Thomas Jefferson Posted August 25, 2013 Share Posted August 25, 2013 Because the level of comprehension of the subject and my posts is...too low lol, fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted August 25, 2013 Share Posted August 25, 2013 Because the level of comprehension of the subject and my posts is...too low lol, fair enough. What he means is that he was being inconsistent and contradicted himself plenty of times. I am sure you can relate to that TJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 27, 2013 Author Share Posted August 27, 2013 No, it is because people like you have difficulty reading and comprehending (with the result being supposed contradictions that you think you have noticed) and then send forth a barrage of questions with subsequent answers that you ignore anyway. It must be a method to tire out the other person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damo Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 What I'd like to know is how ever did people manage to reproduce for millions of years before sex education classes were first taught? Promoting heterosexuality is a redundant exercise on heterosexuals, and it serves no function when aimed at homosexuals other than to suppress their natural inclinations and cause misery and pain to them. People need to learn to just live and let live and let biology take its course. Instead of promoting any one sexuality over another, schools should be promoting more common sense. I'm all for having sex education classes where they feature interviews with people (face to face or through video) from different walks of life who share their experiences with issues of sexuality, gender and equality/inequality. They should include books which include these themes in the school curriculum, such as Alice Walker's The Color Purple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Lonan3 has explained earlier in this thread about the way in which you present your point of view and I have done similar in other threads. If you would proof read your posts and clarify what you are saying then it would make it much easier for people to read and comprehend what you are saying. As for the barage of questions... Pot, kettle and black sping to mind! No, it is because people like you have difficulty reading and comprehending (with the result being supposed contradictions that you think you have noticed) and then send forth a barrage of questions with subsequent answers that you ignore anyway. It must be a method to tire out the other person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 Fair enough... It's quite simple. This document mentions 'promotion' in respect of homosexuality. What I am saying is that there shouldn't be mention of promotion for homosexuality or heterosexuality. What there should be is equal treatment of both sexualties. There should not be any favoured treatment or any different manner by which sexualities are discussed. I don't think I have explained things in any other way here, but I hope this is clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 La_Dolce_Vita, on 28 Aug 2013 - 12:01, said: Fair enough... It's quite simple. This document mentions 'promotion' in respect of homosexuality. What I am saying is that there shouldn't be mention of promotion for homosexuality or heterosexuality. What there should be is equal treatment of both sexualties. There should not be any favoured treatment or any different manner by which sexualities are discussed. The insertion of the word promotion gives the impression that there is some concern that homosexuality can be promoted, which is nonsense. No sexuality can be promoted (in the sense of encouraging people to be something). Although it can be taught in such a way to demonstrate that it is an morally equal sexuality - but this should come from teaching these things in the same manner. This document seems to give off the idea that there is a concern about homosexuality. It even mentions that homosexuality is an 'issue'. And that it is unavoidable to discuss it when discussing HIV. It's a very dated and homophobic attitude to sexuality. I don't think I have explained things in any other way here, but I hope this is clearer. You seen to be missing the basic point that one of the generally accepted meanings of the word "promotion" is to encouraging the acceptance of something, which is obviously what it means in this context. If you understood this I doubt if you would have a problem with its use. As usual, though, you have decided that it means one very narrow thing in your mind (i.e promote or encourage the thing/practice itself) and then you get yourself in a complete muddle but accuse everyone else of being stupid for not using the word according the the narrow definition you have made up for it! You really do need to 1) Try to develop your ability to think in a logical and reasoned way and 2) Stop accusing everyone else of being too stupid to think in a logical and reasoned way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 That is an alternative meaning. And if it was the meaning applied in the document it would still be heternormative and would still not be an equal treatment of sexuality, as both sexualities would not treated as if they are both already acceptable, which they must be. Heterosexuality would already be treated as if its acceptance is a given and homosexuality is something controversial and morally ambiguous. Homosexuality must be given the same treatment. It therefore stands that promotion should not be even mentioned whether it is stated that it should be or shouldn't be promoted. And my accusations weren't about different understandings based on what you have mentioned. Manxman1980 seemed to think that promotion is equivalent to education. (Unless I have misread his post) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 That is an alternative meaning. And if it was the meaning applied in the document it would still be heternormative and would still not be an equal treatment of sexuality, as both sexualities would not treated as if they are both already acceptable, which they must be. Heterosexuality would already be treated as if its acceptance is a given and homosexuality is something controversial and morally ambiguous. Homosexuality must be given the same treatment. It therefore stands that promotion should not be even mentioned whether it is stated that it should be or shouldn't be promoted. And my accusations weren't about different understandings based on what you have mentioned. Manxman1980 seemed to think that promotion is equivalent to education. (Unless I have misread his post) Can you please just take a step back and think about the issue properly? The original section 28 was about not promoting the acceptance of homosexuallity as an alternative to (what they would have regarded as) a "normal" family type. Resistance to it, therefore, was, and still is, in relation to that arguement. Essentialy, that it should be so accepted and there is no problem with it being "promoted" in that sense. A perfectly reasonable stance. It's as simple as that. There really is no need to get yourself in such a muddle by overcomplicating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 There's no muddle. It doesn't matter whether the word has either dictionary meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 To be honest with you I joined this discussion later on and was mainly driven to comment by the way in which you were wording your posts. By the time you and I came around to discussing the policy document I was unable to access it. Our discussions went down a different route because I was responding to your posts as well as those of others who were by that time discussing "promotion" in terms of education and it was splitting into the areas of equality and diversity. The bottom line is that if we go back to the orginal post (which was not wonderfully clear) then I do agree with you that there should be no reason for a policy document to forbid the "promotion" of a certain sexuality. As you say this almost seems as if being gay in a contagious disease and can be spread by discussing "gay" things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 There's no muddle. It doesn't matter whether the word has either dictionary meaning. Are you completely thick? The original section 28 mentioned "promotion" in a particular context. Groups then and now opposed this on quite reasonable grounds. It is quite obvious from your posts that you misinterpret the original meaning and thus that of the "opposers". Your arguments are, therefore, based on a pedantic argument about the use of the word "promote" rather than the real issue, which, basically, is about whether whether or not heterosexuality should be treated on an equal basis with homosexuality in the context of sex education in schools. This always seems to happen when you start your usual nonesense, arguing over semantics rather than the real issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 Yes, that's what I am saying. Or even if it meant simply 'promoting' acceptance of homosexuality, the alternative meaning (Norseman thinks applies here) wouldn't be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Yes, that's what I am saying. Or even if it meant simply 'promoting' acceptance of homosexuality, the alternative meaning (Norseman thinks applies here) wouldn't be right. And now we can all start to agree. The opposition is about the exclusion of equality of treatment of homosexuality and heterosexuality in sex education. Simples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.