Candidate Friedman vows declawing ban

"gaubster2" wrote in message
ups.com...

kitkat wrote:
I hope you're not gay, then. Else, given your beliefs, you may be
a bit on
the frustrated side. ;-P

LOL. If he were, he'd never be spewing the spew! I often wonder how
heterosexuals would behave if it happened to be the other way around
in
the bible...you know...if hetero sex were the sin and homosexual sex
considered legit. All of a sudden, it would be like "hey...this isnt
a
CHOICE. i know its weird...but i *like* members of the opposite
sex...I
just cant help it!" Or wait. Maybe heterosexuals are simply choosing
to
be heterosexual after all. :::eye roll:::

Pam
-keeping busy


Ah, the veneer is coming off now, isn't it Pam?

?? Any veneer you were trying to hold onto, IMO, came flying off with that
comment of yours, which indicated that you hold no truck with others' life
styles if they differ from your own, & your own set of beliefs.

Nobody is spewing
anything.

To each their own opinion, n'est-ce pas?

Apparently you can't debate here nicely?

She put forth an argument couched in a scenario, which made a point. I
didn't *choose* to be heterosexual, I just _am_. And I came to the
conclusion umpteen years ago that homosexuals don't *choose* to be attracted
to the same sex, they just _are_.

I don't judge
anybody. I don't care what people do behind closed doors.

Oh, yeah, right. For cryin' out loud, you just pronounced homosexuals who
act on their orientation to be sinful, in a recent post. Can you say
"180º"?

The problem
w/ your premise is that you can't procreate with gay sex. So you are
arguing a false premise. Surely, as a teacher, you know better than
that?

Is this a non sequitur or am I not following? (I'll bet on the non
sequitur.) Then... following your apparent line of logic, what about
heterosexual couples who choose not to procreate? Where does that leave
them??

Cathy

kitkat wrote:


I'm positive that I dont behave as if my opinion were any more or
less
valid...but from what I see...at least from your tone (written tone
that
is...) you *definitely* seem to think that your opinion is *the*
right
and valid one. If you don't intend to come across like that...you
could
truly try to convey that.

Pam
-done keeping busy for now...going to visit very sick cat...


Well...why do you hold the opinions that you hold if you didn't think
they were "right"??

BTW, I hope the sick cat gets better!

Cathy Friedmann wrote:


She put forth an argument couched in a scenario, which made a point.
I
didn't *choose* to be heterosexual, I just _am_. And I came to the
conclusion umpteen years ago that homosexuals don't *choose* to be
attracted
to the same sex, they just _are_.

What about the people who practiced homosexuality and then "chose" (if
those are the words you want to use) chose heterosexuality--including
marriage and having their own children?


I don't judge
anybody. I don't care what people do behind closed doors.

Oh, yeah, right. For cryin' out loud, you just pronounced
homosexuals who
act on their orientation to be sinful, in a recent post. Can you say
"180=BA"?

Uh, no. I said that I don't CARE. Again, I've had friends that were
gay and I didn't hold it against them. But since you don't know me,
you didn't know that.


The problem
w/ your premise is that you can't procreate with gay sex. So you
are
arguing a false premise. Surely, as a teacher, you know better
than
that?

Is this a non sequitur or am I not following? (I'll bet on the non
sequitur.) Then... following your apparent line of logic, what about
heterosexual couples who choose not to procreate? Where does that
leave
them??


Boy this thread is waaay OT! Again, I don't care. To each their own.

You really want that assclown award don't you?

--
Cat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs!
www.panthertekit.com

"gaubster2" wrote in message
ups.com...
Oy vey. CP, if you really think this, then you need some help.
Everyone who has posted here (including you) must think that your
beliefs are right or you wouldn't hold them? No? Good grief! If you
want to stop posting here, then go for it...nobody is stopping you. In
fact, you could probably also killfile me if you wish to partake in
censorship.

Stop playing the innocent victim here Gaubster. You decided to resort to
name calling with me because I don't agree with you.

--
Cat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs!
www.panthertekit.com

"gaubster2" wrote in message
oups.com...
Sorry, CP, you're wrong. The person who calls people names around here
is Lauren. And just because I disagree w/ somebody and ask them to
back up their opinions doesn't mean that I'm "picking" on them.
Interestingly enough, you have no problem when others "pick on" me!
Don't you think you're being hypocritical? It seems to me that you've
haven't given your positions much serious thought, or perhaps you would
be able to defend them better?

Kitkat it is pointless to argue with Gaubster. He is going to find fault
with everyone's postings on this topic because he believes his view is the
only one that is correct and that everyone else is wrong. I think it is
better to killfile him at this point and move onto a different topic.

--
Cat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs!
www.panthertekit.com

"kitkat" wrote in message
om...
I'm positive that I dont behave as if my opinion were any more or less
valid...but from what I see...at least from your tone (written tone that
is...) you *definitely* seem to think that your opinion is *the* right and
valid one. If you don't intend to come across like that...you could truly
try to convey that.

Pam
-done keeping busy for now...going to visit very sick cat...

"gaubster2" wrote in message
ups.com...

Cathy Friedmann wrote:


She put forth an argument couched in a scenario, which made a point.
I
didn't *choose* to be heterosexual, I just _am_. And I came to the
conclusion umpteen years ago that homosexuals don't *choose* to be
attracted
to the same sex, they just _are_.

What about the people who practiced homosexuality and then "chose" (if
those are the words you want to use) chose heterosexuality--including
marriage and having their own children?

Search me... Either they were experimenting, are bisexual, or decided to
play the straight game for whatever reason(s). Any other possibilities?
Probably.

I don't judge
anybody. I don't care what people do behind closed doors.

Oh, yeah, right. For cryin' out loud, you just pronounced
homosexuals who
act on their orientation to be sinful, in a recent post. Can you say
"180º"?

Uh, no. I said that I don't CARE. Again, I've had friends that were
gay and I didn't hold it against them. But since you don't know me,
you didn't know that.

Do those friends know that you think they are sinful?


The problem
w/ your premise is that you can't procreate with gay sex. So you
are
arguing a false premise. Surely, as a teacher, you know better
than
that?

Is this a non sequitur or am I not following? (I'll bet on the non
sequitur.) Then... following your apparent line of logic, what about
heterosexual couples who choose not to procreate? Where does that
leave
them??


Boy this thread is waaay OT! Again, I don't care. To each their own.

Now that was definitely a non sequitur!

Cathy

gaubster2 wrote:

Okay, what would be the percentage in your experience? (BTW, we should
define "middle school")

Sorry. I don't have percentages. I'm not going to cite **** that I don't
have a link to back up. I am simply stating that you might be surprised
that more and more kids are experimenting with sex at an age when they
don't even remember to brush their teeth regularly.
And middle school, where I live, is termed 6th-8th grade...though in
some places it can be as early as 5th grade. I am thinking mostly of 7th
grade and up.


I think there are *people* on the left that feel that way...just as
there are people on the right that want EVOLUTION taken out of our
schools.


It appears as if we are talking about extremes on both sides. I'm
referencing occasions that are blatant enough to make the news.

As am I. I have certainly seen the case for evolution being taken out of
schools reported on the news. If I am not mistaken, it was somewhere in
Wisconsin. (I live in Illinois, so that would be considered more local
news for us I guess. Aren't you out west?)

You are making a HUGE sweeping generalization. HUGE. Most
teachers are quite liberal..it is true.


And hopefully they don't allow that to "creep" into their lesson plans.
I had one particular teacher in high school who did just that. And it
seems that recently, more and more college professors are doing exactly
that.

People on both ends of the spectrum do it. I disagree with it either
way. I had a professor in my grad school days that was Mormon and VERY
VERY conservative and in his GRAMMAR lessons he would use sentences with
slams against President Clinton.


The run-of-the-mill everyday citizen who believes in Christianity

is

not going around commiting horrible felonies. That's picture that

is

being attempted to be painted, but it's certainly not true.

And the run-of-the-mill everyday "leftist" is not going around

insisting

that teachers put condoms on bananas while eliminating a unit about
religion. That's the PICTURE that is being attempted to be painted,

but

it's certainly not true.


What makes you think that isn't the case? Apparently you aren't
following the news that closely?

Because the point I'm making is that both the example of the abortion
killer as well as the INSISTING that teachers put condoms on bananas and
eliminate units about religion are EXTREME. BOTH SIDES. I do follow the
news, so try again!


You may not be advocating for it but you have repeatedly questioned
what could be the harm in it. That *does* imply that you could be for it.


When I question the harm in something, that's just it. I'm not
neccessariliy advocating for or against. There's all kinds of heated
rhetoric, I'm trying to cut through it all.

O.K.

I agree that you should send your children to a religious school if

that is what is

important. However, what is happening is that the government school
system is bending over backwards to take ALL mention of GOD of
religion (except Islam) OUT of school.

Not true. And your particular "irritiation" against Islam is starting

to

smack of bigotry. If that is not your intention, you might consider
rephrasing your words.


Pam, don't try to paint me as something I am not. I am simply using
that as an example. The politically correct thing to do is bash
Christianity all the while promoting Islam as the "religion of Peace"
(which lately doesnt' seem to be the case). A co-worker of mine has a
sister in CA, whose kids are getting assignments to "dress up" as a
Muslim and they spending an inordinate amount of time on Islam (and
this is in elementary school). The bottom line is that you have to
allow equal time in situations such as these and that is NOT what is
happening. If you want to start calling people whom you don't even
know a bigot, then I've got to wonder about you as a person.

I didn't call you a bigot, I said your wording smacked of bigotry. It is
like saying "you are an asshole" or "you are ACTING like an asshole".
Sure. I don't know you. So obviously whatever opinions I form about you
will be based on what you write. Same both ways. At any rate, in regards
to your example in CA...at my school, the kids in 6th grade do a HUGE
lesson on the Greek gods. They even...DRESS UP! Sometimes, dressing up
and playing the part of what you are studying helps people understand
what they are studying! Also, in the same 6th grade...the kids study a
HUGE unit on religion. If I am not mistaken...they study: Christianity,
Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism (I THINK?). The kids are separated into
groups and are not allowed to study their own religion. So, in my
school...equal time IS being given to the different religions. Again, I
am not disputing that there are wackos out there on all ends of the
spectrum. I am simply saying you can not paint pictures of what is not
any more than I can. There are plenty of schools...if not the MAJORITY
of schools...where the teaching that is going on is done with equal
footing to all sides of a spectrum...and without indoctrinating the
children either.


I don't think it's too idealistic at all. If you set high standards in
life, people will achieve them. It's human nature. If you "expect"
kids (especially those who come from broken homes) to behave badly and
then give them the tools to do so, what do you expect will happen?

Well that is where we differ on what sex ed is. I believe that sex
education is about giving the kids from ALL homes, broken or otherwise,
the tools to understand the choices in front of them. That includes
teaching them about birth control and ...how to use it!

Please answer me this...in all this time you have never once mentioned
abstinence.

Just because I havent mentioned it doesn't mean much. Sure, it should
absolutely be addressed as the only 100% option to prevent pregnancy and
STDs (if by abstinence you mean ALL forms of sexual activity...not just
intercourse). But again, I am trying to live in the NOW. Our kids are
curious. So curious that all the talks about abstinence in the WORLD
aren't going to change the human instinct for sex/sexual activity. SO,
i do not think that abstinence alone is what ought to be taught.

Where do you fall on that as a valid class-room topic?

See above.

If
you're going to teach or push one side what about the other side?

You say teach and push as if they are synonymous. Is that what you think
teachers do when they teach? Or if you agree with it..it's teaching and
if you don't it's pushing?

Abstinence works everytime it's tried, you know! Compare that to say,
the failure rate of condoms!

And sex without condoms or any other form of prevention is the reality
in SO many cases!

gaubster2 wrote:
kitkat wrote:

I hope you're not gay, then. Else, given your beliefs, you may be

a bit on

the frustrated side. ;-P

LOL. If he were, he'd never be spewing the spew! I often wonder how
heterosexuals would behave if it happened to be the other way around

in

the bible...you know...if hetero sex were the sin and homosexual sex
considered legit. All of a sudden, it would be like "hey...this isnt

a

CHOICE. i know its weird...but i *like* members of the opposite

sex...I

just cant help it!" Or wait. Maybe heterosexuals are simply choosing

to

be heterosexual after all. :::eye roll:::

Pam
-keeping busy



Ah, the veneer is coming off now, isn't it Pam? Nobody is spewing
anything. Apparently you can't debate here nicely? I don't judge
anybody. I don't care what people do behind closed doors. The problem
w/ your premise is that you can't procreate with gay sex. So you are
arguing a false premise. Surely, as a teacher, you know better than
that?

So...sex is only for procreation?

gaubster2 wrote:
kitkat wrote:


I'm positive that I dont behave as if my opinion were any more or

less

valid...but from what I see...at least from your tone (written tone

that

is...) you *definitely* seem to think that your opinion is *the*

right

and valid one. If you don't intend to come across like that...you

could

truly try to convey that.

Pam
-done keeping busy for now...going to visit very sick cat...



Well...why do you hold the opinions that you hold if you didn't think
they were "right"??

I can hold my opinions and even believe they are right while at the same
time accepting the fact that people think differently.


BTW, I hope the sick cat gets better!

Yeah! I'm gonna put up a different post on that topic so it doesn't get
missed...but there HAS BEEN GOOD PROGRESS!!!!!!!