Menu

Home › Forums › Other › OT: Gay History in California Public Schools

Viewing 15 posts - 601 through 615 (of 826 total)
1 2 3 … 40 41 42 … 54 55 56
  • Author
    Posts
  • May 1, 2011 at 9:40 AM #692048
    Arraya
    Participant

    [quote=Rustico]

    I also agree with the spectrum theory and have for decades. However I think we should be more open to how the positioning on the spectrum is reflected by problems, including carelessness or subtle and blatant abuse in the child’s early years. [/quote]

    Agreed. Early childhood really sets the stage for a lot of things.

    [quote=Rustico]
    Over zealousness to giving premature and excessive credit to pre-birth conditions is a serious issue to children’s rights.

    [/quote]

    Agreed, sort of, if you are talking about the “it’s in the genes” argument. However, prenatal stresses can cause a host of behavioral dysfunctions in children and could also be labeled child abuse. Abused or severely stressed pregnant women will release excessive hormones that can set up genetic predispositions and alter biology/neurochemistry in a fetus.

    As an aside, after living six years in Hillcrest I think I may have lost 25% of my straightness. So many pride parades takes a toll. j/k

    May 1, 2011 at 11:33 AM #690883
    LA Reader
    Participant

    [quote=Rustico]
    I am perplexed that you would want to say what LA Reader said. He was pretty clearly not following what I was saying and he was aggressive and haughty with his first post in rebuttal. My question about his family was a much more mild turnabout on that.[/quote]

    I still don’t understand what you are saying. So you are saying that exposure to normal environmental “gay acceptance” (such as interacting with gay family friend, seeing gays on TV in none-negative way, seeing a friend with 2 dads or moms) can turn a straight child into a gay child?

    And this somehow happens in spite of genetic instinct to be straight, being around straight couples for most of their lives, seeing straight couples on TV for 99% of the time, etc?

    I don’t buy it at all. That’s a whole lot of “Straight” conditioning you have to over come with just a passive environmental “gay indoctrination”.

    And no I actually don’t have a brother and my sister is not gay. And I don’t understand how my family make up has any relevance. In fact, if I had gay siblings, it would be counter to your argument. Wouldn’t it? If I had a gay brother, why am I not gay? OR vice versa?

    May 1, 2011 at 11:33 AM #690954
    LA Reader
    Participant

    [quote=Rustico]
    I am perplexed that you would want to say what LA Reader said. He was pretty clearly not following what I was saying and he was aggressive and haughty with his first post in rebuttal. My question about his family was a much more mild turnabout on that.[/quote]

    I still don’t understand what you are saying. So you are saying that exposure to normal environmental “gay acceptance” (such as interacting with gay family friend, seeing gays on TV in none-negative way, seeing a friend with 2 dads or moms) can turn a straight child into a gay child?

    And this somehow happens in spite of genetic instinct to be straight, being around straight couples for most of their lives, seeing straight couples on TV for 99% of the time, etc?

    I don’t buy it at all. That’s a whole lot of “Straight” conditioning you have to over come with just a passive environmental “gay indoctrination”.

    And no I actually don’t have a brother and my sister is not gay. And I don’t understand how my family make up has any relevance. In fact, if I had gay siblings, it would be counter to your argument. Wouldn’t it? If I had a gay brother, why am I not gay? OR vice versa?

    May 1, 2011 at 11:33 AM #691561
    LA Reader
    Participant

    [quote=Rustico]
    I am perplexed that you would want to say what LA Reader said. He was pretty clearly not following what I was saying and he was aggressive and haughty with his first post in rebuttal. My question about his family was a much more mild turnabout on that.[/quote]

    I still don’t understand what you are saying. So you are saying that exposure to normal environmental “gay acceptance” (such as interacting with gay family friend, seeing gays on TV in none-negative way, seeing a friend with 2 dads or moms) can turn a straight child into a gay child?

    And this somehow happens in spite of genetic instinct to be straight, being around straight couples for most of their lives, seeing straight couples on TV for 99% of the time, etc?

    I don’t buy it at all. That’s a whole lot of “Straight” conditioning you have to over come with just a passive environmental “gay indoctrination”.

    And no I actually don’t have a brother and my sister is not gay. And I don’t understand how my family make up has any relevance. In fact, if I had gay siblings, it would be counter to your argument. Wouldn’t it? If I had a gay brother, why am I not gay? OR vice versa?

    May 1, 2011 at 11:33 AM #691706
    LA Reader
    Participant

    [quote=Rustico]
    I am perplexed that you would want to say what LA Reader said. He was pretty clearly not following what I was saying and he was aggressive and haughty with his first post in rebuttal. My question about his family was a much more mild turnabout on that.[/quote]

    I still don’t understand what you are saying. So you are saying that exposure to normal environmental “gay acceptance” (such as interacting with gay family friend, seeing gays on TV in none-negative way, seeing a friend with 2 dads or moms) can turn a straight child into a gay child?

    And this somehow happens in spite of genetic instinct to be straight, being around straight couples for most of their lives, seeing straight couples on TV for 99% of the time, etc?

    I don’t buy it at all. That’s a whole lot of “Straight” conditioning you have to over come with just a passive environmental “gay indoctrination”.

    And no I actually don’t have a brother and my sister is not gay. And I don’t understand how my family make up has any relevance. In fact, if I had gay siblings, it would be counter to your argument. Wouldn’t it? If I had a gay brother, why am I not gay? OR vice versa?

    May 1, 2011 at 11:33 AM #692053
    LA Reader
    Participant

    [quote=Rustico]
    I am perplexed that you would want to say what LA Reader said. He was pretty clearly not following what I was saying and he was aggressive and haughty with his first post in rebuttal. My question about his family was a much more mild turnabout on that.[/quote]

    I still don’t understand what you are saying. So you are saying that exposure to normal environmental “gay acceptance” (such as interacting with gay family friend, seeing gays on TV in none-negative way, seeing a friend with 2 dads or moms) can turn a straight child into a gay child?

    And this somehow happens in spite of genetic instinct to be straight, being around straight couples for most of their lives, seeing straight couples on TV for 99% of the time, etc?

    I don’t buy it at all. That’s a whole lot of “Straight” conditioning you have to over come with just a passive environmental “gay indoctrination”.

    And no I actually don’t have a brother and my sister is not gay. And I don’t understand how my family make up has any relevance. In fact, if I had gay siblings, it would be counter to your argument. Wouldn’t it? If I had a gay brother, why am I not gay? OR vice versa?

    May 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM #690893
    paramount
    Participant

    Being gay should not define a special class of citizens or special status; and gays should not be recognized in a public school curriculum in the way that is being proposed.

    Being gay is a behavior, not a social class.

    May 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM #690964
    paramount
    Participant

    Being gay should not define a special class of citizens or special status; and gays should not be recognized in a public school curriculum in the way that is being proposed.

    Being gay is a behavior, not a social class.

    May 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM #691570
    paramount
    Participant

    Being gay should not define a special class of citizens or special status; and gays should not be recognized in a public school curriculum in the way that is being proposed.

    Being gay is a behavior, not a social class.

    May 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM #691716
    paramount
    Participant

    Being gay should not define a special class of citizens or special status; and gays should not be recognized in a public school curriculum in the way that is being proposed.

    Being gay is a behavior, not a social class.

    May 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM #692063
    paramount
    Participant

    Being gay should not define a special class of citizens or special status; and gays should not be recognized in a public school curriculum in the way that is being proposed.

    Being gay is a behavior, not a social class.

    May 1, 2011 at 4:22 PM #690913
    urbanrealtor
    Participant

    [quote=paramount]Being gay should not define a special class of citizens or special status; and gays should not be recognized in a public school curriculum in the way that is being proposed.

    Being gay is a behavior, not a social class.[/quote]

    Social class is defined by any designator (eg: hair color, skin color, sexual behavior, income, alcohol consumption) that can be used to draw a circle around a group.

    People who have same-sex relations may or may not be gay (eg: prison) but the point is that behavior is a perfectly acceptable designator of social class.

    That is why we have a word for it.
    That is why it is a designated “protected social class” in the state code.

    By your definition, religion would also be likewise non-recognized.

    Being a Mormon is also a behavior.

    May 1, 2011 at 4:22 PM #690984
    urbanrealtor
    Participant

    [quote=paramount]Being gay should not define a special class of citizens or special status; and gays should not be recognized in a public school curriculum in the way that is being proposed.

    Being gay is a behavior, not a social class.[/quote]

    Social class is defined by any designator (eg: hair color, skin color, sexual behavior, income, alcohol consumption) that can be used to draw a circle around a group.

    People who have same-sex relations may or may not be gay (eg: prison) but the point is that behavior is a perfectly acceptable designator of social class.

    That is why we have a word for it.
    That is why it is a designated “protected social class” in the state code.

    By your definition, religion would also be likewise non-recognized.

    Being a Mormon is also a behavior.

    May 1, 2011 at 4:22 PM #691589
    urbanrealtor
    Participant

    [quote=paramount]Being gay should not define a special class of citizens or special status; and gays should not be recognized in a public school curriculum in the way that is being proposed.

    Being gay is a behavior, not a social class.[/quote]

    Social class is defined by any designator (eg: hair color, skin color, sexual behavior, income, alcohol consumption) that can be used to draw a circle around a group.

    People who have same-sex relations may or may not be gay (eg: prison) but the point is that behavior is a perfectly acceptable designator of social class.

    That is why we have a word for it.
    That is why it is a designated “protected social class” in the state code.

    By your definition, religion would also be likewise non-recognized.

    Being a Mormon is also a behavior.

    May 1, 2011 at 4:22 PM #691736
    urbanrealtor
    Participant

    [quote=paramount]Being gay should not define a special class of citizens or special status; and gays should not be recognized in a public school curriculum in the way that is being proposed.

    Being gay is a behavior, not a social class.[/quote]

    Social class is defined by any designator (eg: hair color, skin color, sexual behavior, income, alcohol consumption) that can be used to draw a circle around a group.

    People who have same-sex relations may or may not be gay (eg: prison) but the point is that behavior is a perfectly acceptable designator of social class.

    That is why we have a word for it.
    That is why it is a designated “protected social class” in the state code.

    By your definition, religion would also be likewise non-recognized.

    Being a Mormon is also a behavior.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 601 through 615 (of 826 total)
1 2 3 … 40 41 42 … 54 55 56
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.