Marriage & Family Under Attack.

[Hugo]

I'd go a little further and draw attention to political meetings in the Soviet Union, held in the armed forces and industry, to "educate" people about the evils of capitalism and the overwhelming good of Marxism.

It's one thing to try and equip people to think for themselves. It's another when you start telling them what to think.

I'd also say that if you have to educate, inform and argue so much to justify your own point of view, it's obviously not self-evident. We have no need for education on why murder is wrong - it's pretty obvious, even to a moron. The very act of endless argument and justification proves that the object of it is questionable.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Working together, in a highly stressful, potentially dangerous environment, you cannot have friction between co-workers. Obvious right? (The effectiveness of a seceratary is compromised if she refused to speak to men.) I don't think it comes down to morallity per se but more of a Utilitarian kind of rule based structure, what is the best way to get these people to work together to be the most productive? In all jobs they have some sort of sensitivity training, either formal or informal. Someone working around the elderly probably shouldn't swear a lot; racist humour shouldn't be acceptable at the workplace, and so on. Its not that your being brain washed, more like being educated on how to do your job best.

[Neal.F.]

The secretary you described should be spoken to, and if she was incapable of changeing her attitude, sack her & replace her with someone who fits into the organization better.

There is such a thing as common sense, and it does not need to be dictated by "political officers"

[Pellaken]

you people crack me up.

yes, we are going to die everyone to chairs, and say "gay is good" untill everyone thinks it is

if we wanted to brainwash people, we'd do it the same way the conservatives brainwashed us into beleiving in capitalism. no one will ever notice.

but, alas, we dont. we, unlike you, respect personal social freedom.

[Neal.F.]

You don't get it. What mandatory sensitivity training courses are is nothing more than corportate or government intimidation.

If you want promotion, or to keep your job, you had better act publicly as you are instructed to with regard to these issues we consider important though they actually have nothing to do with doing your job effectively.

No.. That's not intimidation...

[Pellaken]

You don't get it. What mandatory sensitivity training courses are is nothing more than corportate or government intimidation.

If you want promotion, or to keep your job, you had better act publicly as you are instructed to with regard to these issues we consider important though they actually have nothing to do with doing your job effectively.

No.. That's not intimidation...

what the heck are you talking about?

I do not support any mandatory anything.

[Neal.F.]

We were talking about "Sensitivity training" that is mandatory for all civil servants, and many private sector employees, courtesy of your friendly neighbourhood PC Police.

[Pellaken]

it seems to me like people are going all out to prevent someone from being offended

oh no, we cant say fag, because that's offencive

oh no, we cant quote the quran, because that's offensive

oh no, we cant quote the bible, because it's offensive

oh no, we cant say "black" because it's offensive

oh no, we cant say caveman in school textbooks

oh no, we cant say girl, when talking to a woman

oh no, we cant look at people the wrong way

oh no, we cant show emotion, its too offensive

oh no, we cant NOT show emotion, that's too offencive too.

oh no, we cant live, cause that's offensice

oh no, we cant commit suiside, because that's offensive

well, guess I'll just sit here till I wither away... oh wait, I cant do that, its offensive

GIVE ME A BREAK

[Black Dog]

I hope when they start forcing us heterosexual guys to marry other guys that we at least get to pick our partner. I sure wouldn't want to end up with an ugly homosexual partner.

[Craig Read]

Of course the state will pick one for you. Come on in Post Modern Canada all is equal. The Uglies, the nice ones, the hot ones - matters not. Just couple and do your duty for the state.

Oh yes and don't forget to pay your 'humanity' sur-tax, the tax dollars that go to fund state programs which ensure complete and utter equality and relativity amongst all people -- unless your a heterosexual WASP.

[Lost in Manitoba]

What is this....

'A couple things,

Alliance Fanatic, you just called Gugsy a "coward," which is plainly an insult. As we all know, insults are not permitted in these forums, so that's strike one for Alliance Fanatic.

You also called, Moderate, Gugsy, Neal, "brainwashed liberal sheep who cannot think for themselves." Until you issue a apology to each of these participants, you're be banned from these forums'

or how about....

'Let's cut out the "sweetie" talk, Craig. I don't imagine Rita enjoys that'

Is this not what sensitivity training is? Giving common sense and manners(codes of conduct) to those without them.

Damn Greg and his insidious leftwing behavior modification

[Pellaken]

Until you issue a apology to each of these participants, you're be banned from these forums

are you a moderator?

if so:

I did not know that we had any moderators

if not:

isent impersonating a modrator (handing out a ban) also an offence of some-sort?

[Lost in Manitoba]

Pell, those are quotes from Greg.

[Pellaken]

Pell, those are quotes from Greg.

???

I'll have to look for them

[FastNed]

You know folks, we should not need to have Greg step in as Moderator to remind ourselves that we have here a fine forum for debate.

Most of us hold strong opinions on some subjects and are interested in learning more about them; we also are open to informed opinions on subjects with which we are not familiar. This Forum is a rare example of an open forum which remains civilized but allows passionate exposition of our beliefs and opinions. It can only continue to be so if we remember this is a forum, not a fight club.

I have had to step back a time or two when I accepted that I was pushing the limit or, in fact, had exceeded it. I attempt to make my posts pointed but not personal. To preserve the Forum, and to encourage new participants we need to remain civil with each other.

[Lost in Manitoba]

My post was just to show that sensitivity training is all around us. It is not a subversive mind-control plot. It's only a way to ensure some sort of understanding cooperation of parties from different backgrounds and different lifestyles so that things can get done relatively hassle free and efficiently. Laws, codes of conduct, and even the Forum Rules and Guidelines are all a form of so-called 'sensitivity training'.

And Neddy, I do agree with you that this is a great forum. As I've said, on more than one occasion, pretty much everyone on here is very well-spoken and intelligent, even those that I generally disagree with.

[Pellaken]

I know I've come close to the line, but I dont think I ever crossed it. the closest I came was probably in the 2 anti-islam threads.

I have had mod action here though, but mostly for deleting off-topic posts, including oddly enough, a topic where I suggested we start an off-topic forum.

[RB]

well there must be some reasonable conclusion drawn for inclusion of others

I have two blames for what is happening currently:

firstly, the letters of the alphabet are of an extreme importance, it defines as it was relayed to me...that the men, ipso facto find the O and the G when they are with each other,

and that the women find lots of A a h’s and X when they are with each other, well, maybe they found other letters I don’t know about yet, in the meantime now I figure I might as well finish off the alphabet that portrays a universal psyche not quite accepted but should be included

b – bi

c-cross

d-dyke

l-lesbians

f-fags

h- his & his, or hers and hers

i-intersexed

l-lambda

m/s-putting S & M together

n-North Dakota calls Canada its gay neighbor

p-pink triangle

q-queen/queer

r-rimming

t-Trans

u-unsure

w-Weird-O

well besides the alphabet,

secondly, i am about to blame our mixes which result in the mix you see above.

well it would have been rather nice had we just stick with:

1) British culture (just right)

2) French passion, (amazingly right)

and

3) American know-how (just about as good as it gets)

Instead we got:

1) British passion (which sucks)

2) American culture, (such deviant)

and

3) French know-how (amazing)

i propose that to deny rights to an individual to belong is a institution of long ago, and that man-made rules and laws and tradition can be changed and should be change when new information is gathered

[Nuclear]

To be secular for a moment, let's substitute every one's personal faith for nature.

If a child grows up with two dads or two moms or what not, how will that child ever come to understand the family unit the way nature designed: For procreation.

That's my thoughts.

[RB]

i don't know how else to say this but the character jeff goldblum, jurassic park has finese it only too well....

when all else fail "nature finds a way" to rebel

- so be positive now -

this could mean whole new evolution into something new and improved

[SirRiff]

how will that child ever come to understand the family unit the way nature designed: For procreation.

i wont go into detail as another thread is open on this, but there are few examples i nature of anything resembling a human family unit. males in "nature" procreate in anyway that assures survival, regardless of whether its 1 female or 100. likeways females in nature are only concerned with bearing the strongest child, regardless of who they have to mate with to get it. hell, when a new dominant lion takes over a pride the first thing it does is to kill all the cubs, which brings all the females back into heat and then mates with them all. why doesnt anybody ever cite that as 'natural'?

this and numerous other examples demonstrate that there is very little that the 'natural' world can tell us about behavior in a modern civil human society. our behavior often goes against our insticts because in nature instincts only purpose is for reproduction. we as humans have enriched our lives above simplying reproducing as the criteria for a quality of everyday life.

two things i believe

1. the "threat' of gays to the family values is far overshadowed by the everyday actions of heterosexual peoples. there is little if anything to threaten. look at widespread paternity testing in the US, something like 1 in 7 children came in to different fathers then assumed. straight couples are leading the deterioration of soceity, not gays. hell, churches and government lead the way in corruption.

2. the rhetoric of action against gays is pointless and often just serves a political cause to gain influence by church or politicians. the same was done against all sorts of minority groups in history. if people put as much effort to making society better as they did blaming gays, things would actually get better.

SirRiff

[FastNed]

SirRiff, the problems of children raised by a Single Parent have been well studied and more than sufficient data researched and analyzed to make plain that this is far from the optimum. Your posts show too much scientific knowledge for you not to know this. The nuclear family is the superior method for child raising, this is quite obvious.

I do not accept though, that this is a substantial argument against homosexual unions. While my mind disconnects when faced with a statistical problem, I have an intuitive opinion that this is of no more statistical significance than that portion of the heterosexual population that can not or will not procreate. I suspect the old 80/20 rule again is in effect here and so long as 80 percent of the human population do procreate, genetic evolution will continue.

Call my opinion a leap of "faith", if you will.

[RB]

there must be some good method of child caring to ensure that the species continue to exists by the female black window spider who after mating mostly eats or kills her mate

[Hugo]

there must be some good method of child caring to ensure that the species continue to exists by the female black window spider who after mating mostly eats or kills her mate

Sure! Let's all spin webs and eat flies too! It must be alright if a spider does it.

[RB]

thats the nature of things

well spinning activities are of particular interest now that I think about it, it is very circular. so here is my take, unconscientiously, the sexes enter into battle of mindless spins.

They start off like so:

Take a spin, then more encouragement to

Take that spin around

Now spin those wheels

hmmm...big wheel

Wheel it in

Jezz, its enough to get your head spinning

Like spin that yarn

Now cap it off with some real spin offs

off the record now,.... then

off the hook, and

off into the deep

ultimately a winner emerges. this is the person that can really doctor things up and is assigned title - spin doctor

I bet this is what the widow does

but i see this marriage scenario as a failing institution of tradition. women who were prior occupied with home duties whatever that means mostly contributes to this decline, and now in the open - the same sexes relationships. for the very first time its the feeling of being liberated from some subjugated role, a free agent, and as free as men to explore career choices, relationships and choosing between career and family.

basically i wish to see less of the tradition of i am more concern about you than me, - i say enough of this nonsense to submerge one's own identity to fullfill or please another person or "we will work hard at our marrige", trying to so hard to salvage something that is destructive and unsatisfying or "we pledge to each other until death do us part" - how sentimental

don't get me wrong i don't oppose marriages, i oppose that it occurs to resolve some problems in relationships or to please others even the partners instead of being an enriching, satisfying and growth experience.