Censorship of Gifted High School Seniors

[Freddie53]

In Arkansas, a six weeks school that meets in the summer for gifted students going into their senior year read and discussed a play that involved homosexuality. The play has been pulled from the curriculum and the director of the school has apologized and the teacher was required to apologize to the students. Read story here:

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/7/72005c.asp

These are the top few hundered senior students from across the entire state of Arkansas. It is not a required school for anyone. I don't believe that students that are 17 years old are so young that they need to be cencered on reading material and a teacher of the school should have the credentials to select materials appropriately without the state government of Arkansas interfering.

How is it across the land on censorship like this? What is your opinion?

 

[jonb]

I personally think fundies should just stop going to school and reduce class size.

 

[madame_zora]

Well, as sad as this makes me, it is a state funded school and I guess they have the right to do whatever they want. It seems absurd to me that 17 year olds should not be seen as mature enough to DISCUSS homosexuality, no one was suggesting they engage in the acts! I would think the more intellectually developed would be fine with such a discussion, but of course that doesn't mean their parents are gifted now, does it?
Geez, how stupidity gets on my nerves.

 

[madame_zora]

I think this has more to do with where it is than who it is. Remember Arkansas, the land of our former "liberal" president? I don't think a liberal thought has come out of that state in years, if ever.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jul 9 2005, 08:43 PM
I think this has more to do with where it is than who it is. Remember Arkansas, the land of our former "liberal" president? I don't think a liberal thought has come out of that state in years, if ever.

[post=327997]Quoted post[/post]​

Jana, I live in Arkansas and it does have its problems like every state. But it is probalby the most populist state in the South. And J. William Fullbright, considered one of the most intelligient of the old liberal senators was from Arkanas. He is dead now. But history has remembered him fondly. He is the senator whose committe investigated the Vietnam War. Both our Senators are Democrats. There are only three Democratic Senators left in the old South. Two are from Arkansas.

It is just that we have this former Baptist minister that fell into the job of govenor because the previous one resigned. And he is also Republican. The state legislature is 70 percnet Democratic. All this crap came from the Govenor's office. And the Govenor appoints every member of the state board of education and he also appoints the state education director. All of this without the aid and consent of the legislature. Yes I know, poorly written Consitution. So there was a stacked deck here.

So while yuur comments may be correct. It is even worse in the other Old South states now.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by Axex@Jul 9 2005, 06:20 PM
Okay then the next questions is why haven't these ideas gone through Arkansas and other states like it. Can anyone tell me exactly when homosexual sex became a bad thing?

[post=327999]Quoted post[/post]​

Some time in the Middle Holocene when breeding new slaves became important for keeping the ruling class's every whim satisfied.

Yeah, I just said something Marxist. In the words of Apple's sound files, sosumi.

 

[absinthium]

Originally posted by Axex@Jul 9 2005, 10:20 PM
Can anyone tell me exactly when homosexual sex became a bad thing?

[post=327999]Quoted post[/post]​

I've wanted an answer to this for years... After much personal meditation, the best I could come up with is that a lot of people like feeling superior to others, and actively seek out reasons that prove others are inferior to them. Be it skin color, where you live, how much money you have, what tie you're wearing on a given day, or who you fuck, someone will find something wrong with it, and, in some cases, use it as an excuse to hate you.

Wouldn't it be cool if people could be judged based on their character and mind rather than these other extraneous trappings?

Wouldn't it be nice if people could take an important message away from a play without getting hung up on the fact that a few of the characters are fudge-packers?

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by Axex@Jul 10 2005, 07:43 PM
I mean in ancient Greece and Rome it was normal and accepted...what the hell happened?

[post=328143]Quoted post[/post]​

That's not exactly true. In both cultures, sex between males was acceptable only among the upper class, and even then not acceptable to all. Julius Caesar was known to have had sexual relations with the King of Bithynia, and he was called the Queen of Bithynia derisively by his political adversaries. Anal penetration was thought to be distasteful. Most people will point to the pedagogues of Greece as an example of accepted homosexuality, but that's not really a fair analogy. The 'sex' involved was intergenerational, not sex between two adults. And the sex was intercrural: penetration of a student by a pedagogue was punishable by death. We have a long legacy of persecution and exclusion, but I'm not about to scurry back into the closet to pacify anyone. My friends and family know about my sexuality, and they love me and accept me, and they're the ones who matter to me. Who gives a rat's ass what the narrow-minded fucktards think?

 

[madame_zora]

Gawd, I've missed you! The only people who care what the narrow-minded fucktards think is other narrow minded fucktards. Do I get and "A" teacher?

 

[GottaBigOne]

Originally posted by absinthium+Jul 10 2005, 11:56 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(absinthium &#064; Jul 10 2005, 11:56 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Axex@Jul 9 2005, 10:20 PM
Can anyone tell me exactly when homosexual sex became a bad thing?

[post=327999]Quoted post[/post]​

Wouldn&#39;t it be cool if people could be judged based on their character and mind rather than these other extraneous trappings?

Wouldn&#39;t it be nice if people could take an important message away from a play without getting hung up on the fact that a few of the characters are fudge-packers?

[post=328132]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Before I say this I want to make it clear that I am not equating homosexual acts with murder or child molestation, but this goes back to the post I threw at Jana in a different thread.
We judge people by their actions all the time, and I think we should. Some one who has sex with a minor is called a "child molester" and that title usually carries a negative connotation. One reason for this is that by their actions they reveal something about themselves, some "problem" they have. This is why it is so easy for some people to judge gays as such, they see them as having a problem because they are attracted to the same sex, and to some people the thought of homosexual acts are just as disgusting as sex with children and sex with animals.

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne+Jul 11 2005, 04:34 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GottaBigOne &#064; Jul 11 2005, 04:34 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by absinthium@Jul 10 2005, 11:56 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Axex

@Jul 9 2005, 10:20 PM
Can anyone tell me exactly when homosexual sex became a bad thing?

[post=327999]Quoted post[/post]​

Wouldn&#39;t it be cool if people could be judged based on their character and mind rather than these other extraneous trappings?

Wouldn&#39;t it be nice if people could take an important message away from a play without getting hung up on the fact that a few of the characters are fudge-packers?

[post=328132]Quoted post[/post]​

Before I say this I want to make it clear that I am not equating homosexual acts with murder or child molestation, but this goes back to the post I threw at Jana in a different thread.
We judge people by their actions all the time, and I think we should. Some one who has sex with a minor is called a "child molester" and that title usually carries a negative connotation. One reason for this is that by their actions they reveal something about themselves, some "problem" they have. This is why it is so easy for some people to judge gays as such, they see them as having a problem because they are attracted to the same sex, and to some people the thought of homosexual acts are just as disgusting as sex with children and sex with animals.

[post=328277]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


On my opinion, it is important not to lend credibility to those kinds of ideas, even though I feel people should be free to hold them. I also think people should be free to be racists, but not legislate racism into our laws. I think it&#39;s okay that some assholes are homophobic, just like it&#39;s okay for me to call them assholes, but the law should only concern itself with protecting both of our rights to freedom of speech. If the law will protect one group&#39;s "marriage" it should show no favoritism to that group over another. I don&#39;t care if a certain group finds it disgusting or not. Homosexuals should not be beholden to the religous beliefs of the fundies.

Those tenacious Puritans left England rather than worship the King&#39;s way, but sadly they came here, got established, and now wish to persecute others who want the same rights. It&#39;s bullshit, pure and simple. You&#39;d think those who had faced this issue would be more understanding of the need, their reluctance to recognise the inevitability of these changes is just absurd. It WILL happen, eventually, but it would be so nice if for once in our history we could arrive at the right and decent decision without taking a hundred years or a civil war. It would be so nice if we&#39;d do the right thing for our fellows just because it&#39;s the right thing, not because our feet are being held to the fire. It&#39;s not like homosexuality is just going to go away if they pitch a bitch about it&#33; Ass fucking is here to stay, everyone has at least a gay uncle and you know it.

So, Juliannna came up with a solution. Homosexuals should start their own religion&#33; It&#39;s beautiful, think about it- the law would have to take a back seat to the practices of the church, gays could marry in their own church and it would Have to be protected under religous freedom. The church would also be tax exempt, and should they decide to make this a Christian church, they could even elect to make it freer of bullshit, thus saving both the relgion AND the government.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jul 11 2005, 02:45 AM
The only people who care what the narrow-minded fucktards think is other narrow minded fucktards. Do I get and "A" teacher?

[post=328218]Quoted post[/post]​

Almost. One important point missed is that not all fucktards care about other fucktards. A case in point is Fred Phelps, who is a first-class fucktard if ever there was one. He should feel flattered that I phrased it that way: I&#39;m pretty sure that Fred Phelps&#39;s name rarely occurs in the same sentence with the term &#39;first-class&#39;. Fred doesn&#39;t really give a shit what the other fucktards think.

Homosexuals should start their own religion&#33; It&#39;s beautiful, think about it- the law would have to take a back seat to the practices of the church, gays could marry in their own church and it would Have to be protected under religous freedom. The church would also be tax exempt, and should they decide to make this a Christian church, they could even elect to make it freer of bullshit, thus saving both the relgion AND the government.

Ever heard of the Metropolitan Community Church?

 

[jonb]

Well, I think it&#39;s a matter of record that most cultures consider some forms of homosexuality acceptable, but not all forms. Those same intergenerational relationships favored among Greek and Japanese aristocrats and mandatory in New Guinea (There&#39;s even a society in New Guinea consisting solely of males who fight wars to abduct boys from their neighbors. The ultimate in misogyny, get rid of women altogether.) wouldn&#39;t necessarily be so popular for a Lakota such as myself. At the same time, femme types were quite accepted for us, but the Greeks had a problem with it. And in Latin America, the shame&#39;s all on the passive partner.

Of course, most cultures don&#39;t consider all forms of heterosexuality acceptable either. Sex during menstruation or soon after birth is a particularly common taboo on heterosexuality.

 

[madame_zora]

DMW, I had not heard of the Metropoiltan Community Chruch, but thanks for the heads up, it made for some heart-warming reading. I&#39;m glad there&#39;s a place where God doesn&#39;t hate fags, or anyone else. Heck, I&#39;m pretty sure he&#39;d even make room for Fred Phelps under the right circumstances, but we&#39;ll let Him be the judge of that. I&#39;m not really sure what Phelps&#39; agenda is, but his platforms sure are some of the sickest stuff I&#39;ve ever heard. Well, what can you expect from a fucktard? (sorry, I just had to say fucktard one more time).

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by jonb@Jul 12 2005, 01:19 AM

Of course, most cultures don&#39;t consider all forms of heterosexuality acceptable either. Sex during menstruation or soon after birth is a particularly common taboo on heterosexuality.

[post=328387]Quoted post[/post]​

Hell, anal and oral sex are still illegal in some states even between married couples. I think we should start cracking down on THAT and see how far we get.

 

[absinthium]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne+Jul 11 2005, 12:34 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GottaBigOne &#064; Jul 11 2005, 12:34 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by absinthium@Jul 10 2005, 11:56 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Axex

@Jul 9 2005, 10:20 PM
Can anyone tell me exactly when homosexual sex became a bad thing?

[post=327999]Quoted post[/post]​

Wouldn&#39;t it be cool if people could be judged based on their character and mind rather than these other extraneous trappings?

Wouldn&#39;t it be nice if people could take an important message away from a play without getting hung up on the fact that a few of the characters are fudge-packers?

[post=328132]Quoted post[/post]​

Before I say this I want to make it clear that I am not equating homosexual acts with murder or child molestation, but this goes back to the post I threw at Jana in a different thread.
We judge people by their actions all the time, and I think we should. Some one who has sex with a minor is called a "child molester" and that title usually carries a negative connotation. One reason for this is that by their actions they reveal something about themselves, some "problem" they have. This is why it is so easy for some people to judge gays as such, they see them as having a problem because they are attracted to the same sex, and to some people the thought of homosexual acts are just as disgusting as sex with children and sex with animals.

[post=328277]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

I agree that people should be based on their actions, but not actions that have little to no negative effect on others.
Putting your desire to get off before the idea that the participant you choose (a living, feeling thing like an animal or child,) might not want to be involved and might wind up being hurt, speaks volumes of one&#39;s character. It also denotes mental problems, in my opinion, and, yes, probably has something to do with psychological trauma as a young person, but let&#39;s not get into that one for now.
The difference between murder, child molestation, animal abuse, and homosexuality is that CONSENSUAL SEX DOESN&#39;T HURT ANYONE... Unless you don&#39;t use enough lube. I didn&#39;t say you can&#39;t judge someone based on their actions, just that you shouldn&#39;t judge someone based on frivolous bullshit. I think the difference should be obvious.

I wish more people realized that.

 

[madame_zora]

To be sure, there are many in this country who see anything they don&#39;t like personally to be equated with murderers, rapists and child molesters. Add to that the fact that they can squeeze suuport from the Bible, and their religous leaders even tell them it&#39;s okay to judge their brothers. CONSENTING ADULTS is a phrase they don&#39;t like because they feel they should be able to control the behavior of others, not just their own group. Niether my consent nor yours matters if they can justify their judgement with the Bible. Whenther or not you or I decipher the Bible differently or believe any of it at all is no longer OUR choice. It&#39;s a case of "see it my way or you&#39;re wrong".

It&#39;s getting very hard for someone such as myself to continue differentiating that I like Jesus but am creeped out by so many of his followers. If Jesus didn&#39;t condemn anyone else, why would he have hated faggots? Personally I believe he was a man- that doesn&#39;t detract from my respect for him. He devoted himself to service to his fellow man and there are very few such people, so few in fact that we know them by name. As many times as we were directed to see to our own sins and not those of our brothers, it is just so much more gratifying to judge others and find them wrong. Despite being in direct opposition to what the Bible teaches, condescending attitudes amoung those who call themselves Christians are growing in strength. I don&#39;t know what it will take to correct the flow, usually we as a society have to hit bottom before we begin to rebuild. I can&#39;t say I&#39;m excited about having to go through it now.