SG Broadband Community

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:45 am**

No. I don't think kids should have access to libraries.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:45 am**

I like your Av Indy!

Kyler1

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:47 am**

I see no problem with the book.

"My child is not old enough to understand something like that, especially when it is not in our beliefs."

I also don't see the problem, if the child isn't old enough to understand it then what is the problem?? If they don't know what is happening then they will not be affected by it. If the parents are deeply concerned that the book will corrupt their daughter then they should sit her down and explain why it is wrong and against their beliefs.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:51 am**

I see a problem with this. The parents should be the teacher in this case not the school.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:57 am**

What about a homosexual's child? Should the parent be offended by what the schools have them read?

The thing is, if your going to make an exception it must go both ways. Now that could cause problems, kids not reading some of the classics and such. I would say get a good varity of books on many subjects and points of veiw and make it standard to all children.

Why is it parents don't have a problem with education, and like it, until it is something that they don't agree with? Having a particular set of beliefs is NO excuse for ignorence of others.

Kyler1

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 2:34 am**

The 32-page book by Linda De Haan and Stern Nijland was published in March 2002 by Tricycle Press, the children's division of Ten Speed Press of Berkeley, California. A follow-up, "King & King & Family," was recently published.

huh...not a major suprise...

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 4:49 am**

"My child is not old enough to understand something like that, especially when it is not in our beliefs."

Can you believe that statement? That just about sums up the mentality of people like that. I take it they hadn't been chaining her up in her room so she wouldn't have to see all the heterosexual couplings she wasn't old enough to understand.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 5:48 am**

Originally posted by torsten
Can you believe that statement? That just about sums up the mentality of people like that. I take it they hadn't been chaining her up in her room so she wouldn't have to see all the heterosexual couplings she wasn't old enough to understand.

Basically, what it all boils down to is that we should, by say their fourth birthday, be showing our children movies of men anally penetrating other men.

I don't think that any responsible parent in this day age should withhold such materical from their children. To do so would be nigh on criminal, in this day and ag removing a childs choice is immoral and wrong. Informing them of how some men choose to use an excretory orifice for pseduo intercourse is the only way to properly raise children.

Why is society so restrictive still when it comes to animals? Animals have sexual feelings too. I think it's a good thing for children to experiment with animals and sex, preferably at a young age. Say 6. That's a good time to start.

Is it really fair to deprive children of the sexual love an adult has to offer too? By say.. 9.. they should be capable of recieving such love without much permanent damage. Why stop this?

Why is society so protective? Don't they realise that by sheltering their children from these things they're only hurting them? They are removing the childs rights by not letting adults have loving sex with them and I think that's wrong.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:18 am**

i dunno i think thats alitte wrong.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:57 am**

Vinnie, you've COMPLETELY missed the point Torsten was trying to make. children see herto couples kissing EVERYDAY on TV, newspaper ads, movies, and DOZENS of other places. Should the child be restricted fromwatching TV, looking through the paper, watching or movies, or even going outside because she might not understand?

Most children understand herto love by age 6 because that's what they're exposed to. So why not give the same exposure to gays?

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:58 am**

I think it is ok because it teaches tolerance at an early age.

Which is something we are lacking.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:27 pm**

I think it's totally parents' responsibilty to edcuate their children about sexuality...not school. Sure it's a touchy topic but if you think the school isn't doing a good job, why not do it yourself?

If you look around on TV nowadays I wouldn't be surprised that young children know what "adult activities" are all about...

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:53 pm**

Originally posted by Ghosthunter
I think it is ok because it teaches tolerance at an early age.

Which is something we are lacking.

good point, and its evident in some of these posts

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:54 pm**

Originally posted by vinnie
Basically, what it all boils down to is that we should, by say their fourth birthday, be showing our children movies of men anally penetrating other men.

I don't think that any responsible parent in this day age should withhold such materical from their children. To do so would be nigh on criminal, in this day and ag removing a childs choice is immoral and wrong. Informing them of how some men choose to use an excretory orifice for pseduo intercourse is the only way to properly raise children.

Why is society so restrictive still when it comes to animals? Animals have sexual feelings too. I think it's a good thing for children to experiment with animals and sex, preferably at a young age. Say 6. That's a good time to start.

Is it really fair to deprive children of the sexual love an adult has to offer too? By say.. 9.. they should be capable of recieving such love without much permanent damage. Why stop this?

Why is society so protective? Don't they realise that by sheltering their children from these things they're only hurting them? They are removing the childs rights by not letting adults have loving sex with them and I think that's wrong.

im sure the book doesnt mention anything about sex. no more then a kids book that shows a prince and a princess talk about it.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:58 pm**

In My Opinion perhaps they should have better tagged that book so that the Parent knew what it was about first. I believe that the Parent should be the one to look at the book first and see if they want their child to view it or not.

The problem here is that this kind of stuff is available at a SCHOOL library. In My Opinion this kind of material should not be at a school library.

But, if it is, it needs to be separated from the other reading material. Perhaps a separate section in the library that could be titled with a political correct heading, so that the students know what kind of book it is before they check it out. Kinda like how we have Adventure, Scifi, etc… headings in libraries. That way the book would still be there, but the student would know what kind of book it is before they check it out. That would appease everyone, no?

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:02 pm**

Originally posted by Brent
In My Opinion perhaps they should have better tagged that book so that the Parent knew what it was about first. I believe that the Parent should be the one to look at the book first and see if they want their child to view it or not.

The problem here is that this kind of stuff is available at a SCHOOL library. In My Opinion this kind of material should not be at a school library.

But, if it is, it needs to be separated from the other reading material. Perhaps a separate section in the library that could be titled with a political correct heading, so that the students know what kind of book it is before they check it out. Kinda like how we have Adventure, Scifi, etc… headings in libraries. That way the book would still be there, but the student would know what kind of book it is before they check it out. That would appease everyone, no?

wow beleive it or not i agree with brent on a homosexual issue.... weird. Anyway, yea i think it should be available if u want ur kid to view it, but also distinguishable if you dont want ur kids to view it.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:15 pm**

Originally posted by Meggie
Anyway, yea i think it should be available if u want ur kid to view it, but also distinguishable if you dont want ur kids to view it.

Then same must apply to every book, for every kid. Period.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:35 pm**

Originally posted by vinnie
Basically, what it all boils down to is that we should, by say their fourth birthday, be showing our children movies of men anally penetrating other men.

I don't think that any responsible parent in this day age should withhold such materical from their children. To do so would be nigh on criminal, in this day and ag removing a childs choice is immoral and wrong. Informing them of how some men choose to use an excretory orifice for pseduo intercourse is the only way to properly raise children.

Why is society so restrictive still when it comes to animals? Animals have sexual feelings too. I think it's a good thing for children to experiment with animals and sex, preferably at a young age. Say 6. That's a good time to start.

Is it really fair to deprive children of the sexual love an adult has to offer too? By say.. 9.. they should be capable of recieving such love without much permanent damage. Why stop this?

Why is society so protective? Don't they realise that by sheltering their children from these things they're only hurting them? They are removing the childs rights by not letting adults have loving sex with them and I think that's wrong.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:42 pm**

Originally posted by vinnie
Basically, what it all boils down to is that we should, by say their fourth birthday, be showing our children movies of men anally penetrating other men.

I don't think that any responsible parent in this day age should withhold such materical from their children. To do so would be nigh on criminal, in this day and ag removing a childs choice is immoral and wrong. Informing them of how some men choose to use an excretory orifice for pseduo intercourse is the only way to properly raise children.

Why is society so restrictive still when it comes to animals? Animals have sexual feelings too. I think it's a good thing for children to experiment with animals and sex, preferably at a young age. Say 6. That's a good time to start.

Is it really fair to deprive children of the sexual love an adult has to offer too? By say.. 9.. they should be capable of recieving such love without much permanent damage. Why stop this?

Why is society so protective? Don't they realise that by sheltering their children from these things they're only hurting them? They are removing the childs rights by not letting adults have loving sex with them and I think that's wrong.

I gotta admit....while I know you are exaggerating to make your point...I agree with you. You made your point perfcectly. Your post shows what the other side doesn't want to expose...that there are in fact dangers to their line of thinking if taken to extremes.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 2:03 pm**

Originally posted by UOD
I gotta admit....while I know you are exaggerating to make your point...I agree with you. You made your point perfcectly. Your post shows what the other side doesn't want to expose...that there are in fact dangers to their line of thinking if taken to extremes.

What line of thinking doesn't lead to dangers if taken to extremes? That's why it's called "extreme." Not only was his sarcasm irrational, everything he said could be reversed and applied to heterosexuals (only then, the anti-gay types would actually see how irrational it is.) The fact is that neither a gay nor straight coupling has to lead to graphic sexual examples or inter-species porn for kiddies. The Brady Bunch has displayed heterosexual relationships to generations of kids, but they never showed Carol and Mike getting down.

These kind of hysterical and unrelated extreme arguments actually show just the opposite --- the fact that anti-gay prejudice doesn't have a solid intellectual underpinning. Bigotry rarely does.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 3:11 pm**

Originally posted by Kyler1
I like your Av Indy!

Kyler1

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 3:54 pm**

What the hell is up with our society promoting homosexuality?

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 3:56 pm**

Originally posted by torsten
What line of thinking doesn't lead to dangers if taken to extremes? That's why it's called "extreme." Not only was his sarcasm irrational, everything he said could be reversed and applied to heterosexuals (only then, the anti-gay types would actually see how irrational it is.) The fact is that neither a gay nor straight coupling has to lead to graphic sexual examples or inter-species porn for kiddies. The Brady Bunch has displayed heterosexual relationships to generations of kids, but they never showed Carol and Mike getting down.

These kind of hysterical and unrelated extreme arguments actually show just the opposite --- the fact that anti-gay prejudice doesn't have a solid intellectual underpinning. Bigotry rarely does.

Well then I think you should acknowledge that fact when you post instead of ONLY presenting your viewpoint. The problem here is this: you support sexual freedom but with what limitations? There are limits to everything bro. So where are your limits as it relates to sex? How do you define extreme sexual behavior that would be deemed unhealthy? We need to establish a baseline here Torsten.

Personally, I would rather have my child read about sex than read about bombmaking.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 4:01 pm**

Originally posted by Loonatic
What the hell is up with our society promoting homosexuality?

what the hell is up with you condemning difference/diversity?

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 4:37 pm**

Originally posted by Blisster
what the hell is up with you condemning difference/diversity?

Back off...

I didnt attack you, so dont attack me.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 4:45 pm**

it's not an attack, just responding to your comment in a similar framework. If it offends you, perhaps you ought to consider your comment?

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 4:50 pm**

Originally posted by UOD
Well then I think you should acknowledge that fact when you post instead of ONLY presenting your viewpoint. The problem here is this: you support sexual freedom but with what limitations? There are limits to everything bro. So where are your limits as it relates to sex? How do you define extreme sexual behavior that would be deemed unhealthy? We need to establish a baseline here Torsten.

Personally, I would rather have my child read about sex than read about bombmaking.

Most limits should be for individuals to decide for themselves. When it comes to law and policy, the only limits that are legitimate in a free society are those set to prevent direct harm to others. Note: offense does not equal harm.

I didn't understand what you meant in the first sentence. What viewpoint should I post other than my own? My view is that people with a narrow view of human sexuality shouldn't be able to impose that view on others through law or policy. What are you suggesting...... that I argue that they should be able to?

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 5:15 pm**

Originally posted by torsten
Most limits should be for individuals to decide for themselves. When it comes to law and policy, the only limits that are legitimate in a free society are those set to prevent direct harm to others. Note: offense does not equal harm.

I didn't understand what you meant in the first sentence. What viewpoint should I post other than my own? My view is that people with a narrow view of human sexuality shouldn't be able to impose that view on others through law or policy. What are you suggesting...... that I argue that they should be able to?

You are a little vague in your dirct/offense/harm stance but I understand where you are coming from. I can work with that.

What I meant was this: I think it's important to reveal the downside to every argument. In this case, sexual freedom can lead to abuse if limits aren't in place. Your willingness to admit that your own view isn't perfect demonstrates objectivity in a very emotionally charged issue.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 5:38 pm**

UOD,

What kind of limits do you have in mind? Legal ones?

Beyond limits for direct harm, I think thoroughly educating people about odds and consequences is the only realistic answer. That goes for drugs, driving, skydiving or anything that can be potentially dangerous. Of course even with that some people will make unwise choices, but that's inevitable in a free society -- and preferable to restricting freedom.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 6:15 pm**

How many children's fantasy stories have you heard/read that have the happy ending where a Prince marries ANOTHER Prince? WTF. This book needs to be taken off school shelves just because it sounds stupid. No child needs to be reading something like this.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 6:39 pm**

I just came up with a brilliant idea. Let's take all the books out of schools, and just set the kids up and beat them with sticks. They ought to learn something that way. I'm sure there is somebody out there that is going to be offended by something in every book. Why not just save the trouble?

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 7:53 pm**

Originally posted by torsten
UOD,

What kind of limits do you have in mind? Legal ones?

Beyond limits for direct harm, I think thoroughly educating people about odds and consequences is the only realistic answer. That goes for drugs, driving, skydiving or anything that can be potentially dangerous. Of course even with that some people will make unwise choices, but that's inevitable in a free society -- and preferable to restricting freedom.

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.

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?

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:15 pm**

Originally posted by Brandon_k_W
How many children's fantasy stories have you heard/read that have the happy ending where a Prince marries ANOTHER Prince? WTF. This book needs to be taken off school shelves just because it sounds stupid. No child needs to be reading something like this.

I agree...

All stupid sounding books should be taken off the shelves. Starting with one I read about a ring that ruled other rings...what a bunch of tripe. Then there were these other humanoids..orcs, hobbits, elves and fairies...what a bunch of bull. Who ever heard of those things. No child needs to be reading something like this.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:29 pm**

Originally posted by *cho*
I agree...

All stupid sounding books should be taken off the shelves. Starting with one I read about a ring that ruled other rings...what a bunch of tripe. Then there were these other humanoids..orcs, hobbits, elves and fairies...what a bunch of bull. Who ever heard of those things. No child needs to be reading something like this.

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

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:47 pm**

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

in today's day and age, they will have to learn about homosexuality sooner or later.

I think a childrens book is a little absurd, as this is not something that should be treated in a childish manner. We don't have children's books about WW2 or the like do we?

I think the real question is why is everyone getting so upset over this. This is a fact of life...we need to get used to it. There are far worse things then two men or two women kissing....like the fear and discrimination that they receive.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:51 pm**

Originally posted by drdoug99
in today's day and age, they will have to learn about homosexuality sooner or later.

I think a childrens book is a little absurd, as this is not something that should be treated in a childish manner. We don't have children's books about WW2 or the like do we?

I think the real question is why is everyone getting so upset over this. This is a fact of life...we need to get used to it. There are far worse things then two men or two women kissing....like the fear and discrimination that they receive.

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.

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 10:05 pm**

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.

I don't think it's about the content...but rather the delivery.

Can't we just let kids decide on their own without special interest twisting their arm?

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:15 pm**

Originally posted by UOD
Can't we just let kids decide on their own without special interest twisting their arm?

Decide?!?

So one day all gay guys just say "HEY, I think I'll be gay! Ya, that looks like fun..."? It is simply how the brain works, no DECISION involved. It is JUST as hard for one of them to become straight as it would be for you to become gay.

Kyler1

Posted: **Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:27 pm**

Originally posted by Kyler1
It is simply how the brain works, no DECISION involved.

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.

SG Broadband Community

Appropriate, or no?

Appropriate, or no?