:: What are "traditional values", anyway?We both know what they are Nikhil. I have them. You either want them or you want to tear them up. You certainly aren't showing me tolerance - at least by your definition of it.
:: And how does homosexuality have a negative impact on society- even though it may contravene certain Biblical values, what about all the non-Christians among us?
I call it moral decay. You may have heard of it described as a "slippery slope" where one accepted perversion leads to the next. Note that I don't and cannot remove my faith from this arguement. If the God of the Bible exists, His edicts are soveriegn. If He does not exist, I should think any behavior is acceptable because I understand that morality is then no more concrete or stable than a leaf on the wind. Indeed, if there is no morality other than what comes from man, I would fear nothing but the ramifications of breaking man's laws - something very trivial to me if there is no fear of God.
:: VERY poor example. This is only a tangential point, but in fact, in Asian societies such as Thailand, men holding ahnds is taken as a sign of comradeship and is totally non-sexual, while any physical affection bewteen men and women in public is frowned on. Since most people today live in Asian societies, I would suggets tha this tolerance of men holding hands is the rule, and your statement is tehrefore utterly baseless.
You stretched your Thailand rebuttal to include all of Asia and I'm not buying it. Is that what you're saying? That all Asian men hold hands?
In this culture when men hold hands it is a sexual expression. But my point is that any sexual expression between hetrosexuals has less negative impact than between homosexuals in quite nearly every culture.
:: Don't speak for "the common man". "traditional values" in Amneriac were imposed on the common man by the bourgeoisie.
This is when I laugh at you Nikhil, when you tell me and everyone like me that we can't think for ourselves when you are the one parroting booklearned jargon.
:: What would you prefer? that seven year olds learn that homoseuxuality is evil, and that homosexuals should be persecuted?
Actually, I have difficulty understanding why common decency can't be taught without reference to sexuality, race, or creed. Also, find me a reason that seven year olds need this kind of education - unless indoctrination is the goal.
:: I would be EXTREMELY offended if my child were taught that.
I would be offended also, but I'm not advocating the persecution of homosexuals, am I? On the other hand, the seven year olds I saw were being quite clearly taught that those who consider the practice sinful are the hateful bashers of society. Anyone teaching that to a seven year old child has a whole lot more on their mind than education.
:: Teach your child differently if you wish,
I have but the education system seems bent on erasing it from their minds.
:: but as you said somewhere else, I "will not abide" my child being taught anything but tolerance for other people.
Can one be tolerant and still hold a practice as sinful and unacceptable within the purview of their religion and within their group of practitioners? To be "tolerant" must I abondon my morality and accept yours? Or does the word simply mean "tolerant" as the dictionary defines it? I don't agree with homosexuality but I suffer it to be (within society - not in my church) - without prohibition or hinderance.
:: I won't abide fundamentalists imposing their values on my child.
Why don't we just teach them academics and skip over the Christian and Humanist values? That suits me just fine. Or better yet, why don't we get the state out of the education business altogether?
:: No, the conservatives are the ones who would liek to steal our children for their agenda. They would liek to raise a generation of loyal robots who will bow dowm=n to teh American flag, worship every murderous action of US foreign policy, and become raised never to question whether communsim might in fact be fairer, mroe humane, and more democratic than capitalism. If you will aclknowledge that indoctrinating kids with anticommunism is evil, then I may agree that forcing sexual attitudes on them is wrong.
That would only prove that your principles are negotiable.
The past and present opprobrium suffered by the Soviets for their sin is requisite. Absolutely requisite! Do you find the mislabeling of Marxist ideology a greater crime than murder? Tens of millions of them? I suggest you go ahead and rewrite all recent history so the children can know that your ideology is pure - if not every attempted implementation of it. When enough pure people are programmed to accept the humanistic ideology you call communism, perhaps those perfect people will then erase the depravity of man through continued social engineering and bring about a golden age of peace and prosperity for the masses.
Of course, I believe that for many of the same reasons you disparage capitalism, any true communist system will fall into chaos. I know greed and envy are common to man and always will be. You hope greed and envy might be engineered out of the psyche of man someday. Your optative hope is naive amongst the historical record of man. I suggest greed and envy are harnessed to some extent with capitalism and that forces those characteristics work for the common man.
Stuart Gort
