Appropriate, or no?

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:36 pm

Originally posted by Brandon_k_W
So you think thousands of years ago, some humans were gay? Could have cavemen been gay? To me, more people become gay because it's a fad, especially for women. Ever since Britney Spears kissed Madonna, every damn fan of either singer suddenly becomes gay or bisexual.

Yep Romans were big into it...

Kyle · Post by **Kyle** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:47 pm

Originally posted by Brandon_k_W
So you think thousands of years ago, some humans were gay?

Yup

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:59 pm

Originally posted by UOD
I feel a smarter choice is to limit the powers granted to the government (federal) rather than to define a set of limitations imposed upon society at large. I'm a huge fan of local choice and support states rights as well. I think many problems are localized and need local solutions without the feds breathing down their neck with mandates....but I also don't want the locals to take advantage of the Constitution as well.

That seems to have been the problem in the past -- local governments trying to limit individual liberties. If not for the supremacy of the US Constitution, you'd have a very different set of rights in states like Alabama and Utah than you would in New York or California. I guess I'd like to see the power of ALL governments limited (at least in the sphere of personal liberties).

Originally posted by UOD
For me to best answer your question I need to ask you what the agreed upon age of consent is? There can be no harm if there is full consent...but when is that? When is one capable of granting consent?

Meaning for sexuality? At least that's how the term's usually used. I'll be in the minority on this. If biology is the determinant, the consent line should be soon after puberty, but I'd accept 14 as a reasonable age. As for what's actually agreed upon, that varies by state. I think it's 16 in Minnesota. I'm not sure how any of that applies to the school book though.

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 12:07 am

Originally posted by Brandon_k_W
The real question is: Why does a children's book about gay Princes have to be published?

If the book were about a straight prince would you be asking the same question?
No book HAS to be published. People write books for various reasons. People buy/check out books for various reasons. That's the way it works in a free society. Seems the more reasonable question would be what overwhelming reason would warrant not publishing such a book.

Meggie · Post by **Meggie** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 12:14 am

Originally posted by Brandon_k_W
So you think thousands of years ago, some humans were gay? Could have cavemen been gay? To me, more people become gay because it's a fad, especially for women. Ever since Britney Spears kissed Madonna, every damn fan of either singer suddenly becomes gay or bisexual.

homosexual activity has been documented in most eras, do some research youll find that it was accepted in a lot of societies. "cabin boys" for instance were boys that the sailors had sex with while on trips because women werent allowed on ships.. most of the famous painters that we consider of the most talented were known to be gay or bisexual, in ancient rome they celebrated the beauty and sexuality of both genders...

its probably been around as long as people have..

cho · Post by **cho** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 12:19 am

Originally posted by Loonatic
They need to learn about it alot later, because their minds are molding then. If he sees a prince kissing another prince, he thinks, cool, I can kiss another friend!

Its sending the wrong message.

Or They will think "ewwwww, gross he is kissing him"

Meggie · Post by **Meggie** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 12:25 am

Originally posted by Loonatic
They need to learn about it alot later, because their minds are molding then. If he sees a prince kissing another prince, he thinks, cool, I can kiss another friend!

Its sending the wrong message.

dont ask why, but i was watching an old episode of reading rainbow the other day, you know that part where the kids talk about books? anyway there was one kid with his best friend (both boys) maybe 6 years old or so, anyway the kid was like im jeff, and this is my best friend timmy, blah blah blah blah and anyway at the end of his thing he kissed his friend on the cheek. this episode was probably from the 80s, it didnt look that weird, why would it be acceptable then but not now?

and i very much doubt that back then, the kids were reading a book about princes kissing....

EvilAngel · Post by **EvilAngel** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 12:26 am

Originally posted by Indy
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/03/18 ... index.html

I think diversity is what allows a person to develope individuality and the more things that a child is exsposed to helps them develope more character so I'm not opposed to my child reading anything of that nature. At least they're reading

Meggie · Post by **Meggie** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 12:29 am

Originally posted by Meggie
dont ask why, but i was watching an old episode of reading rainbow the other day, you know that part where the kids talk about books? anyway there was one kid with his best friend (both boys) maybe 6 years old or so, anyway the kid was like im jeff, and this is my best friend timmy, blah blah blah blah and anyway at the end of his thing he kissed his friend on the cheek. this episode was probably from the 80s, it didnt look that weird, why would it be acceptable then but not now?

and i very much doubt that back then, the kids were reading a book about princes kissing....

what next? two boy best friends wont be able to hug each other? lets take away any type of effection that boys can show, then make us women complain about why our boyfriends/husbands dont know how to express themselves in a loving way.

European men kiss each other all the time, are they gay? no.
did they read the book about the prince's? no.

i swear this country is so full of homophobes.

The_Lurker · Post by **The_Lurker** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 12:55 am

why must MY child be exposed to this? against my will and teachings?

why not teach children the basics (three R's) and leave deeper concepts and ideas to me and my wife while they are developing!

once a child (up to 12, 13, 14) becomes older, then introduce deeper concepts and ideas.

but for petes sake, quit introducing ideas and concepts that are contrary to our beliefs and ideas to my children against my will !!!!!!!!!!!!!

hetorosexuality is the "norm" (not Norm per se) and standard. with out it we wouldn't be here.

if homosexuality were "normal", humanity would have died off an eon ago.

let homosexual and non homosexual parents introduce ideas and concepts to there own children.!!!!

gee ripes!!

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 1:05 am

Originally posted by The_Lurker
why must MY child be exposed to this? against my will and teachings?

why not teach children the basics (three R's) and leave deeper concepts and ideas to me and my wife while they are developing!

once a child (up to 12, 13, 14) becomes older, then introduce deeper concepts and ideas.

but for petes sake, quit introducing ideas and concepts that are contrary to our beliefs and ideas to my children against my will !!!!!!!!!!!!!

hetorosexuality is the "norm" (not Norm per se) and standard. with out it we wouldn't be here.

if homosexuality were "normal", humanity would have died off an eon ago.

let homosexual and non homosexual parents introduce ideas and concepts to there own children.!!!!

gee ripes!!

Children are exposed to many different "deeper concepts" at young ages, and at times without the parents knowledge.

Reality isn't something to keep children away from IMHO
Homosexuallity is a reality whether your beliefs, or anyone elses, accept it or not.
Homosexuallity is also normal, whether you or anyone believes it or not.
Redheads are fewer than say brunettes, but they are still normal.

Your beliefs seem to (IMHO) have twisted reality to suit your agenda.

The_Lurker · Post by **The_Lurker** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 1:25 am

Originally posted by Norm
Children are exposed to many different "deeper concepts" at young ages, and at times without the parents knowledge.

Reality isn't something to keep children away from IMHO
Homosexuallity is a reality whether your beliefs, or anyone elses, accept it or not.
Homosexuallity is also normal, whether you or anyone believes it or not.
Redheads are fewer than say brunettes, but they are still normal.

Your beliefs seem to (IMHO) have twisted reality to suit your agenda.

ok, lets look at the "reality" of this.

if homosexuality is a naturaly occuring thing, then nature (through darwinsm) has a natural way of dealing with it. done deal.
red heads and mexicans and heterosexual dwarfs can still naturally procreate! period!!

the reality is that there is a agenda at work here, being pushed by these so called Uber "hollyweird" elitist, (who think they know better) that is contrary to the general publics ideas and beliefs.

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 1:43 am

Originally posted by The_Lurker
the reality is that there is a agenda at work here, being pushed by these so called Uber "hollyweird" elitist, (who think they know better) that is contrary to the general publics ideas and beliefs.

The "agenda" is being pushed by people like you. You're trying to control people based on your own irrational fears and hoping to brainwash your own kids and others into believing that normal human variation isn't normal.

And guess what? You guys are losing. Big time.

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 1:46 am

Originally posted by The_Lurker
ok, lets look at the "reality" of this.

if homosexuality is a naturaly occuring thing, then nature (through darwinsm) has a natural way of dealing with it. done deal.
red heads and mexicans and heterosexual dwarfs can still naturally procreate! period!!

the reality is that there is a agenda at work here, being pushed by these so called Uber "hollyweird" elitist, (who think they know better) that is contrary to the general publics ideas and beliefs.

The general public IMHO has too many of there own personal issues to be worrying about anyone elses.

Homosexuallity IS a "naturally occurring thing"
It may not be as numerically high as heterosexuallity, but it is VERY natural.

Gay's suffer great mental stress because they think (due to societies pressures, and beliefs) that they are bad, wierd, abnormal, deviant, etc etc etc.
They know how natural it, but have to hide thier 'forced shame' and feelings, or face undeserved insults, taunting, disassociations, hate etc etc etc.

And for what?

So you, and others of the same beliefs can feel they are MORE normal, and somehow better?

Kyle · Post by **Kyle** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 1:49 am

Originally posted by torsten
The "agenda" is being pushed by people like you. You're trying to control people based on your own irrational fears and hoping to brainwash your own kids and others into believing that normal human variation isn't normal.

And guess what? You guys are losing. Big time.

Lurker, This is already the most shielded over regulated country in the world, because of the beleifs of a few pilgrims hundreds of years ago. Why do you not relize you are simply blindly following the beleifs that were told to you by your parents, and them from theres? It is pointless, wake up and THINK FOR YOURSELF! Why be afraid of nature?

But even regardless of beleifs, homosexuality is real and here to stay, just having different beleifs is NO EXCUSE for being ignorant of the world around you.

Kyler1

The_Lurker · Post by **The_Lurker** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 1:54 am

Originally posted by torsten
The "agenda" is being pushed by people like you. You're trying to control people based on your own irrational fears and hoping to brainwash your own kids and others into believing that normal human variation isn't normal.

And guess what? You guys are losing. Big time.

control? are you nuts? you must be.

none of this nonsense should be taught in public schools.

fact is homosexuality is an aberration on the human condition kept at a naturaly low occurance by nature. now it is being propped up and propagated by said elitist.

heck, cancer occurs naturally from sporadic cosmic rays.
certainly doesn't make it right, ok or good!

this is a basic culture war. and the numbers are on the heterosexuals side .

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:04 am

Originally posted by The_Lurker
control? are you nuts? you must be.

none of this nonsense should be taught in public schools.

fact is homosexuality is an aberration on the human condition kept at a naturaly low occurance by nature. now it is being propped up and propagated by said elitist.

heck, cancer occurs naturally from sporadic cosmic rays.
certainly doesn't make it right, ok or good!

this is a basic culture war. and the numbers are on the heterosexuals side .

Nonsense?
An abberation?
Now I'm angry and will bow out of this thread before I go off half cocked again and make a fool of myself.

But before I go....
I am not gay.
I could care less if someone is gay or not.
A persons sexual preference is not what makes a good person.
IMHO allowing ones mind to be twisted by the propaganda thrown at us all through life is what makes a person good, or bad.

I feel so sorry for those who succumb to it, but there is very little, if anything, I can do about it.

cho · Post by **cho** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:17 am

Originally posted by The_Lurker
ok, lets look at the "reality" of this.

if homosexuality is a naturaly occuring thing, then nature (through darwinsm) has a natural way of dealing with it. done deal.

Not such a done deal...Gay people have been around for a very long time over 2000 years, they have not died out and as technology advances it also helps them survive, as it does all of us. I see no reason why all of a sudden gay people would cease to exisit.

Kyle · Post by **Kyle** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:23 am

Originally posted by The_Lurker
control? are you nuts? you must be.

none of this nonsense should be taught in public schools.

fact is homosexuality is an aberration on the human condition kept at a naturaly low occurance by nature. now it is being propped up and propagated by said elitist.

heck, cancer occurs naturally from sporadic cosmic rays.
certainly doesn't make it right, ok or good!

this is a basic culture war. and the numbers are on the heterosexuals side .

Racism strikes again simply with a different face...

I agree with Norm and am unsubscribing this thread.
Kyler1

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:25 am

If you all did the required research, you would find that homosexuality is genetic.

The religious conservatives try to counter this with a study on twins. Since identical twins have the same genetic structure....why, in the gay/lesbian study group, did 45% turn out to be gay while 55% did not? (translated means this: One twin was gay while the other was not) The answer is penetrance. Genes have a factor called penetrance. IT's the penetrance factor which determines everything. Let's say you carry a gene for a specific disease...if the penetrance factor of that gene is only 30%...you won't develop the disease.

Blisster · Post by **Blisster** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:05 am

Originally posted by The_Lurker

none of this nonsense should be taught in public schools.

fact is homosexuality is an aberration on the human condition kept at a naturaly low occurance by nature.

this is a basic culture war. and the numbers are on the heterosexuals side .

your narrowminded way of thinking is the same path that almost lead the jews to extinction. enjoy your shielded self-absorbed, narrowminded, "morally right" holocaustal way of life.

this is the most ****ing inhuman, NAZI-ist, intolerant thing i have possible ever heard. Welcome to the dark ages my friend, gald you could make it.

vinnie · Post by **vinnie** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 8:58 am

Lollerberries... You see some funny things in the support of homosexuality at times. To want to not expose children to it at a young age somehow means that you support killing jews? Interesting.

As a matter of curiosity for those advocating that we teach our children at a young age that some men like inserting their penises into other mens anuses, where do you draw your line?

What *isn't* okay to teach children as acceptable? I draw my line at heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage as anyhow who knows me knows.

What's acceptable to you? Is bestiality okay? Is group sex okay? Is non-consentual sex okay? Is necrophilia okay? Is 'swinging' okay? What's your line?

That's all it is really, lines people draw in the sand from a subjective perspective. I know where mine is and have never been ashamed to announce it- who else is willing to state their line?

Cliffs' Notes
1. Mine sexual acceptance line for teaching children stands at heterosexual sex within marriage.
2. Who's willing to state theirs?

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:05 am

I'm not taking sides in this issue, but the book wasn't about the anus and the penis.

vinne, can you point me to any children's story where after the Prince and Princess get together, the rest of the story is about the penis and the vigina? I'd then agree that your line of reasoning would be correct.....

cho · Post by **cho** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 11:27 am

Why would teaching your kids about gay people at a young age involve anal sex. What kind of a dumb unworthy parent would do that. If you were going to teach them about being gay or gay people at a young age you should keep in Pg-13. If a parents son or daughter saw a hetero couple kissing on the street would you tell them about sex right away? Why do have to push the gay life style to that level?

The_Lurker · Post by **The_Lurker** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 11:32 am

Originally posted by Blisster
your narrowminded way of thinking is the same path that almost lead the jews to extinction. enjoy your shielded self-absorbed, narrowminded, "morally right" holocaustal way of life.

this is the most ****ing inhuman, NAZI-ist, intolerant thing i have possible ever heard. Welcome to the dark ages my friend, gald you could make it.

now this is funny!! all you can do is attack me but YOU CANNOT discount the truth.

fact is, homosexuality would be kept to a NATURALLY low level if left to nature!
simple. prove me wrong!

i haven't advocated taking anyones rights away, or killing them. LOL

so lets see here, since i don't see things YOUR way, i am a nazi jew hating, narowminded, ect ect. LOLOLOL yeah right.

maybe you need to rethink that buddy.

fact, certian "people" want to teach 100$% of children (not teens or young adults) about something that happens to 5-7% of society.

Blisster · Post by **Blisster** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 1:27 pm

As a matter of curiosity for those advocating that we teach our children at a young age that some men like inserting their penises into other mens anuses, where do you draw your line?

so along these lines of thinking, would you generalize so-called normal human sexuality down to simply the act of a man sticking his **** into a womans cunt? When your child asks you about sex and relationships, will this be the immediate description that comes to your mind and to your tongue? what about sticking your **** in a womans mouth? lets not forget that. or inseting your tounge into a womans *****. Is the sheer physiological aspect of it really what its all about?

of course not. So why do you constantly have to reduce homosexuals to "anal probing butt pirates"? is that really all its about? If thats what you truly believe, then you sir, are as ignorant as they come.

To want to not expose children to it at a young age somehow means that you support killing jews? Interesting.

no, i never said that to not want to expose children to it at a young age somehow means that you support killing jews.

fact is homosexuality is an aberration on the human condition kept at a naturaly low occurance by nature.

this is a basic culture war. and the numbers are on the heterosexuals side.

I was merely pointing out the fact that this train of thought sounds an awful lot like what Hitler proclaimed to justify his "culture war" that massacred some 6 million people that he felt were an "abberation" of the human race.

fact is, homosexuality would be kept to a NATURALLY low level if left to nature!
simple. prove me wrong!

i haven't advocated taking anyones rights away, or killing them. LOL

so lets see here, since i don't see things YOUR way, i am a nazi jew hating, narowminded, ect ect. LOLOLOL yeah right.

fact, certian "people" want to teach 100$% of children (not teens or young adults) about something that happens to 5-7% of society.

Lurker, I'm sorry if what i said came off as though I was accusing you of being a nazi, that is not what I meant, and my intent was not to attack you personally. I was merely pointing out the fact (perhaps rather abrasively, but **** it, I'm an abrasive mother****ing fag-lover) that your comments about human abberations and culture wars sounds alot like the doctrine of a certiain ethnic purist who wreaked havok upon the human race not that long ago.

5-7% OF 6,357,633,491 people is a rather large group, wouldn't you say? 445 million or so, roughly. Thats almost twice the population of America. I think that deserves an acknowlegement of some sort, don't you?

vinnie · Post by **vinnie** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 5:41 pm

Originally posted by Blisster
of course not. So why do you constantly have to reduce homosexuals to "anal probing butt pirates"? is that really all its about? If thats what you truly believe, then you sir, are as ignorant as they come.

I never said anything like that. I merely stated in basic biological terms exactly what it is they do.

Lets not beat around the bush here, homosexual men will often, if not always either insert or a recieve a penis in the anus. Why is that such a distasteful thing to say? Why do people get upset when I mention that?

On some level, even some people who support homosexuality, people will often find it distasteful. Discussing fellatio or cunnilingus or heterosexual vaginal intercourse is unlikely to prompt the same reaction is it? Lets not compare then

Ignorant? Me? Ha ha... you've got no idea why I post here now I suppose... ask around, thousands of people know why, you'll run into one eventually I'm sure

Brandon_k_W · Post by **Brandon_k_W** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:06 pm

Originally posted by Blisster

of course not. So why do you constantly have to reduce homosexuals to "anal probing butt pirates"? is that really all its about? If thats what you truly believe, then you sir, are as ignorant as they come.

That's what they are, no? How could one be a homosexual, and yet, not be attracted to another man sexually?

Loonatic · Post by **Loonatic** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:19 pm

Blisster, are you sure you arent a closet case yourself? You defend them so much, just seems so.

vinnie · Post by **vinnie** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:27 pm

Originally posted by Loonatic
Blisster, are you sure you arent a closet case yourself? You defend them so much, just seems so.

That's kinda immature. It doesn't do much for anyone if people start throwing personal insults around like that. Let them degrade themselves with that kind of crap, it's better to avoid it

Paft · Post by **Paft** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:29 pm

((Cross-posted from another forum on this issue.))

I have to weigh in slightly on the "parents were wrong" side in this case.

While I think that schools should be only teaching students /true/ education (Math/Science/Literature/English/Art), if the schools are going to put stuff out there that deviates from that then all sides need to be shown. You want to put out a prince/princess story? Fine, have a homosexual one as well, and a polygamous one. Have a Bible in the building? Better have a Torah, Qu'ran, Elder/Lesser Atta, etcetera on hand so that the students can study all sides of an issue and decide for themselves what to believe.

Either don't show any sides, or show them all.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:29 pm

Originally posted by Loonatic
Blisster, are you sure you arent a closet case yourself? You defend them so much, just seems so.

IF your going to reduce this to nothing more than name calling, and I'm just not pointing Loonitic out.....I'm going to have to close it.

Either stay on topic or find another thread.. a little tid bit for everyone.

There are some good points here and also some dang silly arguments..

vinnie · Post by **vinnie** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:42 pm

Originally posted by Paft
if the schools are going to put stuff out there that deviates from that then all sides need to be shown. You want to put out a prince/princess story? Fine, have a homosexual one as well, and a polygamous one.

Like I said before, it's all a case of line drawing. Where do you think line should be drawn?

Why not books about bestiality? Necrophilia? Group sex? Books supporting child molestation? Books supporting group sex with dead children and animals all in the one go? Books describing in intimate detail about raping children with garden implements?

People do these things. Yes, some of it seems pretty distasteful to me, but where exactly does everyone else want to draw the line? They are not 'different', these things are not 'abberations', these are not 'abnormal', these are sexual acts that some people participate in and therefore are completely natual and acceptable to some.

Where do you want to stop telling children it's okay for these things to happen?

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:48 pm

Originally posted by Paft
((Cross-posted from another forum on this issue.))

I have to weigh in slightly on the "parents were wrong" side in this case.

While I think that schools should be only teaching students /true/ education (Math/Science/Literature/English/Art), if the schools are going to put stuff out there that deviates from that then all sides need to be shown. You want to put out a prince/princess story? Fine, have a homosexual one as well, and a polygamous one. Have a Bible in the building? Better have a Torah, Qu'ran, Elder/Lesser Atta, etcetera on hand so that the students can study all sides of an issue and decide for themselves what to believe.

Either don't show any sides, or show them all.

Paft, if homosexuality is genetically linked, then what "choice" is there to make?

Or are we talking about tolerance?

Paft · Post by **Paft** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:51 pm

Originally posted by vinnie
Like I said before, it's all a case of line drawing. Where do you think line should be drawn?

I told you where. I want it drawn BEFORE these things become an issue.

Why not books about bestiality? Necrophilia? Group sex? Books supporting child molestation? Books supporting group sex with dead children and animals all in the one go? Books describing in intimate detail about raping children with garden implements?

Well, if there's someone out there that wants to present a book about those topics, then by my beliefs those would have to be stocked. Granted I don't like the idea of those things, but like I said, if you are going to present one side then present 'em all.

People do these things. Yes, some of it seems pretty distasteful to me, but where exactly does everyone else want to draw the line? They are not 'different', these things are not 'abberations', these are not 'abnormal', these are sexual acts that some people participate in and therefore are completely natual and acceptable to some.

I won't get into what is and is not "natural". If it is done and someone could be exposed to it, then knowing about it allows them to act intelligently and informed when the situation arises, either to reject or accept what is being done. Ignorance is the cause of a lot of problems in this world.

Where do you want to stop telling children it's okay for these things to happen?

I didn't say it's "ok". I said that if you present one side you present them all. That doesn't mean some can't be presented negatively and some positively - just present truthful information.

Paft · Post by **Paft** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:53 pm

Originally posted by UOD
Paft, if homosexuality is genetically linked, then what "choice" is there to make?

Or are we talking about tolerance?

Er.. I was talking about the parents yanking the book from the library and if the library was right to have shown the book in the first place. I didn't say anything about choice referring to homo/heterosexuality there. And if I did, I don't see it.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:00 pm

Originally posted by Paft
Er.. I was talking about the parents yanking the book from the library and if the library was right to have shown the book in the first place. I didn't say anything about choice referring to homo/heterosexuality there. And if I did, I don't see it.

so that the students can study all sides of an issue and decide for themselves what to believe.

What is there to decide? Just asking.

Paft · Post by **Paft** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:07 pm

Originally posted by UOD
What is there to decide? Just asking.

OH. Gotcha.

I meant that the students could decide for themselves which viewpoints to embrace, and which to reject. For example, they could choose to support homosexuality or be against it. But at least they'd have the choice to make their minds up for themselves.

Loonatic · Post by **Loonatic** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:17 pm

Originally posted by downhill
IF your going to reduce this to nothing more than name calling, and I'm just not pointing Loonitic out.....I'm going to have to close it.

Either stay on topic or find another thread.. a little tid bit for everyone.

There are some good points here and also some dang silly arguments..

I didnt name call, but point taken.

Blisster · Post by **Blisster** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:56 pm

Originally posted by Loonatic
Blisster, are you sure you arent a closet case yourself? You defend them so much, just seems so.

Nope, not a closet-case whatsoever.

SG Broadband Community

Appropriate, or no?

Re: Appropriate, or no?