California: Judge orders homeschoolers into government education

[Fox McCloud]

How is what I said collectivism? Singling out gay people seems more like collectivism to me.

Gays don't have rights, women don't have rights, men don't have rights, heterosexuals don't have rights--only the individual has rights--singling out a single group for "rights" is collectivism.

This has me curious. Show me your 'evidence' to back up your position on homosexuality.

I'm a believer in the Bible, that's all the evidence I personally need---I likely suspect a counter-attack on this, but I really don't care...that's the beauty of this country- I'm free to believe whatever I want, just so long as I don't coercively impose my ideas on others.

We still are.

Nnno, we are not--we're broke, our military is a mess, and we're on the blade of a knife (with destruction on both sides).

I did not say or imply that society would collapse if schooling was not mandatory. You Christians are the ones saying society would collapse if gay marriage were legalized (despite MANY countries showing the contrary).

Actually, you're making an assumption here--I n ever stated that society would collapse if gay marriage were legalized--I merely said I'm personally against the homosexual life-style. Last time I checked, you can be against someone doing something, but not want to use legislation or regulation to force people to do something.

Correct. The Constitution does not guarantee political parties either, but it does not expressly forbid them.

And this has nothing to do with what I pointed out--since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, it must be abided by and enforced, therefore, forcing someone to go to school is completely unconstitutional.

 

[Tdcci]

i wouldn't go that far. i think ignorant and misguided are more appropriate.

I would go as far as I needed to say that you are the ignorant and misguided ones, probably as a result of your Christian upbringing. Guttek has made many false and outrageous statements about who I am, what I think, and what my character is, and attack these strawmen! You choose to go with it and laugh amongst yourselves instead of reading my replies and what I actually say, or pick and choose which points you will address.

 

[Independent Operator]

Damn it. I just finished reading your posts on other threads. You need to realize
that any power not expressly delegated to the federal government in the
Constitution is retained by the states.

not to mention the fact that the writers of constitution explicitly sought (however poorly written) to prohibit standing armies and to defend the country with a citizen militia.

you can't send an army around the world if you don't have one.

 

[danberkeley]

I would go as far as I needed to say that you are the ignorant and misguided ones, probably as a result of your Christian upbringing. Guttek has made many false and outrageous statements about who I am, what I think, and what my character is, and attack these strawmen! You choose to go with it and laugh amongst yourselves instead of reading my replies and what I actually say, or pick and choose which points you will address.

My Christian upbringing? How do you know I'm not Muslim or Jewish?

 

[Tdcci]

Gays don't have rights, women don't have rights, men don't have rights, heterosexuals don't have rights--only the individual has rights--singling out a single group for "rights" is collectivism.

When only men could vote, what do you call what the women yearn for, the right to vote? They are speaking of women's right, specifically, a woman's right to vote, just like the homosexual's right to have their marriage recognized under the state. You're playing with words.

I'm a believer in the Bible, that's all the evidence I personally need---I likely suspect a counter-attack on this, but I really don't care...that's the beauty of this country- I'm free to believe whatever I want, just so long as I don't coercively impose my ideas on others.

At least you're honest about it. I could go on to say that Bible is full of lies and you only choose to obey the Bible when it's convenient, but my time is better served against the arguments closely removed from the Bible. Still BS of course.

Nnno, we are not--we're broke, our military is a mess, and we're on the blade of a knife (with destruction on both sides).

You can think that, but if you look at the raw numbers (GDP) you will come to a different conclusion.

Actually, you're making an assumption here--I n ever stated that society would collapse if gay marriage were legalized--I merely said I'm personally against the homosexual life-style.

No, I didn't. You said that when schooling was not mandatory, society did not collapse. I countered saying that I never said that society would collapse without mandatory schooling, and the society collapsing argument came from those against gay marriage.

Last time I checked, you can be against someone doing something, but not want to use legislation or regulation to force people to do something.

My problem is with those who use legislation to force or prohibit people from this natural progression of society.

And this has nothing to do with what I pointed out--since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, it must be abided by and enforced, therefore, forcing someone to go to school is completely unconstitutional.

Judges, the supreme interpreters of the Constitution have decided otherwise. It IS constitutional

 

[Tdcci]

My Christian upbringing? How do you know I'm not Muslim or Jewish?

How do you know I'm a human, not an Octopus?

 

[danberkeley]

There are two conflicting opinions here. One is

1) Teach children that homosexuality is wrong and homosexuals should be condemned and do not deserve equal rights. Dehumanize them to hold the child's empathy, just as it was done to blacks back in the day.

Equal rights in what sense? The government shouldn't discriminate against nor in favor of homosexuals. Likewise, the government shouldn't force any one else to discriminate in favor nor against homosexuals.

2) Teach children that there is nothing wrong with homosexuals, they are people just like you and I, and that homosexual hatred is irrational and the bigots should be condemned (last part optional).

If that's what you want to teach your children, go ahead. The problems lies where the government interferes in this issue and causes more hate towards homosexuals.

Doesn't it seem like option number 1 would require that you teach children exactly what homosexuality is as the church defines it? Because the church defines it by sex, and the normal scientific world defines it by attraction.

The government shouldn't be in the business of teaching what sexual preferences are right or wrong. It's a family issue.

 

[danberkeley]

How do you know I'm a human, not an Octopus?

I don't. That's why I haven't ruled out that you are an octopus. You assumed I have a Christian upbringing.

 

[Gadsden Flag]

Well, I thought I should weigh in here...

I was homeschooled. My parents were Christians.

The textbooks we used were even bought from a Christian publishing company, and most were taught with a theological perspective added.

I was not taught to hate anyone, ever. Nor was I taught to 'dehumanize' anyone, or that anyone was less than human. In fact, I remember many instances of explicitly being told by my parents that people of all races are equal. Likewise, people of all sexual preferences are equal--Although their lifestyles were sinful according to our religion, we should not treat them with less respect than anyone else. The same goes for people of all other religions--Jews, muslims, wiccans, etc. I was not taught that our values should be made into law, or that other viewpoints should be banned.

This was all explicitly stated in what I learned while being homeschooled.

I no longer consider myself a religious person, however, I don't have any contempt for people who are. It seems that some people possess a genuine fear of Christian ideals and values. I saw that fear expressed several times in this thread, and I hope that by posting this message, I can show that Christian people are not quite as dangerous or 'borg-like' as you may think.

 

[clouds]

Judges, the supreme interpreters of the Constitution have decided otherwise. It IS constitutional

Not to be rude, but the supreme court has made a metric ton of obviously wrong rulings that were obviously unconstitutional since the moment they were formed.

 

[danberkeley]

When only men could vote, what do you call what the
women yearn for, the right to vote? They are speaking of women's right,
specifically, a woman's right to vote, just like the homosexual's right to have their
marriage recognized under the state. You're playing with words.

And you're mixing issues. Besides, what difference does it make if a government
recognizes homosexual mirriage or not? What, taxes? The federal government shouldn't tax our income in the first place. Custody/guradianship? Again, the government should have no say as to what children of ours we are ALLOWED to keep.

You can think that, but if you look at the raw numbers (GDP) you will come to a different conclusion.

the GDP numbers also tells us that 70% GDP is consumer spending. that's not a good thing.

My problem is with those who use legislation to force or prohibit people from this natural progression of society.

Exactly, so why do we need legislation that mandates that our Children be taught that homosexuality is okay or not okay? If the issue is a natural progression of society, why do we need legislation to enforce it?

Judges, the supreme interpreters of the Constitution have decided otherwise. It IS constitutional

The purpose of the SUpreme Court is not to INTERPRET the Constitution. The Constitution is NOT open to interpretation.

 

[Tdcci]

Equal rights in what sense? The government shouldn't discriminate against nor in favor of homosexuals. Likewise, the government shouldn't force any one else to discriminate in favor nor against homosexuals.

If we have this dichotomy, discrimination for homosexuals, in the form of Affirmative Action is much less offensive. But this isn't the issue.

If that's what you want to teach your children, go ahead. The problems lies where the government interferes in this issue and causes more hate towards homosexuals.

Bullshit. Teaching tolerance does not cause more hatred toward homosexuals, it causes the opposite. That's why Christians are so afraid of it

The government shouldn't be in the business of teaching what sexual preferences are right or wrong. It's a family issue.

No, it isn't. It's a societal issue. It isn't about right or wrong either. You're all wrong about this. Teaching that something is not wrong is not teaching that it's right, there is no such thing as "right" in this case, that kind of black and white thinking only occurs in religion.

 

[Independent Operator]

There are two conflicting opinions here. One is

1) Teach children that homosexuality is wrong and homosexuals should be condemned and do not deserve equal rights. Dehumanize them to hold the child's empathy, just as it was done to blacks back in the day.

2) Teach children that there is nothing wrong with homosexuals, they are people just like you and I, and that homosexual hatred is irrational and the bigots should be condemned (last part optional).

Doesn't it seem like option number 1 would require that you teach children exactly what homosexuality is as the church defines it? Because the church defines it by sex, and the normal scientific world defines it by attraction.

non sequiturs abound with you. teach the simple facts.

btw, you confuse me with a religious american. i assure you i am not. i am an atheist even though i attended parochial school (probably the reason), but i will fight for the right of every american to lead the life he chooses. that is what it means to be american.

homosexuality is NOT unavoidable. it is not "hard wired" as you say. it is purely a sexual fetish, period - plain and simple (i'm attracted to big asses and hairy pussies - i guess i should teach children about that, huh?). it is not to be lauded or condemned from my standpoint, but i will not castigate a religious person for saying that it is wrong - that is up to them. it is a choice.

also, you seriously need a course in logic and argumentation. you are a horrible debater. you do not have the ability to make logical distinctions.

so as of this point i am through with you. you are a waste of any further time.

 

[Tdcci]

Well, I thought I should weigh in here...

I was homeschooled. My parents were Christians.

I'm so so sorry. If you need a therapist recommendation, send a private message.

 

[Tdcci]

And you're mixing issues. Besides, what difference does it make if a government
recognizes homosexual mirriage or not? What, taxes? The federal government shouldn't tax our income in the first place. Custody/guradianship? Again, the government should have no say as to what children of ours we are ALLOWED to keep.

As long as we are given tax breaks for marriage, the government should not discriminate between homosexual and hetersexual marriage.

the GDP numbers also tells us that 70% GDP is consumer spending. that's not a good thing.

Sure it is. Maybe it isn't moral according to your religion, but I have nothing but contempt for your religion

Exactly, so why do we need legislation that mandates that our Children be taught that homosexuality is okay or not okay? If the issue is a natural progression of society, why do we need legislation to enforce it?

Because Government is part of that society, and can do extremely good or bad things to help advance society. It can help advance the science and the arts, by subsidizing it, or it can hinder science and the arts by taxing it.

The purpose of the SUpreme Court is not to INTERPRET the Constitution. The Constitution is NOT open to interpretation.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. The Constitution is open to interpretation. My last two sentences, however, are not open for interpretation

 

[clouds]

Well, they've done a scandalous job of interpreting it so far.

 

[danberkeley]

non sequiturs abound with you. teach the simple facts.

....

also, you seriously need a course in logic and argumentation. you are a horrible debater. you do not have the ability to make logical distinctions.

so as of this point i am through with you. you are a waste of any further time.

Likewise, I'll end this debate with TDCCI by calling her/him/it/octopus a Marxist.

 

[Tdcci]

non sequiturs abound with you. teach the simple facts.

The facts are not in religion's favor. That's why Christians homeschool their children, to shield them from the facts and teach them to reject the facts. This is child abuse.

btw, you confuse me with a religious american. i assure you i am not. i am an atheist even though i attended parochial school (probably the reason), but i will fight for the right of every american to lead the life he chooses. that is what it means to be american.

If you say so. I still have my doubts.

homosexuality is NOT unavoidable. it is not "hard wired" as you say. it is purely a sexual fetish, period

No, it isn't.

- plain and simple (i'm attracted to big asses and hairy pussies - i guess i should teach children about that, huh?).

Teaching children that some people are attracted to men as some are attracted to women are not the same as teaching them about "big asses and hairy pussies".

it is not to be lauded or condemned from my standpoint, but i will not castigate a religious person for saying that it is wrong - that is up to them. it is a choice.

There are limits to choice, as there are limits to free speech.

also, you seriously need a course in logic and argumentation. you are a horrible debater. you do not have the ability to make logical distinctions.

(at this point you're supposed to show me examples of this)
(otherwise this is a baseless accusation)

so as of this point i am through with you. you are a waste of any further time.

One down, 75% of the American population to go.

 

[Tdcci]

Likewise, I'll end this debate with TDCCI by calling her/him/it/octopus a Marxist.

At least you've ended with your posts being consistently lies
That's something I can admire.

 

[Tdcci]

Well, they've done a scandalous job of interpreting it so far.

They have better credibility in interpreting the Constitution than you do, regardless of what your interpretation is. What if the Founding Fathers' beliefs did not align with yours? Consider that thought.