Roundup

Media bias part 4,987 — Let’s see, if it is bad that Dick Cheney defends the Bush administration by correcting Obama’s errors and the media considers that some sort of break with the alleged tradition of Presidents and VPs not criticizing subsequent administrations, where were they with unhinged Al Gore?

Federal hate crimes bill destroys civil liberties and constutional protections — This is a tragic consequence of the Leftist mentality that they must shut down any speech they disagree with.  It is rampant on college campuses and coming soon to a country near you.

Obama is on the direct path to socialized healthcare and the elimination of private options.  Good thing for us that some of his minions made the mistake of telling the truth a little too early.

Fun video about Capitalist Hugs (Hat tip: Stop the ACLU)

0 thoughts on “Roundup”

  1. Socialized medicine would be a disaster of monster proportions. First you’d see a lot of older doctors retire. That would put a huge strain on the system. Next you would see usage rates skyrocket. (I worked in the healthcare information field for 13 years, if you make healthcare free people will use it for a hangnail.) That would make wait times for routine check-ups and procedures unacceptable. I won’t even get into what this would do to our payroll taxes.

    Privatizing healthcare will result in a sicker population, not a healthier one. So it would achieve the exact opposite of what proponents say it would.

    Like

  2. I’ve already signed petitions against the hate crimes bill and sent emails to my rep. Her response doesn’t give me hope she’ll vote no, considering she states she’s supported earlier proposals.

    Hate crimes legistlation is one of the stupidest ideas that has ever come down the pike. We really need to take greater care in choosing who we elect to represent us.

    Like

  3. If you read the articles linked at the bottom of the Federal Hate Crime article, the one entitled “Christian Beliefe a ‘Hate Crime’ Under Plan” was particularly ominous. From the article:

    “As WND has reported, such laws already have been used around the world, where in Canada pastors are fearful of reading biblical injunctions against homosexuality, and in Australia where two pastors were convicted of “vilifying” Islam.”

    Wasn’t a homosexual on your blog earlier this week trying to deny that such things are happening?

    Also interesting:

    “Marcavage told WND that plan would invert American justice, and instead of requiring evidence it would leave it to someone who claims to be offended to determine whether a “crime” has been committed.

    “Truth is not allowed as evidence in hate crimes trials. … A homosexual can claim emotional damage from hearing Scripture that describes his lifestyle as an abomination. He can press charges against the pastor or broadcaster who merely reads the Bible in public. The ‘hater’ can be fined thousands of dollars and even imprisoned!” Marcavage said. ”

    I wonder how long it will take for this bill to pass. We are definitely seeing Bible prophecy fulfilled right before our eyes.

    Like

  4. So you guys are saying that you think gays who are assaulted due to their orientation don’t fit into the category of hate crime victims? Yeah, you’re kind of wrong on that.

    Neil said: The crime of assault should carry the same penalties regardless of who is assaulted. You don’t always know who is gay and who isn’t. And why should a gay person attacking a straight be a misdemeanor and a straight person attacking a gay be a felony?

    Like

  5. Marie,

    Yes, a few days ago I tried to refute someone’s claim that in Europe, “oppononents” to homosexuality were being jailed and fined. I thought his assertion was ridiculous, and asked for his sources, but nobody ever gave me a link to a story, which led me to assume that they were either lying, or heavily embellishing on the truth.

    As for what I think? If this is actually going on, then I’m disgusted. People have the right to speak what they think, or preach what they believe, even though they may not necessarily be correct. Criminalizing those who preach that homosexuality is sinful and wrong (despite that they’re factually incorrect) is unconstitutional, and they day I see something like that happen in America will be the day I no longer consider myself a patriot.

    Like

  6. Marie,

    Thank you for the link. That’s actually incredibly alarming, but I don’t think we have to worry about anything like that happening in the U.S., considering how it clashes with the ideology set forth in the Bill of Rights, and well, because Europe as a whole tends to do things the wrong way when it comes to promoting tolerance (see: France).

    As for Neil: you’re right.

    I suppose I stand corrected.

    Like

  7. Fox,

    Don’t even try to believe that it couldn’t happen here. That very phrase has been shown to be mythical in so many ways, and considering how many in this country (on the left) look to Europe as a standard to copy, we could not only do the same, but do it better (as it were). In Massachusetts a man has already gone through legal troubles for protesting the teaching of homosexuality to his kindergarden kid. People have been sued already for refusing to do business with homosexuals, including a woman photographer that refused to record a lesbian “wedding” ceremony. It’s happening already is my point. It will get worse as the already established rights to freely express one’s faith clashes with the imaginary “right” of homosexuals to marry.

    Like

  8. People have been sued already for refusing to do business with homosexuals …

    Ah, now that is another story. Speaking out against homosexuality and denying services to homosexuals are two very different animals, the latter of which does demand certain legal repurcussions. While I’d maintain that the father who spoke out against teaching homosexuality in schools is a moron, the First Amendment protects his right to do so. In the case of the photographer? It’s shaky, since it’s not like she was denying them a major service. In her case, a verbal slap in the face ought to have solved to problem, not legal intervention.

    Like

  9. Hi Fox,

    Here are a handful of similar cases – all but one from the US.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2039537/posts (Wichita pastor arrested for literature distribution)

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94191
    Same case – city later admitted it was in violation of the law

    http://www.conservativetruth.org/archives/tombarrett/07-28-02.shtml
    (2002 case of an American pastor arrested in his own church for preaching that sodomy is a sin)

    Remember Canadian pastor Hugh Owens? He was the one who was convicted by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Board of Inquiry for a newspaper ad implying homosexual sex was morally wrong: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm

    Or how about this .pdf file on the dangers of “hate speech” legislation: http://www.familywatchinternational.org/fwi/book_excerpt_on_hate_speech.pdf
    From pages 2-3: “In 2004, eleven Philadelphia Christians (known as the “Philadelphia 11”) were arrested and jailed for peacefully passing out Christian literature at a gay pride event. Ironically, prior to their arrest, the Christians were confronted by a militant mob of homosexuals known as the “Pink Angels” who blew loud whistles and carried large pink signs in front of them to block their message and access to the event, while others screamed obscenities. The Philadelphia police refused to take any action as the Christians were continuously followed, obstructed, and harassed and the police arrested and jailed the Christians instead.
    After spending 21 hours in jail, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office charged them under (1) Pennsylvania’s hate crimes law called “Ethnic Intimidation,” to which “sexual orientation” was added as a victim category; and (2) a host of other felony and misdemeanor charges. Had they been convicted, each of the Philadelphia 11 could have faced up to 47 years in prison and $90,000 in fines. These charges were later dismissed by Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas as being without merit.”

    Like

  10. In Massachusetts a man has already gone through legal troubles for protesting the teaching of homosexuality to his kindergarden kid.

    Oh, I remember that one WELL. That was down the way a bit in Lexington, about an hour from here. My son is now in kindergarten, here in the MA public school system. So far no stories being read about gay parenting and how cool it is, but we’ve seen pantheism, panentheism, Chinese ancestor worship and a couple different forms of occultism. They’re not allowed to mention Christmas or Easter though, as that would allude to Christianity – a belief system completely taboo.

    The father of the 6-year-old did go to jail, by the way, although not for long.

    Like

  11. Well considering how fast this swine flu is spreading (have my own opinions there) and how fast people died in Mexico, I would think you would want any improvement on healthcare.

    I don’t like it either, but its obvious ‘terrorists’ are willing to use our health against us…we have to do something.

    Like

  12. Mizclark, I don’t follow that. A disease breaks out, which may or may not be a serious epidemic, and you think that any old change will help? I don’t get it.

    Like

  13. Fox,

    I don’t approve of being denied the right to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason. There is a Constitutional right of free association. Not every business would lend itself to caring about whether or not a customer or client was homosexual, but in the case of the photographer, she was expected to honor, by granting the request for her services, the fake marriage of the two lesbians. Who are the lesbians (and who are you) to demand that someone act against their firmly held religious beliefs? In the same way, if my business was renting apartments or homes, I would expect that I could demand that only married couples, that is one man/one woman, or singles rent my property. I expect that I should be able to prohibit those who would blatantly sin under my roof. It’s a shakey proposition considering I couldn’t guarantee that the two guys renting were just best friends as opposed to being lovers, but I’d settle for having it in the contract. The tenants can worry if I’m the type to pry and take their chances, but I’d fight like hell anyone who tried to take me to court.

    And it isn’t the father in Massachussetts that’s the moron but the homsexuals who believe its appropriate to teach any small child about any sexual situation. It would be better they not speak of parents at all rather than begin to teach the lies of the homosexual lifestyle.

    Like

  14. Neil said “Let’s see, if it is bad that Dick Cheney defends the Bush administration by correcting Obama’s errors and the media considers that some sort of break with the alleged tradition of Presidents and VPs not criticizing subsequent administrations, where were they with unhinged Al Gore?”

    This (finally) triggered a memory where former President Jimmy Carter went on Leno bashing then president Bush.

    Mizclark worries about “how fast this swine flu is spreading.” Umm. you know the stats aren’t that amazing. 100 cases in the US means if you packed it all into NY City, you’d have maybe 3 cases. I’d say the hysteria is spreading faster than the flu.

    Fox, glad to see you aren’t banished any more. And glad to see you’re willing to read the links that are published here.

    Like

  15. In response to Marshall Art,

    …but in the case of the photographer, she was expected to honor, by granting the request for her services, the fake marriage of the two lesbians …

    In regards to “fake marriage,” let’s get one thing straight: marriage has never been a uniquely Christian institution. Other cultures throughout history have had similar systems, long before Christianity came about. In short, your definition of marriage may not be everyone else’s definition, and is in fact, open to interpretation. I enjoy how you apparently feel the need to take a dump on everything that gays do in order to liberate themselves, though. Problem is, it kind of makes you look like a bigot.

    Who are the lesbians (and who are you) to demand that someone act against their firmly held religious beliefs?

    Well, considering your “firmly held” faith involves discriminating a certain demographic of people–an entirely un-American and unconstitutional concept–I’d say I’m very much entitled to pry you away from that particular belief. Not your whole religion, just the idea that gays are, you know, evil.

    I would expect that I could demand that only married couples, that is one man/one woman, or singles rent my property.

    If the states across America continue to deem gay marriage bans as unconstitutional, you won’t have the right to deny married gay couples from purchasing an apartment, since you know, legally speaking, they are married. Also, having people confirm their sexual orientation via contract? Paranoid much? Someone else’s sexuality is none of your concern.

    but I’d fight like hell anyone who tried to take me to court.

    By defending your prejudiced attitude and discriminatory policies? Good luck with that!

    And it isn’t the father in Massachussetts that’s the moron but the homsexuals who believe its appropriate to teach any small child about any sexual situation. It would be better they not speak of parents at all rather than begin to teach the lies of the homosexual lifestyle.

    No. Children need to be taught about homosexuality at an early age, so that they know it exists, and hell, because one day some of them may find that they’re gay. I didn’t learn about the concept until I was about twelve, and had I known that homosexuality was uh, possible, I would have been a lot more secure with myself in my early adolescent years, and I wouldn’t have had to face the same level of prejudice I did through middle school. People need to be introduced to the concept at an early age.

    Like

  16. No Neil,

    I mean this situation is reaching the ridiculous point. Sure we should be concerned about a ‘new flu’ out in the gene pool, but the fact the CDC claims they lost track of it and it suddenly resurfaces, leads me to believe they know more than they are saying.

    If people were confident in our healthcare system as it is I don’t think there would be so much alarm. I agree the president may be jumping the gun on healthcare reform, but this country has been operating on a ‘fear complex’ for so long its hard to break old habits.

    We have to stop trying to force people to do the right thing. Its not getting us anywhere. Jesus said if a man slapped you across the cheek to offer him the other.

    Plainly said it fits this situation perfectly. We have to start somewhere and the president is just offering an idea. When does Congress ever reproduce the idea as it comes across the floor. Its more panic because liberals are in control of everything.

    We are a faithless nation Neil, and we have to find a way to get it back. I know you don’t agree with him, but can you honestly say your views are being ignored?

    Like

  17. No Neil,

    I mean this situation is reaching the ridiculous point. Sure we should be concerned about a ‘new flu’ out in the gene pool, but the fact the CDC claims they lost track of it and it suddenly resurfaces, leads me to believe they know more than they are saying.

    If people were confident in our healthcare system as it is I don’t think there would be so much alarm. I agree the president may be jumping the gun on healthcare reform, but this country has been operating on a ‘fear complex’ for so long its hard to break old habits.

    We have to stop trying to force people to do the right thing. Its not getting us anywhere. Jesus said if a man slapped you across the cheek to offer him the other.

    Plainly said it fits this situation perfectly. We have to start somewhere and the president is just offering an idea. When does Congress ever reproduce the idea as it comes across the floor? Its more panic because liberals are in control of everything.

    We are a faithless nation Neil, and we have to find a way to get it back. I know you don’t agree with him, but can you honestly say your views are being ignored?

    Like

  18. Randy,

    Maybe I should have said swine fever being spread by the media! I really didn’t want to go there, but I just can’t help myself. Neil you’ve warned me about the smoke and mirrors before and just because I am an Obama supporter doesn’t mean I’ve given up on my wild theories and TOTAL distrust of the government.

    I just hope this isn’t some scam to push this healthcare reform through. There I said it!

    Like

  19. Fox,

    with all due respect, it is not a matter of kids being told that homosexuality exists. No one is vilifying you or attacking you, but I don’t think that you are seeing what we are taking issue with. The pro-gay agenda in the media and public schools (not just here in Massachusetts) goes far, far beyond a morally neutral acknowledgment that the orientation exists. If you haven’t already, please check out the MassResistance.org link that Neil has here, and check out the materials the gay activists are circulating in public middle and high schools (although thankfully, not yet in our district). The vulgar language, explicit descriptions of sexual acts, anatomical photographs and above all the promotion of this as a healthy, admirable lifestyle is wildly inappropriate. The closed talks (parents have been kicked out for recording activists talking to the kids and urging them to “come out”) are in direct violation of the belief systems of the majority of families; NOT just Christians. However, the parents who do speak up and disagree with this kind of moral indoctrination are shrilly accused of “hate speech”.

    This kind of literature is aimed at adolescents, and again and again encourages confused kids to “come out” and admit they are gay (actual language used). What gives the gay activist (minority) the right to dictate moral relativism en masse? How is it ok for them to redefine moral (and/or religious) standards to people of ANY faith, and force them to accept them? By way of analogy, suppose you are a taxpaying parent and send your kids to public school. There are all different sorts and types of people; something completely normal and you all get along. But now, the right-wing Christian activists get a bill passed that forces your kids to be taught Young Earth Creationism, to the exclusion of any other theories, and they have to agree with it. Dissenters will be labeled “haters” and given a failing grade. Might I suggest you’d be highly concerned?

    This is not about attacking individuals. This is a matter of principle which goes against democratic principles; not the other way around. It’s as if the First Amendment doesn’t apply to Christians. I am not ok with public school kids being handed fliers promoting ANY sexual activity, deviant or not.

    Like

  20. Marie,

    Just to be clear, you’re arguing that schools shouldn’t be teaching children that homosexuality is perfectly natural and nothing to be ashamed of? If that’s the case, read on. If not, correct me. (Though some of you could afford to read this anyway).

    See, here’s the thing. Homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with morals or lack thereof. It has been demonstrated, demonstrated that homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon, and not something that comes about through willful intervention. I’ll be frank: if you believe otherwise, you are verifiably false. I don’t see why so many people have a problem understanding this; what I’m saying should be self evident.

    This is why it’s justifiable to “preach” homosexuality in schools. It’s not like they’re applauding alcoholism or prostitution, or any other destructive lifestyle decisions that are, you know, actually choices. They’re essentially just saying, to borrow a phrase, “it’s okay to be gay,” and what’s wrong with that, exactly? As for “explicit descriptions of sex acts:” I guess I need context. Are you perhaps referring to say, a sex-ed environment, which would be detailing something like that? Or something else? I guess I need to know what you mean by “vulgar language,” too.

    And to correct one error: you seem to imply that homosexuality is defined solely as engaging in sexual relations with the same sex, which is flat-out untrue. Homosexuality is identical to heterosexuality in that it’s a physical and emotional attraction, except to the same sex as opposed to the opposite. To use myself as an example, I’m gay, but have never had sex with another man. Seems simple enough to understand.

    If I have misinterpreted what you are saying, please let me know.

    Like

  21. Fox, you are very confused. Your bit about being orientation vs. practice is irrelevant. Homosexual behavior violates the design of the human body. It is unnatural by definition. It is spiritually, physically and emotionally destructive. They have good lobbyists, but that is about it.

    Like

  22. Forgot to address this,

    As for the videos on MassResistance.org. All I can say is that I’m reminded of my elementary school years when we’d make a big deal out of Black History Month, or celebrate Chinese New Years. It’s just promoting tolerance, albeit slightly awkwardly.

    Like

  23. Skin color is morally neutral. Sexual behavior is not.

    You keep claiming that it has been proven that homosexuality is innate. That is not true. I’m tired of pointing that out, so don’t waste time mentioning it again.

    Like

  24. Skin color is morally neutral. Sexual behavior is not.

    Objectify morality for me. Spoilers, you can’t.

    Secondly, whether or not I think homosexuality is innate or not irrelevant. It still occurs outside of a person’s control. Hell, there’s a good chunk of evidence that states heterosexuality isn’t innate, either. Which leaves us with what, exactly.

    I also want to mention something about the end of the second video they have on MassResistance.org. That whole spiel that states “if all people became gay, no one would procreate” is nonsense. That could never happen! It’s fearmongering and hatemongering at the same time, and it’s pathetic.

    Neil said: “Objectify” it? See dictionary.com if you are uncertain as to the definition. And if you can’t see that skin color has no moral component and that sexual behavior do, then I can’t help you.

    You are mistaken. The behavior is 100% in one’s control, and the facts say that the “orientation” can change. Not easily, perhaps, but it can change.

    Like

  25. “Objectify” it? See dictionary.com if you are uncertain as to the definition. And if you can’t see that skin color has no moral component and that sexual behavior do, then I can’t help you.

    My mistake. Let me reword it, since I messed that up:

    Argue what is and isn’t moral from an objective standpoint. (Spoilers, you can’t etc etc).

    Neil said: If that is your worldview — mistaken as it is — then I would expect you to never make another comment including the word “should,” or anything about discrimination, or prejudice, or advancement, or anything else involving moral claims. Those would just be your opinions. In your worldview you can’t even say gay bashing is immoral (I think it is, but it wouldn’t make sense for you to).

    You are mistaken. The behavior is 100% in one’s control, and the facts say that the “orientation” can change. Not easily, perhaps, but it can change.

    Engaging in sexual relations with the same sex is a choice, of course. Being homosexual isn’t. If you’re stating that actually being gay is completely up to the person, yeah, that’s totally wrong.

    Neil said: See narth.org. Lots of stats on such things. I’ve read of many people going in and out of being “gay.”

    Like

  26. If that is your worldview — mistaken as it is — then I would expect you to never make another comment including the word “should,” or anything about discrimination, or prejudice, or advancement, or anything else involving moral claims. Those would just be your opinions. In your worldview you can’t even say gay bashing is immoral (I think it is, but it wouldn’t make sense for you to).

    Er, no. Laugh at the premise all you like, but morality is subjective. Like good and evil, right and wrong, et cetera. It is impossible to objectively argue what is right and what is wrong, because those concepts require context, which is constantly changing, and differs from place to place. This doesn’t mean I don’t have my own definitions of right and wrong, I’m just saying, morality isn’t objective, which means that arguing anything from a moral standpoint puts you on shaky ground at best. There is no scientific evidence which supports the claim that homosexuality is immoral.

    Like

  27. Thank you for making the skin color point Neil! 🙂

    Before Fox gets back on his soapbox let me say I too believe homosexuality is not a choice Who willingly chooses to be shunned by mainstream society.

    Now. I don’t care how hard you think your life is or how society isolates you. Homosexuals have never been hungry or poor just because they’re gay. They have not been denied the basic neccessities of life, nor their identities erased and replaced because they were unhuman.

    Telling you that you cannot legally marry your life partner is a far cry from relegated to being three-fifths of a human being! Its in the record as such and rather than delete it so we could press and move on, amendmets have been left as a slap in the face for all those who sacrificed to make this country.

    The only claim you can even remotely make is from violence and everyone is a victim of that! I don’t want to make light of the situation, but some states allow for civil unions where the non-whites (because it wasn’t just blacks) of this country couldn’t even get that!

    As far as the children, I do not believe they should be lied to or homosexuality hidden from them, but to actively teach them about it is along the same lines as any other topic of Human Growth and Sexuality and I didn’t get that class until the 5th or the 6th grade.

    Fox regardless of what you may think there is a time and a place for such things and it should be on a case by case basis. Some kids can handle it and some can’t. You’re stepping on dangerous ground by telling parents how and when to educate their children.

    I’ve worked in the schools for years and its sad but parents are not doing their jobs and some teachers aren’t either. Raising children is a delicate balance and we have to do it together.

    We have to be careful in how we respond to things. There are ‘homosexual and/or confused kids hanging themselves, because they have adults arguing over their heads about immorality!

    Wake up people! Monsters come in all shapes and sizes, gay or straight! We have some really confused kids and if we can’t get over ourselves long enough to take care of them…what kind of people are we?

    Like

  28. Well, I see much of Fox’s response has been addressed, so that’ll save me time. But first, kudos to you Fox for never having engaged in sexual activity with a man. I hope that never changes until you’re fully informed. I think you’re only acting on pro-homosexual points of view. You need to study more.

    Just to be clear, I was invited to study the issue myself. I have, though I won’t say I’ve heard it all. I can say I haven’t heard anything new from the pro-homosex side that hasn’t been expertly refuted in a long, long time. Also, to be clear, I do not support bashing in any way and would defend against it without shame or fear. Trust me on this.

    Anyway, I don’t much care about ancient cultures or any in the present for that matter, that have a different idea about the definition of marriage. I don’t live in any of those cultures and find them lacking in a number of ways. I will say, however, that even where the definition is different, it always means a union of male and female, though it may mean multiple females. No culture has ever accepted what you’d like to see. The definition is only open to interpretation by those who wish to change it to satisfy what they’d like it to mean. Indeed, now and then I feel that I might like multiple wives. But once I’ve sobered up, I realize that the one I already have is more than enough for me to handle. And BTW, the definition of marriage is not reliant on any religion as it has always been man/woman(women) in every culture, Judeo-Christian or not.

    “Well, considering your “firmly held” faith involves discriminating a certain demographic of people…”

    Actually I discriminate against other demographics as well. Thieves, for example, aren’t welcome to use my home when I’m out of town. I never considered child-molesters to baby-sit my kids. I’m not too keen on hit-men. In short, I tend to discriminate against people who support bad behavior. In fact, I’d say I was born that way.

    “If the states across America continue to deem gay marriage bans as unconstitutional, you won’t have the right to deny married gay couples…”

    Exactly and exactly why I oppose the concept. There already exists rights of religious expression, free speech, free association to name the most obvious that would be compromised by the further state sanctioned support for this treatable condition. However, I fully support your right to live as you want without forcing me to believe what I know is totally untrue. In fact I’m willing to defend your right to pretend you and your significant other are married. Indeed, real marriage is simply the promise of two people to be faithful to each other. No license required. So the agenda isn’t marriage anyway, but to force the rest of us to accept your version of morality.

    “Also, having people confirm their sexual orientation via contract?”

    Actually, the contract would state that non-married couples or non-hetero same-sex roommates are expressly unwelcome. As I stated, I’m not about to spy on my tenants, but if I should, say, see them prancing half naked atop a float in a so-called “gay pride” parade, or simply tongue wrestling on their balcony, I’d evict them.

    As far as fighting in court, it would be to protect my right to run my business as I see fit without being forced to accept immoral and unnatural behavior. Regarding “natural”, the fact that it might happen in nature does not make it natural. All sorts of anomolies occur in nature. The fact that they occur doesn’t make it natural. In fact, it actually means there are abnormalities in nature only. Nothing more.

    ” Children need to be taught about homosexuality at an early age…”

    Ridiculous. They need to be allowed to be children for as long as possible. There will be plenty of time for them to learn that there is so much wrong in the world. It’s cruel when they find out too soon.

    Like

  29. Marshall Art said “Indeed, now and then I feel that I might like multiple wives.” – The penalty for multiple wives is multiple mother-in-laws.

    On a serious side, I’ve always thought this unfair. If one man has multiple wives (assumming a roughly 50/50 split along gender lines) doesn’t that cheat another man out of his wife? This sort of thing happened to me all the time in high school and I couldn’t get a date.

    Mizclark talked about the “topic of Human Growth and Sexuality and I didn’t get that class until the 5th or the 6th grade.” – Seventh grade for me. The girls went to see the movie one day, the guys another. Then we each had a session with the sex guy (I presume it was a lady for the girls) who talked and answered hard questions. He wore the coolest looking sports coat I have ever seen.

    Even with that movie and q&a session and the locker room talks, it took me a long time to really understand what it was all about. I confess, I did a lousy job explaining it all with my kids, but I think I did better than my parents. Hopefully, they’ll do better with their kids.

    The subject belongs in the home, not in the school. To ignore the morality or immorality of the subject ignores the subject. To teach it like you’re teaching someone what to do in the backseat of a car (to paraphrase a former surgeon general), ignores the long term emotional aspects. Human growth and sexuality. What a joke.

    Like

  30. LOL Randy. I agree! Sex talk belongs in the sex class where you have been given permission.

    There isn’t a concensus on homosexuality as a lifestyle, so ‘teaching’this aspect of it belongs at home.

    Like

  31. Hi Fox,

    This doesn’t mean I don’t have my own definitions of right and wrong, I’m just saying, morality isn’t objective, which means that arguing anything from a moral standpoint puts you on shaky ground at best.

    Yes, but if you really believe that then you have no reason to expect others to agree that something like gay-bashing is immoral. We all think it is, but you have no reason to expect others to care about your view. It would all come down to popular vote or whoever is in power.

    Morality is objective for a given set of facts. Pushing an old lady is immoral if there is no imminent risk. Pushing her out of the way of a car is not immoral. But the circumstances are different.

    There is no scientific evidence which supports the claim that homosexuality is immoral.

    I think you are making a category error there. Technically that is true but it really doesn’t say anything. There is no scientific evidence that murder is immoral, either, but we know it is. Morality is outside the scope of science (though you can use science to support moral arguments, i.e., the scientific fact that the unborn are human beings means that abortion is immoral).

    Like

  32. Randy,

    Considering there is only a 25% chance of having a male child, there has to be around a 3-1 female to male ratio. Where people like Fox are actually helping is in taking more men out of the equation. Thus, there should be plenty of women to go around. But then again, there’s that mother-in-law thing.

    Like

  33. Marshall, huh? 25% chance of having a male child? I did a little searching and it seems that overall, there are about 102 females for every 100 males. So the odds would seem to be much closer to 50%. If you’re talking XY chromosomes, from my high school biology, the female always gives an X and the male can give either X or Y. Still seems like a 50/50 shot.

    I searched using this argument “how many males are there in the world” and found this website: http://www.xist.org/earth/pop_gender.aspx and some others like it. All came up with pretty much the same answer.

    Like

  34. OK then, I stand (or sit) corrected. Still, men ARE taken out of the equation, but likely not so much to greatly alter the stat. Bottom line, though, was I was just riffing further on that multiple wives, multiple mothers-in-law thing. It’s already one to one in my house, and I’m more than pleased.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s