November 22, 200421 yr http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...stosocialagenda Conservatives' efforts over the years to edit textbooks are legendary here. In a nod to those who believe God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, a sentence saying the ice age took place "millions of years ago" was changed to "in the distant past." Descriptions of environmentalism have been attacked as antithetical to free-enterprise ideals; a passage describing the cruelty of slavery was derided as "overkill." One agreed to define marriage as a "lifelong union between a husband and a wife." Another deleted words that were attacked by conservatives as "stealth" references to gay relationships; "partners," for example, was changed to "husbands and wives." A passage explaining that adolescence brings the onset of "attraction to others" became "attraction to the opposite sex." I loathe these people.
November 22, 200421 yr http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...stosocialagenda Conservatives' efforts over the years to edit textbooks are legendary here. In a nod to those who believe God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, a sentence saying the ice age took place "millions of years ago" was changed to "in the distant past." Descriptions of environmentalism have been attacked as antithetical to free-enterprise ideals; a passage describing the cruelty of slavery was derided as "overkill." One agreed to define marriage as a "lifelong union between a husband and a wife." Another deleted words that were attacked by conservatives as "stealth" references to gay relationships; "partners," for example, was changed to "husbands and wives." A passage explaining that adolescence brings the onset of "attraction to others" became "attraction to the opposite sex." I loathe these people. 619787[/snapback] so im guessing that theyre saying slavery wasnt bad, it was just about right. :plain that other s*** is extreme to. yeah im reading a textbook and when i read "partners" in terms of marriage or "marriage" im gonna think about a marriage between some dudes named carlos and juan. i dont think mainstream society, rightly or wrongly, is ever going to seriously think about homosexuals first when they hear or read the word marriage.
November 22, 200421 yr http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...stosocialagenda Conservatives' efforts over the years to edit textbooks are legendary here. In a nod to those who believe God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, a sentence saying the ice age took place "millions of years ago" was changed to "in the distant past." Descriptions of environmentalism have been attacked as antithetical to free-enterprise ideals; a passage describing the cruelty of slavery was derided as "overkill." One agreed to define marriage as a "lifelong union between a husband and a wife." Another deleted words that were attacked by conservatives as "stealth" references to gay relationships; "partners," for example, was changed to "husbands and wives." A passage explaining that adolescence brings the onset of "attraction to others" became "attraction to the opposite sex." I loathe these people. 619787[/snapback] Just as much as you or any other social liberal has a right to oppose "conservative" statements, social conservatives have a right to this also, so you just need to get the f*** over it. Why is it that liberals today seem to think conservative thought has no right to even exist? I loathe these people.
November 22, 200421 yr http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...stosocialagenda Conservatives' efforts over the years to edit textbooks are legendary here. In a nod to those who believe God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, a sentence saying the ice age took place "millions of years ago" was changed to "in the distant past." Descriptions of environmentalism have been attacked as antithetical to free-enterprise ideals; a passage describing the cruelty of slavery was derided as "overkill." One agreed to define marriage as a "lifelong union between a husband and a wife." Another deleted words that were attacked by conservatives as "stealth" references to gay relationships; "partners," for example, was changed to "husbands and wives." A passage explaining that adolescence brings the onset of "attraction to others" became "attraction to the opposite sex." I loathe these people. 619787[/snapback] Just as much as you or any other social liberal has a right to oppose "conservative" statements, social conservatives have a right to this also, so you just need to get the f*** over it. Why is it that liberals today seem to think conservative thought has no right to even exist? I loathe these people. 619810[/snapback] Do you or do you not agree with editing these textbooks to say those things? Can you defend these people?
November 22, 200421 yr Author I support their right to believe this stuff, but not the right to legislate it or make my child learn it.
November 22, 200421 yr Absolutly agree with editing these textbooks to define marriage between a man and a woman, I agree that this does imply homsexual relations, and I dont want MY kids reading that
November 22, 200421 yr Absolutly agree with editing these textbooks to define marriage between a man and a woman, I agree that this does imply homsexual relations, and I dont want MY kids reading that 619816[/snapback] How does it imply homosexual relations? What kid reads attraction to others and says my goodness, that means teachers support attraction to anyone! Kids dont even think of this stuff. Let me ask you this. Would you let your kids go see Lord of the Rings? There are scenes where Sam and Frodo get too close!! Better watch out! The fags are coming! You realize gays come out of strict religious and military families too? If a dad who teaches his kids that being gay means your skin burns for eternity cant stop his kid from being gay, then how the hell is adjusting terms to avoid possible, but not clear, implications gonna do it? This is the same line of thinking that people that have book burnings for immoral books engage in. I expect any book that implies homosexuality is ok will soon be outlawed too and youd be ok with that? Wasnt it sorianofan who was talking about fahrenheit 451?
November 22, 200421 yr Absolutly agree with editing these textbooks to define marriage between a man and a woman, I agree that this does imply homsexual relations, and I dont want MY kids reading that 619816[/snapback] How does it imply homosexual relations? What kid reads attraction to others and says my goodness, that means teachers support attraction to anyone! Kids dont even think of this stuff. Let me ask you this. Would you let your kids go see Lord of the Rings? There are scenes where Sam and Frodo get too close!! Better watch out! The fags are coming! You realize gays come out of strict religious and military families too? If a dad who teaches his kids that being gay means your skin burns for eternity cant stop his kid from being gay, then how the hell is adjusting terms to avoid possible, but not clear, implications gonna do it? This is the same line of thinking that people that have book burnings for immoral books engage in. I expect any book that implies homosexuality is ok will soon be outlawed too and youd be ok with that? Wasnt it sorianofan who was talking about fahrenheit 451? 619824[/snapback] Please DO NOT lecture me about homosexuality or how to raise my kids, this is just the first step of many that will lead to full blown homosexuality in our kids textbooks, and as far as Lord of the Rings goes Ive never seen it, and I am not a HOMOPHOBE I have plenty of plutonic relationships with homosexuals, I just feel it has no place in our PUBLIC schools and textbooks, you raise your kid however you want to and Ill raise mine the way I want to
November 22, 200421 yr Author I must agree with sorianofan on this one. Anyone who opposes a gay person's avenue to full rights is a homophobe. There is no other way to state it.
November 22, 200421 yr Absolutly agree with editing these textbooks to define marriage between a man and a woman, I agree that this does imply homsexual relations, and I dont want MY kids reading that 619816[/snapback] How does it imply homosexual relations? What kid reads attraction to others and says my goodness, that means teachers support attraction to anyone! Kids dont even think of this stuff. Let me ask you this. Would you let your kids go see Lord of the Rings? There are scenes where Sam and Frodo get too close!! Better watch out! The fags are coming! You realize gays come out of strict religious and military families too? If a dad who teaches his kids that being gay means your skin burns for eternity cant stop his kid from being gay, then how the hell is adjusting terms to avoid possible, but not clear, implications gonna do it? This is the same line of thinking that people that have book burnings for immoral books engage in. I expect any book that implies homosexuality is ok will soon be outlawed too and youd be ok with that? Wasnt it sorianofan who was talking about fahrenheit 451? 619824[/snapback] Please DO NOT lecture me about homosexuality or how to raise my kids, this is just the first step of many that will lead to full blown homosexuality in our kids textbooks, and as far as Lord of the Rings goes Ive never seen it, and I am not a HOMOPHOBE I have plenty of plutonic relationships with homosexuals, I just feel it has no place in our PUBLIC schools and textbooks, you raise your kid however you want to and Ill raise mine the way I want to 619832[/snapback] There are no homosexual references in textbooks though. Its the mere possibility of the implication. Isnt it a bit ridiculous to say the term attraction to others, which has been around forever, leads to homosexuality? Arent we stretching it a bit? And in doing so, arent you imposing your views on others? You are telling others how to raise their kids. If someone wants the word marriage in books to reference gay or straight marriages, you might have an argument. But the word is just marriage and goes neither way. But you are imposing on a person who wants to raise their kid to think marriage is between gays or straights and forcing them to think marriage must be between straights. Why not keep it in the middle as just marriage? How is that imposing on you?
November 22, 200421 yr I must agree with sorianofan on this one. Anyone who opposes a gay person's avenue to full rights is a homophobe. There is no other way to state it. 619836[/snapback] I'm afraid of myself, it's true.
November 22, 200421 yr http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...stosocialagenda Conservatives' efforts over the years to edit textbooks are legendary here. In a nod to those who believe God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, a sentence saying the ice age took place "millions of years ago" was changed to "in the distant past." Descriptions of environmentalism have been attacked as antithetical to free-enterprise ideals; a passage describing the cruelty of slavery was derided as "overkill." One agreed to define marriage as a "lifelong union between a husband and a wife." Another deleted words that were attacked by conservatives as "stealth" references to gay relationships; "partners," for example, was changed to "husbands and wives." A passage explaining that adolescence brings the onset of "attraction to others" became "attraction to the opposite sex." I loathe these people. 619787[/snapback] Just as much as you or any other social liberal has a right to oppose "conservative" statements, social conservatives have a right to this also, so you just need to get the f*** over it. Why is it that liberals today seem to think conservative thought has no right to even exist? I loathe these people. 619810[/snapback] Do you or do you not agree with editing these textbooks to say those things? Can you defend these people? 619813[/snapback] I have no opinion on the editing of the textbooks. I'm more interested in your opposition to it.
November 22, 200421 yr http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...stosocialagenda Conservatives' efforts over the years to edit textbooks are legendary here. In a nod to those who believe God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, a sentence saying the ice age took place "millions of years ago" was changed to "in the distant past." Descriptions of environmentalism have been attacked as antithetical to free-enterprise ideals; a passage describing the cruelty of slavery was derided as "overkill." One agreed to define marriage as a "lifelong union between a husband and a wife." Another deleted words that were attacked by conservatives as "stealth" references to gay relationships; "partners," for example, was changed to "husbands and wives." A passage explaining that adolescence brings the onset of "attraction to others" became "attraction to the opposite sex." I loathe these people. 619787[/snapback] Just as much as you or any other social liberal has a right to oppose "conservative" statements, social conservatives have a right to this also, so you just need to get the f*** over it. Why is it that liberals today seem to think conservative thought has no right to even exist? I loathe these people. 619810[/snapback] Do you or do you not agree with editing these textbooks to say those things? Can you defend these people? 619813[/snapback] I have no opinion on the editing of the textbooks. I'm more interested in your opposition to it. 619841[/snapback] Im opposed to editing textbooks for idiotic zealot reasons that reflect ones own personal views.
November 22, 200421 yr http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...stosocialagenda Conservatives' efforts over the years to edit textbooks are legendary here. In a nod to those who believe God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, a sentence saying the ice age took place "millions of years ago" was changed to "in the distant past." Descriptions of environmentalism have been attacked as antithetical to free-enterprise ideals; a passage describing the cruelty of slavery was derided as "overkill." One agreed to define marriage as a "lifelong union between a husband and a wife." Another deleted words that were attacked by conservatives as "stealth" references to gay relationships; "partners," for example, was changed to "husbands and wives." A passage explaining that adolescence brings the onset of "attraction to others" became "attraction to the opposite sex." I loathe these people. 619787[/snapback] Just as much as you or any other social liberal has a right to oppose "conservative" statements, social conservatives have a right to this also, so you just need to get the f*** over it. Why is it that liberals today seem to think conservative thought has no right to even exist? I loathe these people. 619810[/snapback] Do you or do you not agree with editing these textbooks to say those things? Can you defend these people? 619813[/snapback] I have no opinion on the editing of the textbooks. I'm more interested in your opposition to it. 619841[/snapback] Im opposed to editing textbooks for idiotic zealot reasons that reflect ones own personal views. 619842[/snapback] The extra adjectives you threw in that statement make it invalid and biased. Next.
November 22, 200421 yr Author I must agree with sorianofan on this one.? Anyone who opposes a gay person's avenue to full rights is a homophobe.? There is no other way to state it. 619836[/snapback] I'm afraid of myself, it's true. 619840[/snapback] I'll admit it's a confusing situation for me, everyone else here, and probably for you.
November 22, 200421 yr http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...stosocialagenda Conservatives' efforts over the years to edit textbooks are legendary here. In a nod to those who believe God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, a sentence saying the ice age took place "millions of years ago" was changed to "in the distant past." Descriptions of environmentalism have been attacked as antithetical to free-enterprise ideals; a passage describing the cruelty of slavery was derided as "overkill." One agreed to define marriage as a "lifelong union between a husband and a wife." Another deleted words that were attacked by conservatives as "stealth" references to gay relationships; "partners," for example, was changed to "husbands and wives." A passage explaining that adolescence brings the onset of "attraction to others" became "attraction to the opposite sex." I loathe these people. 619787[/snapback] Just as much as you or any other social liberal has a right to oppose "conservative" statements, social conservatives have a right to this also, so you just need to get the f*** over it. Why is it that liberals today seem to think conservative thought has no right to even exist? I loathe these people. 619810[/snapback] Do you or do you not agree with editing these textbooks to say those things? Can you defend these people? 619813[/snapback] I have no opinion on the editing of the textbooks. I'm more interested in your opposition to it. 619841[/snapback] Im opposed to editing textbooks for idiotic zealot reasons that reflect ones own personal views. 619842[/snapback] The extra adjectives you threw in that statement make it invalid and biased. Next. 619846[/snapback] How so?
November 22, 200421 yr F_M, clearly you're opposed to the Christian agenda here, and that's alright. But it seems like you're more opposed to Christianity itself, and that my friend is a line you fail to walk correctly.
November 22, 200421 yr F_M, clearly you're opposed to the Christian agenda here, and that's alright.? But it seems like you're more opposed to Christianity itself, and that my friend is a line you fail to walk correctly. 619852[/snapback] Where do you get any opposition to Christianity from my opposition to adjusting textbooks? The taliban adjusted textbooks there to reflect their zealotry. I oppose it. Hussein taught kids he was the origin of all. I oppose it. If someone wants to ajdust a textbook to make Genghis Khan politically correct, I oppose it. I believe everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to believe. I believe in the first amendment. Im an agnostic, not an atheist.
November 22, 200421 yr Author Christianity which doesn't force itself onto people as the only way is good. The opposite, which we see manifesting itself currently, is horribly misguided and evil. There needs to be room for many world-views in this country and writing Christian religious right dogma into law and textbooks is not the way to accomplish that.
November 22, 200421 yr F_M, clearly you're opposed to the Christian agenda here, and that's alright.? But it seems like you're more opposed to Christianity itself, and that my friend is a line you fail to walk correctly. 619852[/snapback] Where do you get any opposition to Christianity from my opposition to adjusting textbooks? The taliban adjusted textbooks there to reflect their zealotry. I oppose it. Hussein taught kids he was the origin of all. I oppose it. If someone wants to ajdust a textbook to make Genghis Khan politically correct, I oppose it. I believe everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to believe. I believe in the first amendment. Im an agnostic, not an atheist. 619856[/snapback] I make the case that this statement says it all. It is not opposing this rationally, but rather, intolerantly. "Im opposed to editing textbooks for idiotic zealot reasons that reflect ones own personal views" -flying_mollusk
November 22, 200421 yr Author I don't get it. We are intolerant of people who intolerantly push their intolerant world-views on EVERYONE, therefore we are intolerant. I feel safe on the side trying to root out intolerance. How do you feel about spreading it?
November 22, 200421 yr F_M, clearly you're opposed to the Christian agenda here, and that's alright.? But it seems like you're more opposed to Christianity itself, and that my friend is a line you fail to walk correctly. 619852[/snapback] Where do you get any opposition to Christianity from my opposition to adjusting textbooks? The taliban adjusted textbooks there to reflect their zealotry. I oppose it. Hussein taught kids he was the origin of all. I oppose it. If someone wants to ajdust a textbook to make Genghis Khan politically correct, I oppose it. I believe everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to believe. I believe in the first amendment. Im an agnostic, not an atheist. 619856[/snapback] I make the case that this statement says it all. It is not opposing this rationally, but rather, intolerantly. "Im opposed to editing textbooks for idiotic zealot reasons that reflect ones own personal views" -flying_mollusk 619861[/snapback] You have to be more clear on that.
November 22, 200421 yr Wait I think I see. Im not saying your views are necessarily idiotic or zealot like. Thats fine. If you think marriage is between a man and a women and you think God created humans, fine...though I STRONGLY disagree with you. I think what is extreme is people who think terms undefined will lead to vast homosexuality and to the death of religion. We've known the Ice age happend a million years ago. Thats a fact nearly undeniable. But to change that to "a long time ago" because it could go in conflict with your views is simply way too extreme.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.