To the contrary. My focus was not on the founders’s motives, which I made crystal clear in the post. Whether they were “for” or “against” slavery is irrelevant. If they didn’t intend to include blacks, it is their fault they didn’t specifically exclude blacks. I focused instead on the ideals that make America great, not the men who applied them to their new experiment or their personal beliefs about blacks. The blunder is your misreading of the post. And I seriously doubt the Iroquois’s “democratic principles,” whatever they may be, influenced the drafting of either the Declaration of Independence or U.S. Constitution. – Admin

Whew!! You are not taking any prisoners with this one! When are you writing your first book?

-from another “independent conservative”

Just like It’s parents’ job to talk to kids about all the issues of the this world that typically they get exposed to in school and give them tools how they may deal with it, because parents aren’t going to be there 24/7.

but at the same time, they would not have problem having their kids read books written by homosexuals.>>

I see a major difference here, don’t you? It’s possible that if you really tortured the material in some of the classics that you could find something that was directly connected to homosexuality, but for the most part, they are plays/stories/poems that have nothing to do with sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is irrelevant. I understand that some people object to the work of known deviants on the sole basis of that deviancy, but I disagree with that point of view.

On the other hand, a book written specifically about a homosexual relationship from the standpoint of “and they lived happily ever after – isn’t that nice” is gay propaganda, as far as I’m concerned. I’d object to it also.

>>The education curriculum has to be free of religion, unless you go to a religious-oriented school. I am against home-schooling and even religious type of schooling, because you can’t shelter kids, they will eventually face the big bad world. It’s up to the parents to equip their children and trust in God (Again for those who are Christian) so that they can be strong enough to face anything.>>

You don’t expose children to external forces when they are not equipped to deal with them (ideally). The parents job is to prepare them for “the big bad world” and each has to do it as they see fit. Your choices are your own, of course…and it may work for you and yours. I wouldn’t criticize you for your choice, or others for their choices. You will see in time if you make good decisions. Of course, it will be too late then to change the outcome ! I disagree with your choice – I wouldn’t teach a child to swim by throwing him/her into the deep end – but if you’re a parent, it’s your job, and your choice.

Another one I like is that guy on saturday night during O’Reilley’s slot, from the heartland or something, he’s good.

Of course, I agree that someone’s artistic’s abilities have nothing to do with their own personal life.

But I was wondering and just posing it as a question to see if people who were opposed to homosexuality/homosexuals would have a problem enjoying their artistic work.

Because for instance, lately, you have parents worrying that their children might be exposed to gay studies in school, I bring this up, because a few months ago, a teacher had assigned to his class a book about a prince who falls in love with another prince and people were mad.

but at the same time, they would not have problem having their kids read books written by homosexuals.

It’s a tough issue, the school curriculum. For isntance, when I went to school in biology class, they thought us evolution and other theories about the creation of the world and mankind which went against what I believed. My parents used to tell me that you just got to follow the system. In your heart, you know it’s a bunch of bolonis, but just study it the way they teach you and pass teh class. Same thing when I was required to take a Yoga class for gym, instead of doing meditation, my parents would tell me just use that time to pray.

The education curriculum has to be free of religion, unless you go to a religious-oriented school. I am against home-schooling and even religious type of schooling, because you can’t shelter kids, they will eventually face the big bad world. It’s up to the parents to equip their children and trust in God (Again for those who are Christian) so that they can be strong enough to face anything. Lots of parents worry about sending children to the so-called predominantly liberal university. How can you fight/resist the world, if you don’t know what’s in the world

So, I was/am wondering that’s all….

I think we need to separate anti-gay _actions_ from anti-gay _movements_. The first is an incident, which may be based on individual (or group) action. The second is the organization that attempts to achieve certain societal ends through organized social and political efforts.

In previous centuries, homosexuality was viewed as a sin and as moral degeneracy. Individuals who practice homosexuality have been ignored or persecuted depending on the society and/or authority in power at the time.

>>Today, the anti-gay movement is more known because the gay community is more known.>>

Today, the gay community is more known because they have formed activist movements demanding that they be accepted as “normal” and entitled to rights that have been reserved to families, which society has determined need special rights for the benefit of that society.

>>Could all of this[referring to works created by homosexuals] be also classified as pro- gay agenda? >>

Are you saying that the work cannot be separated from the person’s sexual persona? I think that would be an absurd position to take.

>>So does that mean we have to resist all of this and ban these books from high school curriculum?>>

See above. The works should rise or fall on their own merit. Why ever would you think that a person’s personal morality would determine the acceptability of their artistic works?

I believe the comment was made to me, and was a reference to the fruitlessness of arguing with someone whose mind was already made up.

>>…the anchors just didn’t give a chance to those who had opposing viewpoints, it was “it’s time to wrap up, we gotta go to commercial”>>

I prefer Fox because they _do_ have input from various points of view, but I agree with you on this point. I find the anchors unbelievably rude on occasion. Overriding the guest with the host’s own views, and simply cutting them off are equally annoying. There are some shows in particular that I simply don’t watch because they rile me this sort of discourtesy. On the other hand, it also annoys me that Brit Hume has become senior enough that he always has a sub on Friday nights, and too many other times! He’s good – I’d _never_ give him a night off!

I always take these type of statements as a way of just ending the argument quickly

1) either because what the other person says has some logic or make sense and they don’t want to admit it.

2) because people are too stuck in their own beliefs that when it’s challenged they don’t want to do the effort of looking things from another perspective, BUT if they are certain that their argument is 100% on target, then what’s the big deal.

That’s why I stopped watching FOX NEWS, definetely was more interesting than all the other news channels, but the anchors just didn’t give a chance to those who had opposing viewpoints, it was “it’s time to wrap up, we gotta go to commercial”

anti gay movements can be traced back as early as the previous centuries where gays were burned and jailed. Leonardo Da Vinci did some jail time for committing sexual relations with other men, same with writer Oscar Wilde.

Of course, it’s more flagrant today, because people are more open and out with their sexuality leading to what is known as the “gay community” in the previous centuries, people kept their sexuality a secret but it isn’t to say that they weren’t still persecuted, cause they were. Even in the earlier parts of the centuries, Hitler target gays as well.

Today, the anti-gay movement is more known because the gay community is more known.

Again, I can’t tell people who to be intimate with, as long as it doesn’t affect or harm me. Whatever goes behind people’s closed door is not my business but theirs as long as it isn’t harmful/lethal/dangerous or life threatning to society. Some people may bring the AIDS issue, but AIDS is a disease that affects both homosexual and heterosexual. and If it was just a “gay disease”, how did it spread to heterosexual or how did it spread to the sub-saharan African region where it’s affecting millions regardless of age, race, gender and sexual orientation. I still have to see the link between how AIDS (the so-called gay disease) went from the gay community to subsaharan africa. I doubt that Sub-Saharan Africa has a large gay out and open gay community considering that homosexuality is still a “secret” activity in many places in Africa.

Interestingly, Shakespeare, Walt Witman, Langston Hughes, Oscar Wilde were all known to be homosexuals, and their books are required readings in English classes in high school and college and we have all enjoyed their works. Or what about the famous painting “the creation of Adam” by Michaelangelo who had affairs with men

Could all of this be also classified as pro- gay agenda? So does that mean we have to resist all of this and ban these books from high school curriculum?

Well, at least it wasn’t as bad as the way I wrote. Usually, I tend to just write as if I was speaking in discussion boards and let it all out, then I re-read, it’s a total mess. I hope it wasn’t too hard for you to read some of the stuff I said.

John Writes: “I have only ever (politely) asked for the same respect from you, and that you address the content of my posts and not make attacks. You did not respond to the polite requests or address the content, so I will agree not to engage you in debate any further. Nothing gained, nothing lost.”

These days, it’s hard to agree to disagree with people and not just politics, everything from fashion to cars to movies. Why does it always have to come down to I’m right, you’re wrong. someone once said that “creativity always results out of conflicts”

Whoopi said something to Sean Hannity that she’d rather spends her days with people who have opposing viewpoints because it makes her think.

Doesn’t it get boring reading comments after comments that reinforces your belief, all it leads to are people massaging each other’s posts. I agree, I agree, I agree.

A writing professor used to tell us that whenever you write a persuasive essay, always talk about counter arguments to your proposed argument. It makes your paper stronger and if you can refute or argue these counter arguments with backed evidence, then you have won your audience.

I definetely enjoyed reading the 80 something replies, I was afraid I would get “punched at” considering that this is a blog that is run by a non-liberal and wasn’t sure what would be the reaction to a lot of what I was saying, but it turned out just fine.

By the way, I’m a new poster, do you guys know if Lashawn participates in discussion, I’m just curious to know what she thinks of what everyone had to say.

It was a good read.

Thank you for taking it in the spirit intended – I’m aware that it could be misconstrued…

Tell you what…suppose you answer my questions first:

We agree that the Bible states unequivocably that homosexuality is immoral, right? So….

How long has the Bible been around?
How long have these “anti gay movements” been around?
How long have the “pro-gay movements” been around?

Any estimate within about 10-20 years will suffice for the two movements.

A century or two will be close enough on the Bible.

As for Phelps…he and his group are money grubbers who have found a way to cause massive reaction from the most people so that they can find the deep pockets to support their way of life. I know what he _says_ and does…I have no idea what religious beliefs he may have. He’s despicable. I don’t really believe he’s religiously motivated – I think he’s a con man.

It is this sort scrutiny to which dumb ideas must be exposed.

# 81. Heliotrope, sorry for the mistake, for what it’s worth. I do not believe I’m a ‘master of debate’ as you so accuse. That was perhaps another assumptive insult of yours? I am actually quite a clumsy writer and fully aware of it, but I have an open heart and and an enquiring mind. I ask straight questions and argue the point, and NEVER attack the poster.

I have only ever (politely) asked for the same respect from you, and that you address the content of my posts and not make attacks. You did not respond to the polite requests or address the content, so I will agree not to engage you in debate any further. Nothing gained, nothing lost.

Regards,

John.