The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

lazygal · 07-02-2013 10:58AM

philologos wrote: »

The main plot of King & King is an example of biased teaching on this. I object to biased teaching of all kinds on this issue. I think parents should teach their own children about relationship structures.

If children come to their own conclusion that gay marriage is wrong, that's up to them. Why should anything happen?

How is it biased? What do you mean by 'glorifying'? Will you teach your hypothetical children gay marriage is wrong? What if they are gay and get married, would you attend and/or recognise it?

Corkfeen · 07-02-2013 10:59AM

philologos wrote: »

Do you think books about romance at primary school age are appropriate?

Yes, most children's films have romantic elements(The Lady and the Tramp etc.). But let's be realistic, the romance isn't the issue in your mind.

philologos · 07-02-2013 11:44AM

Corkfeen wrote: »

Yes, most children's films have romantic elements(The Lady and the Tramp etc.). But let's be realistic, the romance isn't the issue in your mind.

Its up to parents to decide what to show their children in this respect. I think parents should be primarily responsible to teach their kids about these kinds of subjects in accordance to their own philosophy.

lazygal · 07-02-2013 11:50AM

philologos wrote: »

Its up to parents to decide what to show their children in this respect. I think parents should be primarily responsible to teach their kids about these kinds of subjects in accordance to their own philosophy.

Will you teach your children if they are gay they shouldn't be allowed to get married?

Morbert · 07-02-2013 11:51AM

philologos wrote: »

I'm saying that glorifying this type of relationship in the curriculum instead of allowing children to come to their own conclusion on the basis of their own thought is much better.

One doesn't need biased storybooks to teach a child how to read and I understand why many parents objected.

I guess I was wrong. You do hold a reprehensible position. You are objecting to the fact that homosexual relationships are being legitimised in literature. That is as odious as objecting to any literature that legitimises equal rights for people of different races.

Delirium · 07-02-2013 11:53AM

philologos wrote: »

Its up to parents to decide what to show their children in this respect. I think parents should be primarily responsible to teach their kids about these kinds of subjects in accordance to their own philosophy.

But how are schools supposed to design a curriculum if they have to exclude any information that may raise complaints from parents? Religious studies + sex/relationship education would have to be removed from the classroom for a start.

philologos · 07-02-2013 11:57AM

Morbert wrote: »

I guess I was wrong. You do hold a reprehensible position. You are objecting to the fact that homosexual relationships are being legitimised in literature. That is as odious as objecting to any literature that legitimises equal rights for people of different races.

The race argument has been dealt with already. It's rather poor when discussing this issue.

Such tactics are entirely filthy and have no place in a civil discussion.

lazygal · 07-02-2013 11:58AM

Philologos, you have been asked numerous times to clarify what you mean when you use the term 'glorifying'. Are you choosing to ignore the request or do you need time to formulate a reply?

philologos · 07-02-2013 11:59AM

koth wrote: »

But how are schools supposed to design a curriculum if they have to exclude any information that may raise complaints from parents? Religious studies + sex/relationship education would have to be removed from the classroom for a start.

It's not excluding information. Teach the legal standpoint on it. Teach the viewpoints of different religions. Story books with deep bias shouldn't have a place IMO.

lazygal · 07-02-2013 12:00PM

philologos wrote: »

It's not excluding information. Teach the legal standpoint on it. Teach the viewpoints of different religions. Story books with deep bias shouldn't have a place IMO.

What's a deep bias? Are books with 'nuclear families' biased?

Delirium · 07-02-2013 12:01PM

philologos wrote: »

It's not excluding information. Teach the legal standpoint on it. Teach the viewpoints of different religions. Story books with deep bias shouldn't have a place IMO.

well King & King doesn't have a bias, yet you don't want it in the classroom due to the homosexual relationship.

Human relationships are more than a legal standpoint, so why should homosexuality be reduced to a legal footnote while heterosexuality is catered for in the classroom?

07-02-2013 12:06PM

philologos wrote: »

The race argument has been dealt with already

No it hasn't. You've repeatedly posted a link which doesn't address any of the issues raised. It has not been dealt with in the slightest, you just refuse to acknowledge its validity.

philologos · 07-02-2013 01:17PM

koth wrote: »

well King & King doesn't have a bias, yet you don't want it in the classroom due to the homosexual relationship.

Human relationships are more than a legal standpoint, so why should homosexuality be reduced to a legal footnote while heterosexuality is catered for in the classroom?

It does have a bias. That's the thing.

philologos · 07-02-2013 01:22PM

28064212 wrote: »

No it hasn't. You've repeatedly posted a link which doesn't address any of the issues raised. It has not been dealt with in the slightest, you just refuse to acknowledge its validity.

I've also said that there are clear differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships that don't exist in the case of interracial couples.

Perhaps you missed that.

lazygal · 07-02-2013 01:29PM

philologos wrote: »

It does have a bias. That's the thing.

What bias does it have, can you give specific examples? Are books with heterosexual relationships biased?

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2013 01:30PM

philologos wrote: »

It does have a bias. That's the thing.

So does every book with a heterosexual couple - and there are a lot more of them.

In the interests of equality (not that that interests you Phil) we should 'ban' Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Rapunzel, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Pride and Prejudice, Wuthering Heights...and the Bible from our schools for starters on the grounds that they 'glorify' one type of human relationship.

Zombrex · 07-02-2013 01:37PM

How dare you be intolerant of my intolerance, how dare you be bias against my bias

lulz

07-02-2013 01:40PM

philologos wrote: »

I've also said that there are clear differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships that don't exist in the case of interracial couples.

Perhaps you missed that.

And? No-one has ever said that every aspect of homosexual and inter-racial marriages are exactly the same. Yet the only point you address is that there are differences, a point no-one has ever denied. People have discussed very specific areas in which they are the same, and you have never addressed these areas

Tar.Aldarion · 07-02-2013 01:44PM

lazygal wrote: »

What bias does it have, can you give specific examples? Are books with heterosexual relationships biased?

Apparently not. It's only biased if he doesn't agree with it

Delirium · 07-02-2013 01:47PM

philologos wrote: »

It does have a bias. That's the thing.

No literature would be allowed in schools under your proposed rule.

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2013 01:52PM

koth wrote: »

No literature would be allowed in schools under your proposed rule.

The Old Man and The Sea would be ok - as long as they don't discuss the author....

NuMarvel · 07-02-2013 02:33PM

philologos wrote: »

It does have a bias. That's the thing.

But have you read the book? You're under no obligation to answer, but I'm baffled why you won't. It's a simple question. And it's a relevant question too. If you're going to characterise a book as having a "deep bias", as being "propaganda" and as "glorifying same sex marriage", we should at least be sure you're not basing your opinions on second or third hand information.

philologos · 07-02-2013 02:37PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

But have you read the book? You're under no obligation to answer, but I'm baffled why you won't. It's a simple question. And it's a relevant question too. If you're going to characterise a book as having a "deep bias", as being "propaganda" and as "glorifying same sex marriage", we should at least be sure you're not basing your opinions on second or third hand information.

I've read the plot as described on Wikipedia. If you want to order the book for me I could read it in full

Delirium · 07-02-2013 02:48PM

philologos wrote: »

I've read the plot as described on Wikipedia. If you want to order the book for me I could read it in full

"On the tallest mountain above town," the young Prince Bertie still has not married, as is the custom in his kingdom. His mother, a grouchy Queen who is tired of ruling and wishes to pass on the responsibility to her son, insists he must find a princess to marry. The prince tells his mom "Very well, Mother.... I must say, though, I've never cared much for princesses." His mother marches princess after princess through the castle, from places ranging from Greenland to Mumbai, but in spite of their various talents — Princess Aria of Austria sings opera, Princess Dolly from Texas juggles and does magic tricks — they fail to interest the prince (though the prince's page falls in love with the princess from Greenland). After a while, along comes Princess Madeleine escorted by her brother Prince Lee. At the same time, both Bertie and Lee exclaim, "What a wonderful prince!" The princes immediately fall in love, and they begin marriage preparations at once. The wedding is attended by all the rejected princesses and their families; the two princes are declared King and King, and the Queen can finally relax, sunning herself in a lounge chair near the page and the princess from Greenland. The story ends with a kiss between the two kings.

Link to wiki article

What's so objectionable about what's contained in the summary of the plot? Change the story to a heterosexual couple, and no-one would bat an eyelid at that story. All that I can see as a bone of contention is that the couple are gay.

lazygal · 07-02-2013 02:49PM

philologos wrote: »

I've read the plot as described on Wikipedia. If you want to order the book for me I could read it in full

How is it biased and what's it glorifying?

Benny_Cake · 07-02-2013 03:00PM

It's truly amazing how worked up people get about these things. According to Wiki, in Oklahoma:

Further restrictions were added in November 2008, when the Commission added the requirement that such material must be placed at least 60 inches off the ground in order to be out of the reach of many children.

All over what sounds like a fairly run of the mill children's story, which would probably be largely unheard of if it wasn't for all the moral outrage. They never learn.

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2013 03:00PM

lazygal wrote: »

How is it biased and what's it glorifying?

It's biased as it is not condemning something Phil's biased Holy Book which exists only to glorify his God says is BAD.
Simples.

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2013 03:07PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

It's truly amazing how worked up people get about these things. According to Wiki, in Oklahoma:

All over what sounds like a fairly run of the mill children's story, which would probably be largely unheard of if it wasn't for all the moral outrage. They never learn.

Reminds me of the outrage over Jenny Lives With Eric and Martin back in the late 80s (and yes, I have a copy and yes my grew up to be heterosexual son read it.)

Outrage that led to Section 28 in the UK brought in by Thatcher's Conservative government.

The same Section 28 that David Cameron later apologised for...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/02/david-cameron-gay-pride-apology

NuMarvel · 07-02-2013 03:16PM

philologos wrote: »

I've read the plot as described on Wikipedia.

'Nuff said :rolleyes:

lazygal · 07-02-2013 04:07PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's biased as it is not condemning something Phil's biased Holy Book which exists only to glorify his God says is BAD.
Simples.

Ahhhh I see, when Philologos is condemning something its fair enough because he's got god in his corner, but when someone else is condemning something, like say the lack of marriage equality, they shouldn't be allowed to do that because god said it wasn't ok.

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Comments