School Boards Promoting Homosexuality?

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I do but the state doesn’t reflect my views on a range of issues. I think it should be called a partnership or union by the state, not marriage because I don’t believe the state has the authority to grant marriage except in a legalistic sense.

This is semi-true. Fact is...we've given the state that authority. The deep moral imperative of marriage has been sacked.

I'm not sure how I feel about that but...it is a fact today.

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Example of what? The Drag Queen at pre-school not cuttin' it for ya?

Is that what that was?  Nothing in the article explained what, where or when that picture was taken.  Was it a man in drag?  A transgender person?  Was this an event parents brought their children to?  
No context whatsoever, so is evidence for nothing. 
 

I’m starting to think this is more of a moral panic situation for you than an actual issue that is really happening in the real world.  
 

Moral panics strike me as dishonest, easily refuted, and completely boring.  But still catch on amongst a subset of the population.  Like the satanic panic of the 80s.  Much ado over nothing. 

[TreeBeard]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

The deep moral imperative of marriage has been sacked.

What is the deep moral imperative of marriage?

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Is that what that was?  Nothing in the article explained what, where or when that picture was taken.  Was it a man in drag?  A transgender person?  Was this an event parents brought their children to?  
No context whatsoever, so is evidence for nothing. 
 

I’m starting to think this is more of a moral panic situation for you than an actual issue that is really happening in the real world.  
 

Moral panics strike me as dishonest, easily refuted, and completely boring.  But still catch on amongst a subset of the population.  Like the satanic panic of the 80s.  Much ado over nothing. 

Lol...and the dodging continues...

Do you Libbies have any principles at all?

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

What is the deep moral imperative of marriage?

Make babies! What? Did you really think it was all just meant to be a financial arrangement?

[TreeBeard]

29 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Make babies! What? Did you really think it was all just meant to be a financial arrangement?

You feel that making a baby is a moral good?  Which means, not having babies is immoral?

Can’t this deep moral imperative be accomplished without marriage?

Edited September 6, 2022 by TreeBeard

[TreeBeard]

46 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Do you Libbies have any principles at all?

You haven’t provided any real world examples that I can apply my principles to…. You’ve only provided a picture of what you describe as a drag queen, and I am supposed to be outraged by it.
 

Do you have any real examples to discuss? 

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You feel that making a baby is a moral good?  Which means, not having babies is immoral?

Can’t this deep moral imperative be accomplished without marriage?

I didn't say that. Don't be thick.

The moral imperative of life itself...is to reproduce. It is part of the primary imperative to live. It is our own instincts that dictate this. 

Yes of course we can reproduce without marriage. Hell I almost did it...but "marriage" isn't just a word...an arrangement. Nor is it an excuse. It's a commitment. One taken too lightly these days. It's a couple...hetero or homo...saying "I love you enough to want you to be a part of my being. To merge as one. Emotionally and physically".

Now...for me, it was also a statement of who I thought would make the best mommy. And I do believe that too is an instinct. 

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Yes of course we can reproduce without marriage.

Can 2 people commit to each other without getting married (I’m assuming by a church?  Not the state?) as much as 2 people who choose to get married?

[Zeitgeist]

55 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Make babies! What? Did you really think it was all just meant to be a financial arrangement?

Make them, care for them, ensure that they have good values and examples.

 

26 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You feel that making a baby is a moral good?  Which means, not having babies is immoral?

Can’t this deep moral imperative be accomplished without marriage?

So why not grow babies in test tubes and take parents out of the equation?  You don’t seem to think marriage means much.  I don’t expect you to care about parenting either.  As long as people can pleasure seek, take whatever drugs and surgeries they want, up to partial birth abortion and euthanasia, who cares if young kids are exposed to all forms of sexual behaviour, right?  There’s a lot more to marriage and parenting than your positions appreciate.  What we do with education is values driven, whether or not we pretend otherwise.  We won’t get to a consensus as long as there’s an insistence on teaching about forms of sexual preference in primary classes.  It should be left out of elementary school altogether.

Edited September 6, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[Nationalist]

9 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You haven’t provided any real world examples that I can apply my principles to…. You’ve only provided a picture of what you describe as a drag queen, and I am supposed to be outraged by it.
 

Do you have any real examples to discuss? 

https://www.safeatschool.ca/resources/resources-on-equity-and-inclusion/homophobia/tool-kits-and-activities

https://wordpress.oise.utoronto.ca/diversityinteaching/lgbtq-learners/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/catholic-school-teacher-in-ontario-aggressively-promotes-lgbt-agenda-to-small-children/

[TreeBeard]

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

So why not grow babies in test tubes and take parents out of the equation?

Because babies literally need parents for nurturing.  
 

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You don’t seem to think marriage means much.  I don’t expect you to care about parenting either.

You’re correct on your first point, and being hyperbolic and silly on your 2nd point.  Do you think a marriage is necessary to make and care for children?

 

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

As long as people can pleasure seek, take whatever drugs and surgeries they want, up to partial birth abortion and euthanasia, who cares if young kids are exposed to all forms of sexual behaviour, right?

Speaking of hyperbolic nonsense…. That statement is a shitstorm of hyperbole.  Wow. 
 

 

[TreeBeard]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

https://www.safeatschool.ca/resources/resources-on-equity-and-inclusion/homophobia/tool-kits-and-activities

https://wordpress.oise.utoronto.ca/diversityinteaching/lgbtq-learners/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/catholic-school-teacher-in-ontario-aggressively-promotes-lgbt-agenda-to-small-children/

I think all those look great, on the face of it.  What do you find objectionable (try not to be so vague)?

[Zeitgeist]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

Because babies literally need parents for nurturing.  
 

You’re correct on your first point, and being hyperbolic and silly on your 2nd point.  Do you think a marriage is necessary to make and care for children?

 

Speaking of hyperbolic nonsense…. That statement is a shitstorm of hyperbole.  Wow. 
 

 

Your positions are consistent with all of those outcomes.  Pretty horrific.  Go back and read Huxley’s Brave New World.  He didn’t know about the possibilities brought by our current data collection and surveillance tech.  He’d have a field day if he saw our society.  

[Nationalist]

10 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Can 2 people commit to each other without getting married (I’m assuming by a church?  Not the state?) as much as 2 people who choose to get married?

Good question.

Can we? I would say many already do. I think maybe we can...but would we?

There's a theory that mankind...and indeed all animals...naturally develop a society. One of the by products of that is...hierarchy. Another is rules. One of these ever so ancient rules has been...a couple intent on making a life together, proclaim this to the community and...their Gawd.

So I don't know if we can...as a whole...dispense with traditional marriage. Even gay people want to get married. For lack of a better term...it is indeed...or at least should be...a "holy" bond.

[TreeBeard]

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Your positions are consistent with all of those outcomes.  Pretty horrific.  

This is what the Catholic Church said about divorce, premarital sex and birth control….  But, in all those cases, Catholics are no different than the rest of society, even if the church pretends it is still against all those things.  

[Nationalist]

10 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

I think all those look great, on the face of it.  What do you find objectionable (try not to be so vague)?

Sexual curriculum or sexual anything, does not belong anywhere near elementary school.!

I cannot be any more clear.

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Good question.

Can we? I would say many already do. I think maybe we can...but would we?

There's a theory that mankind...and indeed all animals...naturally develop a society. One of the by products of that is...hierarchy. Another is rules. One of these ever so ancient rules has been...a couple intent on making a life together, proclaim this to the community and...their Gawd.

So I don't know if we can...as a whole...dispense with traditional marriage. Even gay people want to get married. For lack of a better term...it is indeed...or at least should be...a "holy" bond.

Even if some can, then that eliminates the argument that marriage is a “deep moral imperative “.   It simply isn’t if the same thing can be accomplished without it.  
 

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Sexual curriculum or sexual anything, does not belong anywhere near elementary school.!

I cannot be any more clear.

Meh.  That’s more moral panic.  Teaching kids that there can be families with 2 dads or two moms, a) isn’t sexualizing in any way, and b) simply reflects the reality that children see every day.  
 

Boring, non issue.  The kids are alright.  

[Zeitgeist]

4 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

This is what the Catholic Church said about divorce, premarital sex and birth control….  But, in all those cases, Catholics are no different than the rest of society, even if the church pretends it is still against all those things.  

I don’t admire your low expectations.  You lack a sense of the good.  It’s all about what one can get away with under the law without going to jail and why shouldn’t we be able to get as low as possible?   It’s a lame credo or lack thereof.  It’s nihilistic but certainly reflects the emptiness that increasingly clouds our modern/post-modern human condition.  

[Nationalist]

15 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Even if some can, then that eliminates the argument that marriage is a “deep moral imperative “.   It simply isn’t if the same thing can be accomplished without it.  
 

No it doesn't. Remember...we're speaking of "moral imperatives". And what would drive our morality?

Our instincts.

[Nationalist]

16 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Meh.  That’s more moral panic.  Teaching kids that there can be families with 2 dads or two moms, a) isn’t sexualizing in any way, and b) simply reflects the reality that children see every day.  
 

Boring, non issue.  The kids are alright.  

You're being flippant.

It's a tad more that 'daddy and daddy' and you know it.

[TreeBeard]

21 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

No it doesn't. Remember...we're speaking of "moral imperatives". And what would drive our morality?

Our instincts.

Disagree completely.  Harm (lack thereof) to others in society should be what drives our morality.  
 

Instincts are fallible.  Instincts drive tribalism and not caring for “the other”.   We’re better than that.  
 

20 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

You're being flippant.

It's a tad more that 'daddy and daddy' and you know it.

I’m flippant because you haven’t shown that it is any more than that whatsoever.  

[TreeBeard]

40 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You lack a sense of the good.  It’s all about what one can get away with under the law without going to jail and why shouldn’t we be able to get as low as possible?

We got rid of jail sentences for divorce, being gay and premarital sex for good reasons.   Laws that try and moralize, rather than being based on harm, are usually more immoral than what they’re trying to stop.  
 

Why do you care if two consenting adults have (perform?) cunnilingus.  In ‘69 (love the irony), Canada made it legal to have oral sex.   

Edited September 6, 2022 by TreeBeard

[Zeitgeist]

25 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

We got rid of jail sentences for divorce, being gay and premarital sex for good reasons.   Laws that try and moralize, rather than being based on harm, are usually more immoral than what they’re trying to stop.  
 

Why do you care if two consenting adults have (perform?) cunnilingus.  In ‘69 (love the irony), Canada made it legal to have oral sex.   

So if it’s a debate about what constitutes harm for you, many take the position that teaching young children about sexuality is harmful.  Where the line is drawn for young and what the content of sex ed should be are certainly debatable.  I’ve made my position clear about what constitutes important sex ed.  Sexual preference is not essential sex ed.  if it’s a topic raised by older students in terms of harm/risk, then I’m not opposed to that discussion taking place in a factual way.  The inclusion/rainbow component as representing various sexualities shouldn’t be in the curriculum, certainly not for young children because there’s no way to describe the symbol without reference to sexual proclivity.

Among older students it’s important that discussions of forms of sexuality are not presented by teachers as advocacy.  

Edited September 6, 2022 by Zeitgeist