logic would lead the comparison of human behavior to animal acts. Sexual deviance is still and always easily defined.
My point to this thread is that unchecked licentiousness is a major concern of a rational populace. Greece and Rome did not except but only tolerated some things. To a point.
There is nothing wrong in opposing homosexuality being raised to the level of noraml sexual behavior. It should remain a private thing. Once it comes into our schools than it is fair to oppose it.
Much is made of Christians putting the noses where they don't belong. Although the pun is obvious, the behavior is just the exact opposite. Homosexuals demand to be identified solely on their sexual acts. That is disgusting and no one should have to tolerate OR accept that. That children are the target of the homosexualization of society is hardly debatable. Just look at what is happening in our schools.
Now marriage!
Why?
Why that single institution? Simple. Total normalizing of licentiousness and sexual abandonment WITHOUT teaching the common sense to consequences. Wearing a condom is hardly a thing to teach when it comes to biological urges and what children should do about them. It sems clear to a Christian that somethinng wicked this way comes. There was a reason that the family was attacked by unchecked divorce embraced by the morally unsound. And now their unchecked children are reaching a new level of debauchery. The Bible is quite clear about this fact happening.
The "Questioning Youth" tagline added to the homosexual agenda is more for recruitment than it is harassment. Who is kidding who? That is why religion is driven from schools. People are afraid their children will be influenced to change. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice based on a faith-based belief system that somehow they are right even though science is clearly in opposition to their chosen sexuality. There is no congenital condition evidence that it is not a choice. In fact empirically it has to be a choice to misuse your genitals. And it is a morally destructive choice at best.
Where is the homosexual virgin taught to wait until Mr Right or Mister Right comes along? Where is the proud feminist push to have girls wait for Ms. Right?
It doesn't exist in the hedonistic self-centered sexual world of perversion that is the homosexual lifestyle. If a parent doesn't have grounds to ultimately FEAR these people that promote unchecked sexualism, then, I don't know what will get a parent motivated to protect their children.
This is the history of unchecked sexual licentiousness. It can be seen in the socieites that died because of it.
Premise: Homosexual behaviour is an unnatural sexual activity.
Conclusion: Homosexuality is immoral.
Now, any first year logic student can see that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. To be a complete logical argument, you must add another premise.
Premise: Homosexual behaviour is an unnatural sexual activity.
Premise: All unnatural sexual activity is immoral.
Conclusion: Homosexuality is immoral.
This is now a complete logical argument. You have spent a lot of time trying to prove the first premise. Although, I don't think that you have adequately dealt with how if homosexual behaviour is unnatural, then how does it appear in nature, even in higher primates.
You have spent virtually no time trying to prove the second premise.
/ / /
Morality is a purely human concept. Animals are unreasoning beasts. And although in looking at homosexual lifestyle, there may be some equation, I don't want to declassify homosexuals from the human race. Which, is where logic would lead the comparison of human behavior to animal acts. Sexual deviance is still and always easily defined.
My point to this thread is that unchecked licentiousness is a major concern of a rational populace. Greece and Rome did not except but only tolerated some things. To a point.
There is nothing wrong in opposing homosexuality being raised to the level of noraml sexual behavior. It should remain a private thing. Once it comes into our schools than it is fair to oppose it.
Much is made of Christians putting the noses where they don't belong. Although the pun is obvious, the behavior is just the exact opposite. Homosexuals demand to be identified solely on their sexual acts. That is disgusting and no one should have to tolerate OR accept that. That children are the target of the homosexualization of society is hardly debatable. Just look at what is happening in our schools.
Now marriage!
Why?
Why that single institution? Simple. Total normalizing of licentiousness and sexual abandonment WITHOUT teaching the common sense to consequences. Wearing a condom is hardly a thing to teach when it comes to biological urges and what children should do about them. It sems clear to a Christian that somethinng wicked this way comes. There was a reason that the family was attacked by unchecked divorce embraced by the morally unsound. And now their unchecked children are reaching a new level of debauchery. The Bible is quite clear about this fact happening.
The "Questioning Youth" tagline added to the homosexual agenda is more for recruitment than it is harassment. Who is kidding who? That is why religion is driven from schools. People are afraid their children will be influenced to change. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice based on a faith-based belief system that somehow they are right even though science is clearly in opposition to their chosen sexuality. There is no congenital condition evidence that it is not a choice. In fact empirically it has to be a choice to misuse your genitals. And it is a morally destructive choice at best.
Where is the homosexual virgin taught to wait until Mr Right or Mister Right comes along? Where is the proud feminist push to have girls wait for Ms. Right?
It doesn't exist in the hedonistic self-centered sexual world of perversion that is the homosexual lifestyle. If a parent doesn't have grounds to ultimately FEAR these people that promote unchecked sexualism, then, I don't know what will get a parent motivated to protect their children.
This is the history of unchecked sexual licentiousness. It can be seen in the socieites that died because of it.
