The Real Michael, May 15th, 2013 @ 5:47am: """... Again, if it were considered normal behavior, there'd be no need to convince (or in this case, brainwash) our children as it should be a given."""
So, do you honestly believe that kids are born with a natural instinct to reject homosexuality as unnatural? There are plenty of examples showing that that's not true. Kids don't give a fuck about someone being gay until they are taught to do so by their bigot parents!
I can't comment on particular schools and their "homosexual tolerance classes" because I have no information on them. But I do know that sometimes schools will have to try to undo damage caused by stupid parents.
"""Homosexuals love to play the tolerance card, all the while looking for every opportunity to force their distorted world view upon others, especially children."""
Wow, really? The world view that you don't have anything what-so-fucking-ever to do with what other consenting adults do with each other? Distorted? Why is this important to you? How does this affect you? If two men or two women get married (or not), live together (or not), have lots of sex (or not), raise children together (or not), do tell me how that is any of your fucking business. Please, explain this to me, because from where I'm standing, this doesn't affect you.
And another thing...
"""But then again, this is all born out of the same movement that used to be affiliated with with NAMBLA."""
Seriously? Again, the keywords here are "consenting adults." Why the fuck would you bring up NAMBLA?
If I call you a "bigot" right now, please explain how I'm wrong.
Just because something is legal it doesn't make it right, and just because something is illegal it doesn't make it wrong.
A lot of things that used to be illegal are now legal, because we know better.
And "Copyright" is all about violating other people's rights, by restricting them. When you are granted Copyright on something, you are not granted any substantial rights you didn't already have before. You are granted a monopoly that restricts other people's rights. Which is why I think it should be called "Copyrestriction" instead.
If the right to get paid is so much more important than actually getting paid, no problem. I'll happily go without. There is no shortage of legal free entertainment in the world. And there is a growing amount of artists happy to both treat me with respect and take my money.
Just watch your back when you're lifting all that cash you'll make from me not watching/listening/reading/experiencing your movie/song/book/whatever.
Oh, wait.... Yeah, explain that to me, would you, please? If I'm not consuming your content (paid or free) at all, how does that help you?
average_joe: "So if some employee is violating company policy and doing something they shouldn't be doing, you think that company has no place defending its rights?"
So, what you're saying is that it's wrong to hold the entire company or organization liable for what a few employees are doing?
Sort of like how it's not really MegaUpload's responsibility if individual users used the service to infringe? Or how The Pirate Bay should not be held liable for what their users do? Or how it's not really Google's fault what their users post on YouTube? Etc, etc, etc....
Shorter version: Is it called "intellectual property" or "intellectual artificial scarcity"? That should tell you which side won this debate.
Yes, yes.. Just like all these countries are perfect examples of democracies, because they have the word "democratic" in their names, right?
* People's Democratic Republic of Algeria
* Congo, Democratic Republic of the
* East Timor – Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste
* Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
* Korea, North – Democratic People's Republic of Korea
* Laos – Lao People's Democratic Republic
* Nepal – Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal
* São Tomé and Príncipe – Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe
* Sri Lanka – Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka