On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:06:27 -1000, Thomas <mauicop@no-spam>
wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:16:23 GMT, Obwon <ob110ob@no-spam> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:09:51 GMT, "alohacyberian"
>><alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>>>"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
>>>news:1fyvwa3.1uwn7w51l1kxeqN%usenet@no-spam
>>>> Cap'n TrVth <The_Telling_Light_of_TrVth@no-spam> wrote:
>>>> [..]
>>>> > This is just plain silly.
>>>> >
>>>> > But I like it..
>>>> >
>>>> > When Lefties try to force feed gay issues down the throats of the
>>>populace
>>>> > the Right wins *EVERY TIME*
>>>> >
>>>> > See Hawaii's new Republican Gov.
>>>> > See New Hampshire's new Republican Gov.
>>>> > See Conservativism take root and flourish wherever gay issues are
>>>force-fed.
>>>> >
>>>> > Nice job Lefties,
>>>> > -keep up the good work and enjoy the backlash.
>>>>
>>>> Well, it's nice that you have the students' education and well-being at
>>>> heart.
>>>>
>>>God knows that if homosexual students attend school only with other
>>>homosexuals, they will get a superior education without the distraction of
>>>all those *shudder* heterosexual kids. KM
>>
>> Not to mention:
>>
>>1. Those who will shun them.
>>2. Those who will encourage others to shun them.
>>3. Those who will attempt to use negative stereotyping against
>>them.
>>4. Those who will seek to perpetuated various social "frauds"
>>against them.
>>5. Any thing else they can use to show that they are not one of
>>them themselves.
>
>"Various social frauds"? What the hell is that?
The unproven myths about gays and being gay. You know, like
the various pronouncements you often hear from the pulpits. Try
reading in other countries where homophobia isn't the norm and
see how gays fare when left to practice as openly and freely as
heterosexuals. Then come back and tell me just how much harm
they've worked on society and/or themselves.
>All of the behavior
>you list is already addressed in virtually all school districts with
>guidelines about harassment, bullying etc. I'm positive that
>segregating kids who (rightly or wrongly) believe that they are "gay".
>Sounds like some heavy duty attempts at indoctrinations
>inappropriately aimed at young children who should have a lot more to
>do than worry about their "sexual orientation". Why rush them?
Because the behavior I listed above isn't properly addressed by
guidelines etc., which can do nothing to change the general
attitude of a society still involved in the struggle to get
beyond it's homophobic mores. Why should they have to wait?
It seems to me that since they're children, they should know,
during their formative years, what it's like not to have to
experience barbs and slights from people in the majority whose
religious beliefs singles them out for negative attentions and
who, because of their youth, might feel compelled to go a bit
overboard in the effort to prove themselves straight, manly
and/or macho.
>> All of which are not visited upon so called "normal" children
>>in the various taunting and abuse sessions some think should be
>>part of a healthy "toughening up" regime all kids should be
>>subjected to in the effort to earn their academic credentials.
>
>On the contrary, as a parent, and as a Law Enforcement officer, I come
>into contact with lots of juveniles daily, and I'm telling you, sexual
>proclivities notwithstanding, kids are brutal, to almost everyone at
>some time or another. Finding ways for the mainstream educational
>system to deal with such issues sounds a lot more helpful than making
>these kids pariahs by educational segregation.
Very well then, please explain how you as a policeman and
parent, can even begin to go about teaching tolerance to the "kid
next door" whose family is devotedly religious and who have
instilled in their children bad ideas about homosexuals? Can you
even find them in time? Probably not since there are very few
occasions, indeed, where you could even address the issues.
Sure, if you catch some kid doing something illegal, you might
have the opportunity to enlighten him/her. But if all they're
doing is taunting and ridiculing and spreading ideas that
perpetuate the homophobic conditions widely accepted so far.
Then it's difficult indeed to see how you're going to make many
inroads. Remember, for every person you will speak to in your
lifetime, Pat Robinson, Jerry Falwell and George W. Bush, will
speak to a thousand times more! And I doubt, sincerely, that
your august personage will make the inroads on society that these
notables will.
>>
>> So, as one might devine from the above, there are quite a few
>>very unhealthy social devices, that can and usually are, called
>>into play against gay children, that are very much more harmful
>>than the "normal" taunting kids usually dish out to their peers.
>
>You keep repeating this "social devices" mantra. Without an
>understanding of what you mean, and I consider myself of at least
>average intelligence, you just sound a little silly.
Social devices? You mean you don't understand that getting
away with open insults against a person merely because they're
considered outcasts or otherwise deserving of repudiation, is a
social device that isn't available to the target? Well, perhaps
I should have used so many words in the first place. I just
thought perhaps the meaning was obvious. It certainly should be
to anyone attempting to refute the need for a gay only school.
>>
>> So, why then is it such a bad thing for the state to recognize
>>it's inability to prevent very harmful social devices from being
>>used against a portion of their legal educational charges? The
>>state is charged with a duty to provide education to all
>>children, if social mores get in the way, I think they have a
>>perfect right to acknowledge that impediment to their mission and
>>ameliorated and abate it!
>
>Why is it that children need to become pawns by being segregated
>educationally? I have two boys, 14 and 11, and they don't need to be
>dwelling on sexual orientations. As far as I am concerned, if when
>older, they feel that they are homosexual, fine. But why young
>children need to be exploited for larger agendas by the homosexual
>lobby is a mystery to me. I suspect that the impetus behind this "gay
>school" has little or nothing to do with the children's best interest.
>Gay or not, these children are going to need to function in society at
>large, warts and all, segregating them seems to me to be harmful, not
>helpful.
Try reading the article in this weeks Village Voice about
Askew! It opens a little window, for the fair thinking person,
into the topsy turvy world that some gays can still find
themselves caught up in.
Note that the article articulates that Askew didn't want to be
gay! He was gay, but he didn't want to be! Why? Because he
wanted to please his devout parents. He tried so hard to be
straight. So, how would you even know if your kids were gay?
Don't you think that they'd have found out at school and in their
social circles that being gay was something to be hidden away?
Or do you think that they'll not be skillful enough to keep it
from you?
You aren't coming across here, as a very sensitive and/or
enlightened thinker. Hopefully you are curious, since that's
where the learning processes begin. I may be wrong, but I kind
of get the impression that you send out exactly the kinds of
signals that a gay kid would take to mean that they shouldn't
reveal anything to you. Meaning that if you should have a gay
kid, unless you do some very careful thinking, you'll likely be
the last one to know.
Remember, it's very easy to "telegraph" the punch, all you need
to do is make some derisive remark, perhaps about a football
player on tv. Or, just have one of your buddies make the remark
and you merely "stamp" it with your approval. The kid would be
"warned" in a very strong way to be wary of making any
revelations to you if not absolutely necessary.
>> So, until society at large changes to where sexual preference
>>is no longer a basis that justifies the employment of especially
>>harmful/hurtful/hateful treatments to their charges, that becomes
>>a real impediment to their mission, they have the right to take
>>the necessary remedial measures.
>
>As above, segregation seems to me to be in the interest of a special
>interest group, and definitely not the children involved. And that's
>something that is a shame and should be challenged and shown for what
>it is, a pathetic attempt to shove a political agenda down the throats
>of local communities.
Yes, it is indeed easy to ignore the uneasiness of others! But
note that without homophobic stances being considered the norm,
these kids have to be very uneasy living with a majority who
believe that there's something wrong with them. They can pretend
to be relaxed, but they seldom if ever are and can't under any
circumstances, take the chance of exacerbating possible
hostilities they know are almost certainly there by expressing
themselves in ways that would be normal for them. They are
stifled. Which is not the case in all countries of the world,
some that are culturally more advanced than here, gay couples,
like hetero couples can show affection for one another in public
without drawing the opprobrium of others around them.
So, that makes it obvious that you're just guessing and haven't
looked any further into the matter than what you are able to see
by making a very casual comparison between behaviors you feel are
normal for heterosexuals and attempting to impose that view on
them. Not a good way to proceed, unless you're merely seeking
more knowledge and clues. Try H.L. Menkin's "Deviance from the
interactionist perspective", not difficult reading and it should
open new horizons for you.
>>
>> One cannot cloak the negative effects of sexualisms that are
>>known and proven to interfere seriously with the education of the
>>children who must turn to the state for it's educational
>>resources! To deny that such impediments exist for this group,
>>is to attempt to raise arguments that have the covert agenda of
>>denying educational resources to the few and needy. Isn't that
>>exactly what was done to keep slaves in line? Raise arguments of
>>equality, justice and fairness to resist doing what was needed to
>>ameliorate real problems that the "advocates" of such fairness,
>>equality and justice, were intent upon perpetuating?
>
>"Sexualism"? "Keep slaves in line"? "Advocates"? Advocates for who?
>The children? Or, as it looks like, themselves? Your hysterical
>hyperbole may play well with fanatical homosexual lobbyists, but us
>parents know better, and we won't let our children be used as fodder
>for the "cause".
Wow... "hysterical hyperbole" and from someone who doesn't
even know what he's talking about and doesn't seem to care enough
to find out. You've just erased any value your thinkings might
have held for anyone who has a real concern about the problem.
You see that don't you?
>>
>> Finally, the U.S. Constitution allows for the recognition of
>>past injustice and the use of otherwise-unconstitutional
>>solutions to remediate the problems while they exist. Normally
>>the make up of schools is left to the demographics of the
>>communities where they are located. But, when there are abnormal
>>situations, pressures, unfairnesses etc., the courts hold that
>>remedial actions are necessary, may not be Constitutional of
>>reasonable necessity, but should be imposed and/or supported
>>by/with judicial power/force, until it can be shown that such
>>remedies are no longer needed.
>
>"Unconstitutional"? Probably. But the more puerile and shameful
>aspect is the children being used as pawns by segregating them away
>from the "society" that you attempt to portray as "unfair" and
>laughingly "abnormal". Parents recognize the agenda that's really
>being championed here.
>I have a novel concept. How about just letting the kids be kids?
>Instead of goose stepping them into being warriors for the homosexual
>lobby. Reading, baseball, writing, football, not forcing sexual
>orientations on them as an issue.
>
>ALOHA
But then, since you've already displayed massive ignorance of
the problem and continue to go on as if you were keenly aware,
how can you speak for other parents?
You say: "How about just letting the kids be kids?" Ignoring
the fact that because they are just kids, they are very
impressionable and hardly the picture of self control or able to
pay attention to the feelings of others. A very religiously
raised heterosexual child, is hardly going to appreciate the
difficulties he's going to create for a gay child when he repeats
the derision(s) he's picked up. He isn't going to care much
about the hostile atmosphere that will be created when other kids
take his side either.
Or do you realize how these things work at all? Probably not,
you just see a hostile remark as being something fleeting that a
gay kid should be able to simply brush off. Ludicrous to say the
least, the world doesn't work that way, weather it's hetero or
homosexual behavior. Can you apprehend how hostile work
environments are created and what the effect of them is?
Probably not, you don't show the least bit of insight on the
subtleties of the issues.
Good luck
Obwon
>
>Reply to group
>(Unsolicited e-mail is deleted unread)
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
