Indoctrination 101

Remove all ads!

Yeah, if people can't manage to act in accordance with institutional norms for the brief amount of time they need to interface with said institution, such as marriage or child adoption, perhaps they should get out of the society, by this understanding?

Gay couples "marrying" and adopting children have an impact on my life and the life of the future generations of chevlings by affecting the society as a whole and the social environment.

 

You're totally bonkers! Chev, you're trying to deny someone something that will not affect you in any way apart from offend your morals. There is no proof that a child raised by homosexuals will have a negative effect on society. There is no proof that homosexuality has a negative effect on society (spreading aids? Aids doesn't just happen to gay people you know?).

You're worried about future society? Gods above, chev, you're grasping at straws now. I doubt homosexuality will 'become the norm' since it isn't the best method of species survival. Homsexuals will always, ALWAYS be a minority (much like Catholics if you understand what I'm getting at...) but to deny them something just because ANOTHER minority is offended by their actions is pathetic. You're being offended, not assaulted. Realise the difference.

 

IMO you're getting off topic. The question is mandatory 'diversity training'. Should it be done or not? Put in this very simplistic why my answer is yes if the purpose of the training is to stop the harrassing or mistreatment of others.

In 1 hour no one is going to be able to change how a person thinks. It's more a warning that if you break the school's rules you will be punished.

Since I am unable to view the video I am unable to pass judgement on this specific video. So my comments are general ones.

 

Nah, just pointing out that some lines of reasoning work both ways. "A staff has two ends," as we say around here.

There's no proof that it will be normal, which should already be enough not not allow such adoption. Adoption is made for children, not for the feelings of adopting parents.

Eh? If you know what I think better than I do myself, there's no point debating. As for the negative effect, further spread of homosexual lifestyle is already one.

The future is not straws. It's a valid concern. I don't share the liberal tenet of "let's allow as many things as possible now and worry about the effect when it comes".

Heterosexuals aren't another minority unless you have new figures on bisexuality. If pro-gay activists represent a minority, they shouldn't behave like a majority.

And they aren't denied anything that others have - everyone can marry a person of the opposite gender and have children with him/her, the basic reason why marriage has ever come into existence. That they want a homosexual version doesn't mean we should tailor social institutions to suit their desires.

The society is being assaulted. If we consider omnipresent pro-gay activists in the media and on the parades, right reason and healthy taste is brutally assaulted.

See my point? But enough of my beliefs. I don't want to be told I should adjust them anyhow and I'm not going to do that.

 

But you were talking about denying homosexuals the right to adopt children based on your religious veiws. Whereas the argument was that why should someone's personal morals affect the way someone else is allowed to live. Especially when that other person has NO direct influence on the one making their morals demands.

Then nobody should be allowed to adopt. There is no proof that a child in any circumstance WILL be 'normal' (what do you mean by 'normal'? Heterosexual? I was talking about negative effects, not something the catholic church is opposed to - like condoms).

You didn't answer my question. You just said that the negative effects of homosexuality is the spread of homosexuality. In other words complete hogswash.

But you're worried about the society that accepts homosexuals? What could be possibly negative about that type of society?

I never said hetereosexuals were a minority. The majority of heterosexuals don't care what gays do. They're not bothered if they have civil unions, if they adopt children or whatever they do in the bedroom. The minority I was referring to are groups that oppose homosexuality for no other reason than religious grounds.

But they are still denied civil-unions for no reason at all. Why not expand on someones rights? It wouldn't just let homosexuals be allowed to have a civil union with someone of the same gender, a heterosexual could do so if they wished. Marriage came into existance... well... I don't think anybody knows when, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed, gods know it has been in the past.

Again you miss that it isn't about 'pro-gay' it's about 'anti-hate'!

 

It's about calling criticism "hate" and this is probably the only thing I hate about people who do that. This actually pretty well summarises everything I said in this thread. I just hate it when those people are trying to outlaw criticism, calling it hate crime. Crime of hate speech. And hate speech is calling them wrong (Not even the evil Catholics try to put you in jail for calling Vatican wrong. ). In fact, I don't even have to answer other points.

 

Once upon a time, Homosexuality was a violation of social norms. They refused to do as you have suggested. So now they are being accomodated. But I wouldn't want to have my children taught that their ways are acceptable, when the Faith that I would be raising them in clearly teaches that the practice is a sin.

I'll grant you that the definition of family can be narrow according to my Religeous beliefs, but we are taught that homosexual relations are sins, and will not legitimize or promote them, likewise we do not want them promoted either.

 

Which is why your children *need* to be taught proper values in school as they arrive from their homes with twisted views who needs to be taken out of them. It is what school is all about.

 

How would you define "twisted views", joacqin?
Seeing your posts in this thread, you would be a prime example of my definition of twisted views.
"We shall be tolerant of everyone but those that disagree with me."


And mandatory diversity training? Urrgh. People should be allowed to hate who/whatever they wish.

 

No, they should not. People are morons and it does not take much to start to dislike and hate people because of some arbitrary distinction. Especially since your average Joe *loves* to have a special group to hate and loathe and blame stuff on. To then go from that hate and dislike into action is a smaller step that you might think. Therefore society as a whole must do it utmost to keep such views to a minimum or we *will* revert back to the "good old" days.

The theorem of live and let live and only be applied to those who believe in it. Those who believe certain groups of people are lesser or evil or immoral or whatever due to some arbitrary distinction are dangerous and we should do everything so they do not pass their views along to another generation.

I suppose it can be viewed as those intolerance towards those who disagree with me while I see it as a something vital to keep and develop the reasonable free, open minded and diverse society we have.

I would call such diversity programs de-programming for kids who have been brainwashed with anti-social views from their homes. Just like it is done to people who have been rescued from various unsavory sects.

 

I'd say that effect is permanent and will always exist no matter what you do.

I'd support anti-violence programs over diversity programs. Why? Because there's always some type of different that will "slip trough the cracks" (be it freak, black, fat or something else), and such "anti-brainwashing" (brainwashing to counter brainwashing?) may have a negative effect - the people who have heard "you shall not say bad things about blacks" one time too much might just start to hate both blacks and the people who tell them that they cannot hate blacks.
Nevermind the whole thing going way overboard occasionally. From "homosexuals are humans like the rest of us" to "christians are barbarians because they believe being homosexual is a sin".

(And what is it with the "don't be antisocial" talk? The people who would take action against people they hate based on race, sexuality etc aren't antisocial - would they really start hostile actions against groups alone?)

(I do agree on the "majority of neurotypicals are morons" point.)

 

And that's exactly what you would call an arbitrary distinction if the opposing side said it. You are doing the same of which you accuse the opposition, so where does the difference lie? You know deep in your heart that gay is okay? So how are you better than I am?

Why are all ways worse? Why the society *must* anything? Yet another arbitrary distinction of yours?

Yeah, kill me. If you silence them, rocks will speak.

That is nothing else than a what? Fourth arbitrary distinction? You're saying that some views are dangerous and need to be eliminated right after saying that arbitrary distinctions are wrong and calling something immoral or evil on moral grounds is wrong? That's rich.

And who says the society "we" have is reasonable, free, open minded? Since when does diverse carry a positive meaning rather than a completely neutral one? Who is the judge of it, other than you?

And I am arbitrary. And my views need to be eliminated because they are arbitrary. Yeah.

 

Everything is arbitrary from some point of view. What it all boils down is that I think that views such as those you hold on for example the issue of homosexuality are dangerous. For me I dont only disagree with you like you can disagree on the matter of income taxation or whether to build a new main street in ones local city. You personally may not be dangerous now Chev but the frame of mind that leads you think homosexuality is such a plague is the same that lead to the creation of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. It is a slippery slope my friend and it is a lot steeper than what most people think. It is so easy to categorize and label people due to some, when all things are considered, arbitrary label. I know, I do it myself all the time, thinking about loud mouthed annoying arabs or smelly Turks when I happen to sit close to them on the bus. Just because it is so very very easy to fall into that line of thought and that it moves from annoyance to fear and from fear to hate so very quickily that I have no tolerance whatsoever for any such kind of talk. I know that all people have such thoughts but that is where they should stay.

 

But what about attitudes that do not preach hatred, but do not preach acceptance of homosexuality? Would you seek to ban that? Would you take from the hands of parents the right to teach their children morality as they see fit because they don't agree with something you do? Isn't that discrimination based on Religeous beliefs?

 

I dont believe in the concept of morality and I dont believe for one second in the baloney about "not preaching hatred but not preaching acceptance either". If you say that Jack and Joe are breaking the laws of God when they poke each other in the butt and that those actions will condemn them to eternal suffering, then that is preaching hate. It is a matter of semantics. Dont forget that if you go according to the bible you should stone the faggots. I *really* dont trust Christian who say they "love the person but hate the sin".

Parents ought only to be able to teach their children "morality" within certain limits. It is not ok for parents to teach their offspring to torture dogs or go number 2 in public. Every society has certain parametres withing the accepted views lay, if you want to outlaw homosexuality and live according to the holy book then your views are perfectly within the parametres of the Iranian society. Not most western democracies, maybe Italy .

 

What are you going to say next? Perhaps "If you say than Jack and Jane are breaking the laws of God when they poke each other in the butt without being married and that those actions will condemn them to eternal suffering" is also preaching hate?

According to Christian beliefs, you can go to hell for merely engaging in sexual dreams about a friend's wife if you don't repent. You can go to hell for lying in the court, too. For pissing your mother off on purpose. For failing to set aside time to spend with your family if only you can. For willingly failing to attend Sunday mass if you're Catholic. For driving drunk. For mutilating yourself. For attempting or assisting in suicide. I can give you more such examples. Homosexual acts are one of those and by far not the gravest. This, however, doesn't mean they aren't grave, nor that they are to be neglected.

A religion includes a set of moral principles. Those principles are reflected in certain rules. What is important is the principle - the rules are here to help and they are for the believers' sake and not for the deity's sake. By violating those rules, which is more importantly going against the principle, people commit sins. Sins of a serious enough nature, if not repented, get people in hell - as a matter of gross simplification (people are unfit of salvation and entering the perfect eternal life of absolute good and undisturbed happiness when in the state of sin, spiritual impurity, removedness from God - you name it). There is no hate in this.

In the Christian doctrine, for grave sin that bars you from salvation, you need 1) grave matter 2) full knowledge 3) full consent. We can determine the grave matter, but we can hardly determine someone's degree of knowledge or consent. Therefore, it isn't proper to say that someone is in hell or on his way there. In fact, we don't even say this about Judas, the renegade apostle who sold Jesus to the Sanhedrin.

The whole religion is about love. You can talk all day about commandments and rules but if you don't mention love, you don't have the right picture. We believe in one God in three persons one of whom is the Father who sent His son to die for His people to redeem them from their own sins and another is the Son who became a vulnerable human and died on the cross for the sins of the people who for the greatest part didn't even care. How is this hate? If you ask me, this is as far from hate as you can get.

It's not true that if you wanted to go according to the Bible, you should stone homosexuals or any other sinners. Did Jesus tell the Pharisees to stone the harlot they dragged to him?

[John, 8]

Here you have a bit about hating the sin and loving the sinner from Aquinas: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/302506.htm

Here's the problem, however: there's no leave to do as you please. There is always responsibility. People can't really be pardoned against their will. Here's Isaiah 1:

This is what Christianity teaches: God loves men but hates sins they commit. Still distrustful? Well, you can't have a cake and eat it. But teaching responsibility is not teaching hate. If so, every modern democracy legislates hate when laying down criminal laws, and modern democracy seems to be the pinnacle of human morality to you.

In fact, when the Christian Church or practically any religion teaches against things which are wrong or downright evil, it is out of charity, so that men may be saved. To let them continue and face the consequences would be closer to hate than to teach them.

 

Living is the best, most effective, type of "diversity training" there is.

Life will teach you that yes, black men can be intelligent.
Life will teach you that yes, women can be athletic.
Life will teach you that yes, gays can be decent people.

And so on

 

Nicely point, Amaster. If someone can't see that in the School of Life, then no amount of "indoctrination" at the school down the road can change their views.

 

Yeah, great point.