How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

Define 'reality'. I bet you don't even know what reality is either...

It is not mine and mine alone. It comes from philosophy and logic.

 

I talk to many. Especially about this topic. You are the only one I've seen ever advance this definition. But, hey, if you have other sources all of the sudden . . .

 

Incorrect.

Incorrect again. Belief in a god is, by definition, religious.

 

Religious is relating to or believing in a religion

You know how you don’t believe in all those other gods? That’s how I don’t believe in yours too.

 

It’s correct based on the very definition. Look it up yourself.

 

Jesus ever loving ****ing Christ, really? This is how pedantic you want to be?

Fine. Outside of gfmism, and I'm sure you've made up your own super special "definition" that doesn't mesh with anyone or anything, but reality is that state of existence.

Then surely you have sources. Waiting.

 

You cannot define a word with itself.

Exactly. You hold the BELIEF that gods do not exist. That is a religious belief (as it is an unfalsifiable belief).

 

re·li·gious
[rəˈlijəs]
ADJECTIVE

1. relating to or believing in a religion:

 

Define "that state of existence".

I already told you the sources. Philosophy and logic are the sources. A circular argument is defined by logic as a predicate and conclusion that takes the form A -> A. (A, therefore A).

Philosophy is what gives the definition, and the reasoning for the definition, of many words (such as 'science' and 'religion'). An argument presented in philosophy MUST be valid (internal consistency check via logic) and MUST not come from any outside source or reference (otherwise it is someone else's argument).

 

You cannot define a word with itself. Circular definition.

 

Why? I'm not interested in your fake semantic arguments.

I already told you the sources. Philosophy and logic are the sources. A circular argument is defined by logic as a predicate and conclusion that takes the form A -> A. (A, therefore A).[/quote]Dude, that's the law of identity. You know that, right?

[/QUOTE]
Then quote any philosophical source that backs up your definitions. Why are you apparently the only "philosopher" who subscribes to this philosophy?

 

Religion and religious are not the same words. And I thought you said that everything circular was a religion and that all religions are circular. Why are you now whining about circularity?

 

Uh huh...you go with that..hahaha

 

It is falsifiable, and still not a religion.

Definition of religion

1: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

2a: the service and worship of God or the supernatural

(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

 

We DO agree with yardmeat. And no its not.

 

Sorry but YOUR the one standing in the rain claiming its not raining.

 

No it doesn't

Definition of reality


1: the quality or state of being real
2a(1): a real event, entity, or state of affairs his dream became a reality
(2): the totality of real things and events trying to escape from reality
b: something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily

 

If there's a 'villain' in this whole thing about 'inculcating beliefs in children' it's surely negligent parents more than anyone else. For decades, American parent populations have disgraced themselves and cheated their own children over and over by thrusting everything over on the public schools! Is it any wonder, then, that public school teachers assume that -- because no one else has these "conversations" that they must perform this task, too...? I still say that all of that notwithstanding, it should not (NOT) be up to teachers at any point in public school education to delve into societal sexual orientations, or exploring the highly-subjective areas of what's 'normal', and what is not.

That said, I, too, will bow out of this thread. I have never had children in an American public school system, but, like all American property owners, I'm thoroughly TAXED to support these schools, whether I like the curricula or the manner in which the material is taught or not. Here in the States, you either pay these property taxes or the government comes after you... you can't win, and you can't 'opt-out' just because you've never had any kids in their schools....

It is possible that the various teachers' unions here in America comprise the most powerful organized labor organizations of all. No one is ever successful in challenging them, and no one can force them to do anything they don't like. So... if people like me can't win, then issues like this are kind of a stupid 'hill to die on'.

Afterthought: Neither myself nor any other conservative person I know personally bears any prejudice of any kind against any 'gay' person. There's way too little love in this world, and too little joy... how can anyone hate someone for wanting to love and share joy with any other person?

I'll close by observing that, to the best of my knowledge, the best remaining public school systems in 'the West' are those in Germany. And so, auf wiedersehen....

 

The only thing that matters in 2022 is that sexual orientation isn't a choice.

 

Perhaps not...

 

Why?

 

Why the pejorative labels?

Teachers are supposed to treat expressions of sexuality as what? Not normal?

So, it would be okay with you if teachers labelled homosexuality "deviant, aberrant behavior?"

 

Teachers don't have enough hours in the day to figure out how to treat sexuality according to the wishes of each parent.

You think it doesn't come up with teenagers?

How are we supposed to teach history?

 

If one steps back and takes a wider view you quickly have to ask what you want education to do. IMO and in no particular order, the list includes training for employment, knowledge of the general laws of the country, its history and place in the world, socialising properly, self discovery, what global, national and local current issues are.
It offers what to think about, NOT what to think.
In todays world, in the social and print media, among contemporaries, questions about self knowledge, self identity, are all everywhere. You can't ignore them. Not mentioning them at a crucial time in a child's development is a serious dereliction of duty in many of the purposes of education mentioned above.
Issues of sexuality and/or how to assess social issues are there. In reality. Ignoring them due to political correctness or your own politics is denying children the right to know the facts and to consider them in a neutral, protected environment.
Teachers do NOT tell children WHAT to think. We show children HOW to think. How to know fact from propaganda. How to research, present arguments for any side (debate) and what they honestly feel about themselves.
Teachers uphold the freedoms we all support. Those of expression, gender identity and freedom from active oppression/bigotry. They fill in where parents do not or cannot offer such a wide area of experience including single parents, children in care, children in abusive or dysfunctional families.
This constant accusation by the right that children are subject to some secret conspiratorial minds having against the interests of the right is pure political bunkum and totally unsubstantiated.
If you suspect any poor teaching, you have ways to deal with it. Political tittletattle to generate suspicion of one of the most important public service we have to ensure our basic values are transmitted, and NOT our political opinions.

 

Okay, then I will consider this discussion closed.

The "law of identity" (proof of identity) is actually ?A -> A (if A, then A).

I already provided the philosophy.

I'm not.