Gay Teachers

[JayRamey]

I`m sorry if you have found my post to be pedantic or a little patronizing - especially if you are a lawyer!

Geez dude, before making such an arrogant claim, I would at least make sure my facts are correct before making myself look completely foolish.

...with the implied question: Why do people say you are outdated? The reason is that your opinions are outdated and are not in-line with current thinking! And before you say that this is not true, pretty much all of the laws in America and the rest of the free world consider homosexual behavior to be legal (read: acceptable).

You have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know about "the rest of the free world," but I can tell you quite a bit about the state of the law in America.

In the overwhelming majority of states in America, sodomy is illegal. Some of these laws prohibit all sodomy and some of these laws prohibit same sex sodomy. I do not know of a state where sodomy is legal, but I would not be surprised if California had removed its sodomy laws. However, the FACT remains that sodomy is illegal in the vast majority of American states.

These sodomy laws cannot now be enforced by the states because of the US Supreme Court's decision last year in Lawrence v. Texas. However, in spite of your little lecture about how laws are made, the law in Lawrence v. Texas was made by only 6 out of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court.

Nothing about Lawrence changes the fact that on the statute books of the vast majority of US states, anti-sodomy laws remain and have NOT been removed by the state legislatures.

Finally, keep in mind that I am just telling you the state of the law. As I have written previously, I think that sodomy laws are stupid and that this behavior need not be illegal. But that does not mean that I think homosex is acceptable. I just don't think it should be illegal. And I don't believe your premise anyway. For example, smoking cigarettes is legal. But it is certainly not acceptable in most areas of public life.

Now let's look at some of the laws in the US that can be considered anti-homosexual:

1. Under federal law in the US, one cannot discriminate in employment and housing against people because of their race, sex, religion, national origin or because they are handicapped, and for some other reasons. However, people can discrimination against people in employment and housing due to their sexual orientation. The politically correct have been wanting to amend these federal laws for years to include sexual orientation. However, because this is not popular with Congress, it has not been done.

In the vast majority of states in the US, anti-discrimination laws follow federal law. Perhaps California and a few other states outlaw discrimination against homosexuals, but that is by far the minority rule.

2. Homosexuals are not allowed to serve in the military.

3. Homosexuals are not allowed to get married except for one state in the union. However, that law was created by a handful of judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court and not the legislature of that state. I will further bet you that within the next few years Massachusetts will pass an amendment to their state constitution outlawing gay marriage.

4. In the overwhelming majority of states in the US, homosexuals are not allowed to adopt children.

So, before you give me a big lecture about the state of law in America and how the legislative process works, PLEASE get your facts straight.

[Melodious_Thunk]

Jay, as long as you're online, how about answering my question, which I am asking you now for the sixth time yet you have not seen fit to answer?

Do you think homosexuality is a disease that should be treated? If so, how? With readings from Deuteronomy and Leviticus? If not, according to your own logic, you do not believe in treating pedophilia as a disorder.

[valve-bouncer]

Jay, as long as you're online, how about answering my question, which I am asking you now for the sixth time yet you have not seen fit to answer?

Do you think homosexuality is a disease that should be treated? If so, how? With readings from Deuteronomy and Leviticus? If not, according to your own logic, you do not believe in treating pedophilia as a disorder.

Good luck with getting him to answer MT. In the grand tradition of trollage, hard questions are ignored in favour of cheap shots.

[lounge_man]

I`m sorry if you have found my post to be pedantic or a little patronizing - especially if you are a lawyer!

Geez dude, before making such an arrogant claim, I would at least make sure my facts are correct before making myself look completely foolish.

...with the implied question: Why do people say you are outdated? The reason is that your opinions are outdated and are not in-line with current thinking! And before you say that this is not true, pretty much all of the laws in America and the rest of the free world consider homosexual behavior to be legal (read: acceptable).

You have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know about "the rest of the free world," but I can tell you quite a bit about the state of the law in America.

Can you tell us why the US doesn't actually enforce these laws? It wouldn't have anything to do with every other democracy on the planet considering these laws outdated and probably illegal under international humanitarian law? If the US actually enforced these laws they would become the laughing stock of the west. To the rest of the free world, these laws look like they are from the dark ages. I am actually Australian, and to even bother debating stuff like this seems amazing to me. Homosexuality has been a non issue here for a long time now. I think that any self respecting US patriot and believer in personal freedoms and democracy would condemn these laws. I would challenge any US citizen to reconcile their belief in personal freedoms and support for these laws.

[Melodious_Thunk]

Jay, as long as you're online, how about answering my question, which I am asking you now for the sixth time yet you have not seen fit to answer?

Do you think homosexuality is a disease that should be treated? If so, how? With readings from Deuteronomy and Leviticus? If not, according to your own logic, you do not believe in treating pedophilia as a disorder.

Good luck with getting him to answer MT. In the grand tradition of trollage, hard questions are ignored in favour of cheap shots.

Eerily similar to, uh, another former poster, eh, VB? But it's not even a hard question (in either sense of the word), IMHO. A contention is made that people must either subscribe to position "A" or position "B," each of which is a ludicrous extreme. It's only fair that the person making this contention would be able to describe his own beliefs in said fashion. Instead, it is ignored and filibustered with a long (and irrelevant) post about laws that have been declared unconstitutional in the United States but remain on the books. (FWIW, there are plenty of such examples in the US. In Jay's home state of Kansas, where he practices law, it is illegal to catch fish with your bare hands. In the town of Topeka, it is illegal to install a bathtub.)
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws.php?site=l ... &region=16

(Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the term for this type of "argumentation"? It isn't the dreaded "straw man" or a circular argument, but what is it called when someone attempts to forcibly ram divergent opinions into one of two [false] categories that he has created? Or is it indeed a straw man . . . )

[lounge_man]

(Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the term for this type of "argumentation"? It isn't the dreaded "straw man" or a circular argument, but what is it called when someone attempts to forcibly ram divergent opinions into one of two [false] categories that he has created? Or is it indeed a straw man . . . )

The straw man fallacy is where the original argument is ignored/distorted and the debater attacks a divergent argument of their own creation (presumably easier to defeat).

Incidentally, the logic used in the homo/paedophile debate here is called 'the coincidental logic fallacy'.
i.e. paedophiles are not common, homosexuals are not common, therefore homosexuals are paedophiles.

We could apply the same logic to Jay... paedophiles are not popular, jay's position on this argument is not popular, therefore Jay is a paedophile. It's obviously stupid in this case, but sometimes not so obvious. Incidentally, lawyers are usually masters of this type of obfuscation. Sometimes they even believe it themselves.

[Melodious_Thunk]

Incidentally, the logic used in the homo/paedophile debate here is called 'the coincidental logic fallacy'.
i.e. paedophiles are not common, homosexuals are not common, therefore homosexuals are paedophiles.

We could apply the same logic to Jay... paedophiles are not popular, jay's position on this argument is not popular, therefore Jay is a paedophile. It's obviously stupid in this case, but sometimes not so obvious. Incidentally, lawyers are usually masters of this type of obfuscation. Sometimes they even believe it themselves.

Thank you, Lounge Man! I knew that someone here would know.

But what would it be called if it didn't rely on coincidental logic, i.e. "You either support the right of people to shoot whomever they please, or you are in favor of a complete ban on gun ownership"?

[Ozintokyo]

I am actually Australian, and to even bother debating stuff like this seems amazing to me. Homosexuality has been a non issue here for a long time now.

I beg to differ. It is just not talked about a great deal - scratch the surface a little and - watch out!

There was a recent episode of "Play School" that aired on the ABC - basically for anyone that does not know of it, this is a long running kids show. Within this one show, there was a brief reference to Lesbian mums. A hell of a lot of shit was kicked up about that being allowed to air!

In a way this is quite relevent to the initial reason for this thread.

Here are a few of the stories:

http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/07/1086460210425.html

http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/06/1086460177951.html

http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/04/1086203625031.html

http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/06/1086460170536.html

[lounge_man]

Thank you, Lounge Man! I knew that someone here would know.

But what would it be called if it didn't rely on coincidental logic, i.e. "You either support the right of people to shoot whomever they please, or you are in favor of a complete ban on gun ownership"?

That is, in fact, called the 'false dilemma'. i.e. restriction of debate to unreasonable alternatives.

[Melodious_Thunk]

Thank you, Lounge Man! I knew that someone here would know.

But what would it be called if it didn't rely on coincidental logic, i.e. "You either support the right of people to shoot whomever they please, or you are in favor of a complete ban on gun ownership"?

That is, in fact, called the 'false dilemma'. i.e. restriction of debate to unreasonable alternatives.

Thanks again. That's exactly the term I was looking for. A false dilemma predicated on coincidental logic.

[lounge_man]

I am actually Australian, and to even bother debating stuff like this seems amazing to me. Homosexuality has been a non issue here for a long time now.

I beg to differ. It is just not talked about a great deal - scratch the surface a little and - watch out!

There was a recent episode of "Play School" that aired on the ABC - basically for anyone that does not know of it, this is a long running kids show. Within this one show, there was a brief reference to Lesbian mums. A hell of a lot of shit was kicked up about that being allowed to air!

In a way this is quite relevent to the initial reason for this thread.

Yes, I am aware of this recent development. Personally I would put it down to a few shit stirrers at the ABC pushing their own agenda. I don't think the debate surrounding this had to do with attacking the legitimacy of homosexuality, however. My own humble opinion on this is that the guys who did it were out of line and acting counterproductively.

[Ozintokyo]

I don't think the debate surrounding this had to do with attacking the legitimacy of homosexuality, however. My own humble opinion on this is that the guys who did it were out of line and acting counterproductively.

I agree. What I thought most relevent though is the issue of exposing very young kids to this - as in, do we let the TV and other "teachers" be the ones to introduce kids to this topic.

[JayRamey]

Jay, as long as you're online, how about answering my question, which I am asking you now for the sixth time yet you have not seen fit to answer?

Do you think homosexuality is a disease that should be treated? If so, how? With readings from Deuteronomy and Leviticus? If not, according to your own logic, you do not believe in treating pedophilia as a disorder.

Who the hell are you to make demands on me, punk? I have asked you and several others to answer the question I proposed on page 1 of this thread. However, you refuse to answer my question but demand that I answer yours that was posed much later. I am not playing your games. If you want to give a rational answer to my question then perhaps I will discuss further with you (time permitting--some of have to work and can't spend all our working hours on the internet) your question. I realize you are rather arrogant and think you are some genius in every and all topic areas as well as some kind of debating champion. However, you are in no position to make demands of me.

[lounge_man]

Listen lounge man, Frege has a lot of shit that I don't get so please go the linguistics/grammar thread and start explaining some of it. Why waste your time on this thread?

Cos I don't have a fucking clue about linguistics and grammar mainly.

[RalphWiggum]

I'm still at a loss as to what people find so disgusting about homosexuality. Jay, could you explain why you feel such sickness and disgust?

[lounge_man]

Who the hell are you to make demands on me, punk?

Oh God! Here we go again! Name calling and profanities.

For someone who doesn't like gays you sure seem to like getting reamed.

[Melodious_Thunk]

Who the hell are you to make demands on me, punk? I have asked you and several others to answer the question I proposed on page 1 of this thread. However, you refuse to answer my question but demand that I answer yours that was posed much later. I am not playing your games. If you want to give a rational answer to my question then perhaps I will discuss further with you (time permitting--some of have to work and can't spend all our working hours on the internet) your question. I realize you are rather arrogant and think you are some genius in every and all topic areas as well as some kind of debating champion. However, you are in no position to make demands of me.

If you're going to classify everyone's beliefs into one of two categories, you could at least state which one your own fall into. But you still won't, and now you resort to the ad hominem attack. Classy. I can't help but get the feeling that the "treatment" you would advocate involves Bible reading and beating "fags" with sticks.

[Melodious_Thunk]

Who the hell are you to make demands on me, punk? I have asked you and several others to answer the question I proposed on page 1 of this thread. However, you refuse to answer my question but demand that I answer yours that was posed much later.

The only question that I saw you ask on page 1 was why there are many homosexuals in the JET program. I have no idea if it is true or why if it is. Happy? I also have no idea why asking you to choose one of the two options from a false dilemma that you attempted to force on others makes me a "punk."

[BakaMike]

Can you tell us why the US doesn't actually enforce these laws? It wouldn't have anything to do with every other democracy on the planet considering these laws outdated and probably illegal under international humanitarian law? If the US actually enforced these laws they would become the laughing stock of the west. To the rest of the free world, these laws look like they are from the dark ages. I am actually Australian, and to even bother debating stuff like this seems amazing to me. Homosexuality has been a non issue here for a long time now. I think that any self respecting US patriot and believer in personal freedoms and democracy would condemn these laws. I would challenge any US citizen to reconcile their belief in personal freedoms and support for these laws.

Thanks LM.

JR: As he so rightly points out, you`ve used outdated and obselete laws to support the contention that your opinion is up to date. That argument doesn`t fly too well does it?

[BakaMike]

Well, I mentioned just before this thread came into existence that it was high time a semi-regular poster went off the rails and got flamed to death for it. Is Jay just rising to the challenge?

I wondered that - very timely!

It has turned into a very interesting thread though! I`ve learnt about false diilemma`s, The real meaning of a strawman argument and I`ve got some good reading material from DiT to get stuck into when I get a few mins. Thanks guys!

Oh, and a good laugh at JR`s expense!

[Melodious_Thunk]

Who the hell are you to make demands on me, punk? I have asked you and several others to answer the question I proposed on page 1 of this thread. However, you refuse to answer my question but demand that I answer yours that was posed much later. I am not playing your games. If you want to give a rational answer to my question then perhaps I will discuss further with you (time permitting--some of have to work and can't spend all our working hours on the internet) your question. I realize you are rather arrogant and think you are some genius in every and all topic areas as well as some kind of debating champion. However, you are in no position to make demands of me.

Going back through the thread again, I think Jay must have meant the question he posed to angryboy on page 3, one post before the one in which I put the question to him.

By the way would you like to answer the question that I posed instead of the name calling and red herring. The question is why do pedophiles suffer from a disease that needs urgent treatment and homosexuals do not?

This has already been answered by several people, and, like nearly everyone else here, my opinion is that pedophilia is a behavior that involves raping and molesting young children who generally lack the physical and emotional faculties to fend off unwanted sex acts. Homosexuality is between consenting adults. You may not like the answer, but that's the answer. Homosexuality may or may not be "unnatural" or "abnormal" -- I am not a psychbiologist -- but it does not harm people and does not require "treatment." Gays should be left alone.

By the way would you like to answer the question that I posed instead of the name calling and red herring.

Very well put. Would you like to answer my question instead of the name calling and the red herring?

[iwantmyrightsnow]

[
In the overwhelming majority of states in America, sodomy is illegal. Some of these laws prohibit all sodomy and some of these laws prohibit same sex sodomy. I do not know of a state where sodomy is legal, but I would not be surprised if California had removed its sodomy laws. However, the FACT remains that sodomy is illegal in the vast majority of American states.
PLEASE get your facts straight.

I'm all for getting facts correct but before you attack others you need to get your own facts straight. Sodomy is in fact legal in a large majority of states in the USA.

I could back it up but why don't you go and do your homework?

[Melodious_Thunk]

In the overwhelming majority of states in America, sodomy is illegal. Some of these laws prohibit all sodomy and some of these laws prohibit same sex sodomy. I do not know of a state where sodomy is legal, but I would not be surprised if California had removed its sodomy laws. However, the FACT remains that sodomy is illegal in the vast majority of American states.
PLEASE get your facts straight.

I'm all for getting facts correct but before you attack others you need to get your own facts straight. Sodomy is in fact legal in a large majority of states in the USA.

I could back it up but why don't you go and do your homework?

You busted a lawyer on the law.

I found a helpful map in case anyone else is interested. (I know I was.)
http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm

In the overwhelming majority of states in America, sodomy is illegal.

Only if "overwhelming majority" is defined as 28%.

[MacGyver]

Jay must feel about 10cm tall at the moment. To use technical language, Jay has completely lost the plot!

[Guest]

[
In the overwhelming majority of states in America, sodomy is illegal. Some of these laws prohibit all sodomy and some of these laws prohibit same sex sodomy. I do not know of a state where sodomy is legal, but I would not be surprised if California had removed its sodomy laws. However, the FACT remains that sodomy is illegal in the vast majority of American states.
PLEASE get your facts straight.

I'm all for getting facts correct but before you attack others you need to get your own facts straight. Sodomy is in fact legal in a large majority of states in the USA.

I could back it up but why don't you go and do your homework?

Buwahahahahah!!!!! OMG that is so fucken funny.

[Smurfette]

Damn, I went to be early and missed all of the fun last night

[Guest]

jay I thought you weren't going to post here anymore anyway.

My friends, many of you may have noticed that I do not post here anymore. I come here and read the messages from time to time to see what is going on, but I have decided not to post here anymore.

<snip>

I don稚 post messages anymore, except for this one explaining why, and have no intention to post here again as long as Fetusovereasy dishes out his arbitrary and capricious rules.

I guess there weren't enough homosexual related topics to hold your interest back then. we aim to please here at LJ.

I'm not trying to tell you to go or anything, just remembering that giant long, petty and rediculous flame you wrote against me last year. even if you stay though, you'Ve pretty much jumped the shark.

[ex_drone]

]
I agree. What I thought most relevent though is the issue of exposing very young kids to this - as in, do we let the TV and other "teachers" be the ones to introduce kids to this topic.

Explaining anything like that is up to parents to do as they see fit not some crackpot leftie hippy scum sucking school teacher or some goon in a Tv production company.

[iwantmyrightsnow]

Explain what? How this goes in here and that goes in there? Get realistic. The only extent of "explaining something" (before puberty at least) would be a storybook along the lines of "My Two Mummies". There are thousands of children out there with gay parents. They have the right to have their lives validated whether it be thru the media, education or whatever. By hiding the "issue" away you marginalise a significant part of society.

What is a teacher supposed to say when there is a child of gay parents in a class? Ignore it when it naturally becomes known? Wouldn't it be better if they discussed it in a manner appropriate to the age level.

Maybe you should go and read the latest news in Australia, and you could be happy that we have a homophobic prime minister.

[Guest]

Geez dude, before making such an arrogant claim, I would at least make sure my facts are correct before making myself look completely foolish.

I'm all for getting facts correct but before you attack others you need to get your own facts straight.

Who the hell are you to make demands on me, punk?

I realize that people like you will never make the admission that homosexuality is normal and homosexuality is abnormal. Even thought I believe you know it deep down, you will never admit it.

Oh God! Here we go again! Name calling and profanities.