New Jersey to Teach LGBT History in Schools

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Your ignorance is that you seem to believe that gay men exclusively practice penetrative anal sex. That isn't the only way gay men have sex, and it is not only gay men who have sex that way. Further, your understanding of "gay" as strictly being a synonym for "homosexual" is limited, at best. There are people who are asexual but who could be accurately described as gay, because they do experience romantic attraction towards people of the same gender.


If other people aren't involved then what you're doing isn't "sex", citizen.

Society doesn't need you to know anything, that's true. You specifically are irrelevant to the functioning of society. I'm saying that it would be better for you to better understand the people you are sharing society with.

I do a man marries a woman, they have and rase children, the children get married and the cycle repeats as it has since Eden.

Please forgive me if I seem impolite, but I take it that you have a literal interpretation of the Creation narrative(s) as presented in the Book of Genesis?

[Holy Tedalonia]

Y'all already can merry you have everything

*marry

And marriage equality isn't everything. And marriage equality does nothing to correct my identity documents. It does nothing to make sure I won't be fired because of some bigot.

At this point we might as much get rid of marriage, or atleast get rid of government related marriages. Marriage started as a religious thing, and has been closely tied to it. Until governments started providing benefits for marriage, there wasn’t much problem in being married or not. There will always be a level of religion relating to marriage, thus preventing or atleast interfering with the separation of church and state way of thinking.

and yes that baker was right

He wasn't, and if yall had any ounce of foresight, you'd realize what a stupid and self-harming precedent would be set by the law accepting his lawyers' arguments.

While I side with the baker, I think he was a jerk and a prick. Although, relating to different reasons then hating on LGBTs.

[Ifreann]

Your ignorance is that you seem to believe that gay men exclusively practice penetrative anal sex. That isn't the only way gay men have sex, and it is not only gay men who have sex that way. Further, your understanding of "gay" as strictly being a synonym for "homosexual" is limited, at best. There are people who are asexual but who could be accurately described as gay, because they do experience romantic attraction towards people of the same gender.


If other people aren't involved then what you're doing isn't "sex", citizen.

Society doesn't need you to know anything, that's true. You specifically are irrelevant to the functioning of society. I'm saying that it would be better for you to better understand the people you are sharing society with.

I do a man marries a woman, they have and rase children, the children get married and the cycle repeats as it has since Eden.

I don't know what relevance this is meant to have to my post, but you may be interested to learn that "rase", or "raze", means "to burn down". After a particularly devastating fire you might say that a building was "razed to the ground", as in "burned down to the ground".

I'm sure this was just a typo, but it's a pretty funny one. They burn down their children.

[Ifreann]

Maybe if you'd stop assuming shit about us, you'd learn a thing or two. I've just stated my passion for history, and as I'm literally earning a degree in physics, its pretty safe to say that I'm all for math and science, too. And yes, life skills as well. A good personal finance class is hard to beat.



Real genders. Just because they haven't been historically acknowledged, doesn't mean they are fake.



*their

Also, we wouldn't be demanding equal rights if we truly already had them.



Or, you can stay here and eat this can of worms you just made me open.

I have nothing to learn I have comman since and know what is right and wrong, I Will not give into y'all's crazy damands. Y'all already can merry you have everything and yes that baker was right and y'all will not take my right to follow my religion.

Japan's supreme court recently upheld a legal requirement that transgender people be medically sterilised, and Japan is not the only nation with that requirement. Let me say it again for emphasis. A class of people are being sterilised by their governments. Today. Now. Are you going to tell me that this doesn't matter? That there is no value to understanding how this situation came about? That an understanding of the modern world can be complete without understanding this, or even knowing it?

But sure. LGBT people have everything they could possibly want.

[Genivaria]

On one hand good for them, on the other hand....it's New Jersey.

[Genivaria]

*marry

And marriage equality isn't everything. And marriage equality does nothing to correct my identity documents. It does nothing to make sure I won't be fired because of some bigot.

At this point we might as much get rid of marriage, or atleast get rid of government related marriages. Marriage started as a religious thing, and has been closely tied to it. Until governments started providing benefits for marriage, there wasn’t much problem in being married or not. There will always be a level of religion relating to marriage, thus preventing or atleast interfering with the separation of church and state way of thinking.

He wasn't, and if yall had any ounce of foresight, you'd realize what a stupid and self-harming precedent would be set by the law accepting his lawyers' arguments.

While I side with the baker, I think he was a jerk and a prick. Although, relating to different reasons then hating on LGBTs.

Marriage started as a religious thing

That seems like an oversimplification, marriage as far as we know has been a concept since the beginning of recorded history.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

At this point we might as much get rid of marriage, or atleast get rid of government related marriages. Marriage started as a religious thing, and has been closely tied to it. Until governments started providing benefits for marriage, there wasn’t much problem in being married or not. There will always be a level of religion relating to marriage, thus preventing or atleast interfering with the separation of church and state way of thinking.


While I side with the baker, I think he was a jerk and a prick. Although, relating to different reasons then hating on LGBTs.

Marriage started as a religious thing

That seems like an oversimplification, marriage as far as we know has been a concept since the beginning of recorded history.

IIRC, marriage has traditionally been a property-arrangement with religious elements, at least in practice.

[Genivaria]

That seems like an oversimplification, marriage as far as we know has been a concept since the beginning of recorded history.

IIRC, marriage has traditionally been a property-arrangement with religious elements, at least in practice.

I mean yeah it was less between a man and a woman and more between a man and a woman's fathers and their land.

[Vassenor]

And how does this prevent this?

Because the time wasted on it could be spent on a useful class.

Such as?

[The New California Republic]

Clearly most in this thread don't believe in teaching history, math, science, or life skills

I don't see how the fuck you arrived at that conclusion. Wanting to teach a subject =/= other subjects are unimportant.

[Ifreann]

Because the time wasted on it could be spent on a useful class.

Such as?

A class on the history of the most oppressed class of people today. Gamers.

[Genivaria]

Such as?

A class on the history of the most oppressed class of people today. Gamers.

Every time some asshat shoots up a theater/church/mall/school who's the first to be blamed?
Us innocent gamers.

[Vassenor]

Clearly most in this thread don't believe in teaching history, math, science, or life skills

I don't see how the fuck you arrived at that conclusion. Wanting to teach a subject =/= other subjects are unimportant.

Also apparently learning not to be a right shit to other people isn't a life skill any more.

[SD_Film Artists]

Clearly most in this thread don't believe in teaching history, math, science, or life skills

I don't see how the fuck you arrived at that conclusion. Wanting to teach a subject =/= other subjects are unimportant.

There's only so many minutes in a class/curriculum and those are already distracted by anti-social behaviour and other discipline issues. If you put something in then inevitably something else has to come out.

[Grenartia]

Take your own advice.

Take your own advice as well, then:

Get off your persecution complex and go out into the real world, kid.

5 steps ahead of you there.

*marry

And marriage equality isn't everything. And marriage equality does nothing to correct my identity documents. It does nothing to make sure I won't be fired because of some bigot.

At this point we might as much get rid of marriage, or atleast get rid of government related marriages.

What problem would that solve? And why would that one problem it solves be worth the countless problems it would create?

Marriage started as a religious thing, and has been closely tied to it.

Not really.

Until governments started providing benefits for marriage, there wasn’t much problem in being married or not.

This is actually false, there were definitely social stigmas attached to having children out of wedlock, for instance.

There will always be a level of religion relating to marriage, thus preventing or atleast interfering with the separation of church and state way of thinking.

Not really, because no one religion has a monopoly on marriage. Thus, the government isn't endorsing one religion over any other when it recognizes marriages.

He wasn't, and if yall had any ounce of foresight, you'd realize what a stupid and self-harming precedent would be set by the law accepting his lawyers' arguments.

While I side with the baker, I think he was a jerk and a prick. Although, relating to different reasons then hating on LGBTs.

Well, think about it like this. If people are allowed to break the law or discriminate against anyone they deem to be against their "sincerely held beliefs", it opens Christians up to being legally discriminated against in the same way they constantly fearmonger about. And that's just the least bad thing that could happen. I could think of several outcomes that are even worse.

[Internationalist Bastard]

A class on the history of the most oppressed class of people today. Gamers.

Every time some asshat shoots up a theater/church/mall/school who's the first to be blamed?
Us innocent gamers.

Gamers rise up

[The Emerald Legion]

I don't see how the fuck you arrived at that conclusion. Wanting to teach a subject =/= other subjects are unimportant.

Also apparently learning not to be a right shit to other people isn't a life skill any more.

I mean, was it ever? Name a successful person who isn't hated by someone.

[The New California Republic]

I don't see how the fuck you arrived at that conclusion. Wanting to teach a subject =/= other subjects are unimportant.

There's only so many minutes in a class/curriculum and those are already distracted by anti-social behaviour and other discipline issues. If you put something in then inevitably something else has to come out.

It isn't inevitable at all if the efficiency of lesson plans is tweaked a bit to minimise unnecessary repetition.

[Christian Confederation]

I do a man marries a woman, they have and rase children, the children get married and the cycle repeats as it has since Eden.

Please forgive me if I seem impolite, but I take it that you have a literal interpretation of the Creation narrative(s) as presented in the Book of Genesis?

No no not at all, I take it with a grain of salt because we know animals evolved and that dinosaurs and contanintal drift happened without a doubt, I personally believe that when it says 7 days I think it means 7 days for God, simply because we know thous things took several million years.

If you would like to descus further please telagram me, I would be happy to tell you more.

[Holy Tedalonia]

At this point we might as much get rid of marriage, or atleast get rid of government related marriages.

What problem would that solve? And why would that one problem it solves be worth the countless problems it would create?

It’d pretty much get rid of legal debates with marriage that almost almost every decade or so.

Marriage started as a religious thing, and has been closely tied to it.

Not really.

A ceremonial way to symbolize two are intertwined, I mean, it doesn’t have to be religious, it is simply heavily related to religion, and often had religious elements even at its conception.

Until governments started providing benefits for marriage, there wasn’t much problem in being married or not.

This is actually false, there were definitely social stigmas attached to having children out of wedlock, for instance.

Honestly didn’t think about wedlock’s, but I’m thinking moreso, around the way people have legal debates over marriage. Once benefits were provided gay marriage debates, and polygamy debates started popping up, this is because is now less so ceremonial and moreso beneficial.

There will always be a level of religion relating to marriage, thus preventing or atleast interfering with the separation of church and state way of thinking.

Not really, because no one religion has a monopoly on marriage. Thus, the government isn't endorsing one religion over any other when it recognizes marriages.

I’m not saying a religion needs to have a absolute authority, or government for that matter. I prefer to just keep it ceremonial, removing the benefits in general.

While I side with the baker, I think he was a jerk and a prick. Although, relating to different reasons then hating on LGBTs.

Well, think about it like this. If people are allowed to break the law or discriminate against anyone they deem to be against their "sincerely held beliefs", it opens Christians up to being legally discriminated against in the same way they constantly fearmonger about. And that's just the least bad thing that could happen. I could think of several outcomes that are even worse.

A Christian was kicked out of a coffee shop. The owner, even though he was a complete jerkwad, had the right to do so in my eyes. A shop owner provides services, much like how a artist does so. Small differences, but the comparison works, since both ultimately provide services. A artist can deny providing service and people are fine with that, however people have a problem with shop owners doing that.

Say a nazi walks into a Jewish bakery, and asks them to bake a cake. Should they be allowed to? Or perhaps a guy you know who harassed your daughter?

Ultimately I think a shop owner can deny service, usually to prevent something breaking out, say a drunkard who making a ruckus, or frat boys being loud and obnoxious. Sure there are those who use it for protecting their religious beliefs, or just discriminate in general, but there will always be those in the world, who seek to find a way to bully another.

[Christian Confederation]

I don't see how the fuck you arrived at that conclusion. Wanting to teach a subject =/= other subjects are unimportant.

Also apparently learning not to be a right shit to other people isn't a life skill any more.

I just think America lost it's values and needs to find them again.

[Christian Confederation]

What problem would that solve? And why would that one problem it solves be worth the countless problems it would create?

It’d pretty much get rid of legal debates with marriage that almost almost every decade or so.

Not really.

A ceremonial way to symbolize two are intertwined, I mean, it doesn’t have to be religious, it is simply heavily related to religion, and often had religious elements even at its conception.

This is actually false, there were definitely social stigmas attached to having children out of wedlock, for instance.

Honestly didn’t think about wedlock’s, but I’m thinking moreso, around the way people have legal debates over marriage. Once benefits were provided gay marriage debates, and polygamy debates started popping up, this is because is now less so ceremonial and moreso beneficial.

Not really, because no one religion has a monopoly on marriage. Thus, the government isn't endorsing one religion over any other when it recognizes marriages.

I’m not saying a religion needs to have a absolute authority, or government for that matter. I prefer to just keep it ceremonial, removing the benefits in general.

Well, think about it like this. If people are allowed to break the law or discriminate against anyone they deem to be against their "sincerely held beliefs", it opens Christians up to being legally discriminated against in the same way they constantly fearmonger about. And that's just the least bad thing that could happen. I could think of several outcomes that are even worse.

A Christian was kicked out of a coffee shop. The owner, even though he was a complete jerkwad, had the right to do so in my eyes. A shop owner provides services, much like how a artist does so. Small differences, but the comparison works, since both ultimately provide services. A artist can deny providing service and people are fine with that, however people have a problem with shop owners doing that.

Say a nazi walks into a Jewish bakery, and asks them to bake a cake. Should they be allowed to? Or perhaps a guy you know who harassed your daughter?

Ultimately I think a shop owner can deny service, usually to prevent something breaking out, say a drunkard who making a ruckus, or frat boys being loud and obnoxious. Sure there are those who use it for protecting their religious beliefs, or just discriminate in general, but there will always be those in the world, who seek to find a way to bully another.

That's a bit far I just side with the baker because he was being asked to use his skills and talent/ artistic skills to make something he didn't morraly agree with.

I say if it is something made with love and skills you have a right to provide that service to whoever you do or don't like, the coffee shop example dosen't work because a cup of coffee doesn't require artistic skills.

[Holy Tedalonia]

It’d pretty much get rid of legal debates with marriage that almost almost every decade or so.


A ceremonial way to symbolize two are intertwined, I mean, it doesn’t have to be religious, it is simply heavily related to religion, and often had religious elements even at its conception.

Honestly didn’t think about wedlock’s, but I’m thinking moreso, around the way people have legal debates over marriage. Once benefits were provided gay marriage debates, and polygamy debates started popping up, this is because is now less so ceremonial and moreso beneficial.

I’m not saying a religion needs to have a absolute authority, or government for that matter. I prefer to just keep it ceremonial, removing the benefits in general.


A Christian was kicked out of a coffee shop. The owner, even though he was a complete jerkwad, had the right to do so in my eyes. A shop owner provides services, much like how a artist does so. Small differences, but the comparison works, since both ultimately provide services. A artist can deny providing service and people are fine with that, however people have a problem with shop owners doing that.

Say a nazi walks into a Jewish bakery, and asks them to bake a cake. Should they be allowed to? Or perhaps a guy you know who harassed your daughter?

Ultimately I think a shop owner can deny service, usually to prevent something breaking out, say a drunkard who making a ruckus, or frat boys being loud and obnoxious. Sure there are those who use it for protecting their religious beliefs, or just discriminate in general, but there will always be those in the world, who seek to find a way to bully another.

That's a bit far I just side with the baker because he was being asked to use his skills and talent/ artistic skills to make something he didn't morraly agree with.

I say if it is something made with love and skills you have a right to provide that service to whoever you do or don't like, the coffee shop example dosen't work because a cup of coffee doesn't require artistic skills.

You’d be surprised, professionally made coffee is considered a art form. They even hold competitions.

[Slarvainian]

I hope one day we will be able to move past all of the identities that are held as important in today's modern world. I think it's quite silly that we need to teach a history to students which the criteria is someone's sexual orientation. That being said I recognize that in order to normalize something you usually need to familiarize it. Teaching American children about how a group that is sometimes seen as separate contributed to the greater society is one way to do this.

I just think America lost it's values and needs to find them again.

There are no specific American values that have fallen away since the founding of the country. The constitution and it's founding principles still exist. I'd be curious by what values you mean though.

[Ifreann]

Also apparently learning not to be a right shit to other people isn't a life skill any more.

I just think America lost it's values and needs to find them again.

America has never lived up to its foundational values, but it is rather closer now than at any point, I dare say, in the past.