Gays can't marry in Cali or whatever.

[zabu of nΩd]

My parents homeschooled me because the educational standards of public schooling where I grew up were very poor and did not challenge me.

They have never tried to hide things from me. They were always more than willing to let me find out about things such as homosexuality, racism and other religions aside from their own, because they realize that I'm intelligent enough to make my own life decisions. I've never had problems socializing or acceptings others due to differences.

Dakryn is also right that homeschooled children tend to academically outperform children who go to public school.

Okay, I can accept all that. But there is a portion of homeschooling parents who do so largely in order to shelter their kids from society. I don't know whether our governments have devised some way to compensate for this, but I would assume they haven't. I'm also pretty sure that sheltering kids from society tends to result in the kid having less tolerance of different walks of life, which in turn hurts peace and democracy.

Based on that, I'd argue that teaching communication and citizenship are vital parts of education which are ignored in homeschooling. I'm not going to say we should ban homeschooling outright, but if there is no reliable way for it to teach communication and citizenship, then homeschooling should not be allowed to pass for a standard education without some kind of out-of-home supplement.

 

[Dak]

I don't know whether our governments have devised some way to compensate for this, but I would assume they haven't.

Since when is social exposure governments responsibility?

I'm also pretty sure that sheltering kids from society tends to result in the kid having less tolerance of different walks of life, which in turn hurts peace and democracy.

Pretty sure there are less problems with skinheads/gangs/ any other intolerant group with homeschooled students. You have no evidence for this opinion.

Based on that, I'd argue that teaching communication and citizenship are vital parts of education which are ignored in homeschooling. I'm not going to say we should ban homeschooling outright, but if there is no reliable way for it to teach communication and citizenship, then homeschooling should not be allowed to pass for a standard education without some kind of out-of-home supplement.

How is sitting in a classroom with 30+ other students waiting for a bell to ring teaching citizenship and communication? Just wondering.

As far as an out-of-home supplement...its called life......

Edit: Ironically when it comes to communication and citizenship, I can use that same arguement as to why all Americans 18-22 should be required to serve in the armed forces. Trust me, you get way more of the education you are referring too in the military than school.

 

[Vossyrus]

That's not a very good point. It has as much affect on the straight people who are strongly for gay marriage.

Sure, but they are strongly for gay marriages because they support equal rights and aren't prejudice, and because of the overwhelming amount of absolute idiots opposing same-sex marriages. It's incredibly childish to ban same-sex marriages, and it doesn't take a gay couple to realize this.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I have addressed your points. You just can't see beyond your own ideas.

Please quote the posts you made which addressed my points. As far as I see it, you're just using my alleged "intolerance" of your opinion as a strawman for an actual argument.

I feel it is more justified because of people like you who cannot fathom another ideology or perspective if it causes someone to disagree with you. It seems to me that you would prefer a country where your views are accepted as truth and opposing views like mine are silenced and eliminated.

Then you need to re-read my posts. I never said that you should not be allowed oppose gay marriage. I just said that you should not impose your beliefs on others. How in the hell does that mean I want to silence opposing viewpoints? I'm being a loudmouth, sure, but that doesn't mean that I would have you locked up for your opinions if I had the choice.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Since when is social exposure governments responsibility?

Technically it's not, but neither is education as a whole. The reason we do any of it is because it clearly benefits society and makes us more prosperous overall than we would be without it.

Pretty sure there are less problems with skinheads/gangs/ any other intolerant group with homeschooled students. You have no evidence for this opinion.

Not really, but I'd argue that it's analogous to the United Nations, which also teaches people to communicate with each other and work toward coexisting, and given how active the U.N. is in holding countries accountable for their actions and diffusing international tensions, I think it's safe to say that the U.N. is a good idea.

How is sitting in a classroom with 30+ other students waiting for a bell to ring teaching citizenship and communication? Just wondering.

As far as an out-of-home supplement...its called life......

You're missing the point, which is that educational institutions force you to be around people of different walks of life, and therefore to come to terms with them on some level. Everyday life outside of school does not.

Edit: Ironically when it comes to communication and citizenship, I can use that same arguement as to why all Americans 18-22 should be required to serve in the armed forces. Trust me, you get way more of the education you are referring too in the military than school.

Ironically, I agree with you here. I have in the past suggested that we should mandate military training for everyone. Perhaps that could be incorporated into the educational system we already have. It's hard to deny that that would benefit society by fostering self-discipline, responsibility, and service to others.

 

[Dak]

Technically it's not, but neither is education as a whole. The reason we do any of it is because it clearly benefits society and makes us more prosperous overall than we would be without it.

That still gets back to it shouldn't require government control/oversight/intervention. In general, a parent is gonna care a hell of a lot more about their children's education and development than anyone else.

Not really, but I'd argue that it's analogous to the United Nations, which also teaches people to communicate with each other and work toward coexisting, and given how active the U.N. is in holding countries accountable for their actions and diffusing international tensions, I think it's safe to say that the U.N. is a good idea.

Idealogically it is a good idea, unfortunately in practice the UN fails.

You're missing the point, which is that educational institutions force you to be around people of different walks of life, and therefore to come to terms with them on some level. Everyday life outside of school does not.

You might be "around" them, but to learn what? How to act like children? The ages in school do not make it a social learning environment of choice in my opinion.

Ironically, I agree with you here. I have in the past suggested that we should mandate military training for everyone. Perhaps that could be incorporated into the educational system we already have. It's hard to deny that that would benefit society by fostering self-discipline, responsibility, and service to others.

Just training, or actual service in the armed forces? There is a huge difference.

 

[AchrisK]

Edit: Ironically when it comes to communication and citizenship, I can use that same arguement as to why all Americans 18-22 should be required to serve in the armed forces. Trust me, you get way more of the education you are referring too in the military than school.

I also like this idea. I kinda wish I had gone in.

 

[King Richard]

I learned two things while I was in the military:

1. How much I hated it.
2. How to construct some sweet bombs.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

That still gets back to it shouldn't require government control/oversight/intervention. In general, a parent is gonna care a hell of a lot more about their children's education and development than anyone else.

The reason it requires government control is that without it, many people either would not bother with education or would not be able to afford it, and we would end up with a shittier society overall. Same issue as with health care. The solution is just to offer private services in parallel to the public safety net, which is what we already have with private schools.

Idealogically it is a good idea, unfortunately in practice the UN fails.

In practice, the U.N. brings people together. That in and of itself justifies its existence. When you communicate with someone and hear them speak their mind, it's harder to hate them.

You might be "around" them, but to learn what? How to act like children? The ages in school do not make it a social learning environment of choice in my opinion.

There might be a question of negative influence at younger ages (which is why lower-level schools tend to have pretty strict rules on conduct), but once you reach maturity and are able to think critically it is very beneficial to be exposed to different people.

Just training, or actual service in the armed forces? There is a huge difference.

Training, of course. Fuck drafts.

 

[Matt]

There is no need for mandatory military service in the US right now, that's a preposterous idea.

 

[Dak]

The reason it requires government control is that without it, many people either would not bother with education or would not be able to afford it

Bullshit. The large majority of parents want their kids educated.

In practice, the U.N. brings people together. That in and of itself justifies its existence. When you communicate with someone and hear them speak their mind, it's harder to hate them.

I would say in practice the UN hasn't averted hardly any crisis or conflicts, can't account for much of it's budget, and doesn't even follow it's own rules. mere talk doesn't mean shit.

There might be a question of negative influence at younger ages (which is why lower-level schools tend to have pretty strict rules on conduct), but once you reach maturity and are able to think critically it is very beneficial to be exposed to different people.

Definitely a matter of opinion whether even high-school students in America rate "mature".

Training, of course. Fuck drafts.

Well if you aren't going to serve, mandatory boot camps won't do jack shit but make people think they know how to fight. It's time in service where you actually learn shit, not 2-3 months getting yelled and and doing pushups.

 

[Alter]

So you all suggest that I conform to your view?

No, we are suggesting you support people gaining their legal rights.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

There is no need for mandatory military service in the US right now, that's a preposterous idea.

Why do you always spew retarded shit without actually thinking about what you're saying? Nobody's talking about mandatory military service.

 

[Matt]

Why do you always spew retarded shit without actually thinking about what you're saying? Nobody's talking about mandatory military service.

Edit: Ironically when it comes to communication and citizenship, I can use that same arguement as to why all Americans 18-22 should be required to serve in the armed forces. Trust me, you get way more of the education you are referring too in the military than school.

lulz.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Bullshit. The large majority of parents want their kids educated.

Just like the large majority of people want to buy health insurance?

I would say in practice the UN hasn't averted hardly any crisis or conflicts, can't account for much of it's budget, and doesn't even follow it's own rules. mere talk doesn't mean shit.

It's a vehicle of diplomacy. Diplomacy is a good thing. Why do you have such a problem with this?

Also, if the U.N. doesn't accomplish anything, then why does virtually every country in the world participate in it?

Definitely a matter of opinion whether even high-school students in America rate "mature".

It's called brain development. Of course high school age students are more mature than elementary school students. My point is that there are opportunities for education that teenagers and young adults have which aren't feasible for younger kids.

Well if you aren't going to serve, mandatory boot camps won't do jack shit but make people think they know how to fight. It's time in service where you actually learn shit, not 2-3 months getting yelled and and doing pushups.

Yes, there are things you learn through deployment and combat which you don't learn through simple training. I'm just suggesting that there are some valuable things about training too, such as working on a team, following orders, learning self-defense, etc. which would be beneficial for everyone in society to have experience with.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

lulz.

Sorry for the miswording. Here: mandatory military service is not the focus of this discussion. We've been talking about the idea of mandatory training, so your comment about mandatory service seemed ignorant given the context of the debate.

 

[Matt]

Sorry for the miswording. Here: mandatory military service is not the focus of this discussion. We've been talking about the idea of mandatory training, so your comment about mandatory service seemed ignorant given the context of the debate.

Service/training, whatever.

 

[Einherjar86]

I feel I am. My beliefs are part of what shapes the way I see reality. What next?

I think you should try and separate your religious instincts from your decision-making process. Ultimately, it boils down to how much homosexuals are offending you. Now, perhaps you disagree with them on some kind of moral level; but morals can be misleading. Homosexuals pose no immediate harm to you or your family. Allowing them the freedom to act according to their preferences really has little to no effect on you. There is no other reason you believe the way you do except for previously conceived religious notions. In this case, these notions are actually an impediment on logical judgment.

Perhaps you could tell us how you think you're being logically sound.

 

[Dak]

Just like the large majority of people want to buy health insurance?

Weakest comeback ever. Completely irrelavent.

It's a vehicle of diplomacy. Diplomacy is a good thing. Why do you have such a problem with this?

Also, if the U.N. doesn't accomplish anything, then why does virtually every country in the world participate in it?

You didn't address any of my points. Yes, countries talk, but it isn't accomplishing anything. Their are many other organizations that accomplish way more.

It's called brain development. Of course high school age students are more mature than elementary school students. My point is that there are opportunities for education that teenagers and young adults have which aren't feasible for younger kids.

Obviously, but learning to able to conform to a acceptable clique in high school isn't education. At least not one worthwhile.

Yes, there are things you learn through deployment and combat which you don't learn through simple training. I'm just suggesting that there are some valuable things about training too, such as working on a team, following orders, learning self-defense, etc. which would be beneficial for everyone in society to have experience with.

It's not even got to do with actually being in combat. It has to do with tiome spent [in]. 2-3 months of bootcamp will change very few people. 4 years will.

Also on the whole "forcing people together" bit, people from the same geographic location are only going to be so different, and in school most people generally [clan] with those like them.
You can't do that in the military at work. You can have 10-20 people you work with and all be from different states etc. And you HAVE to learn to work with them, and usually spend your free time with them too.
The travel opporunities provided in the military are also eye openers, and I am not talking about just going into a combat zone. Foreign duty stations in Europe and Asia, or in parts of the US you have never been etc.

 

[skeptik]

AchrisK, do you think that if a proposition legalizing slavery were put forth and people voted in favor of it that we should institute slavery once again?

The problem with your belief is that it infringes on the rights of other people. Everybody is entitled to share their own beliefs insofar as it doesn't effect the rights of others. When your ideology crosses the boundary between benign, passive disagreement and malignant, active repression of others' rights, that is when your views are challenged. Based on the laws of our country, the government is not allowed to dictate morality in such a way as a ban on gay marriage does. We are not asking you to conform to our views. We are telling you that your views are unacceptable based on the law. I am dumbfounded as to how these amendments are even allowed to be on ballots and why the government is too afraid to act on it for fear of uprising among the massive bigoted population. I notice that you haven't even responded to the vast majority of arguments thrown your way, including mine. Instead, you replaced argument with reactionary defense mechanisms such as accusing everybody of being intolerant and forcing you to conform.

Your view has real world implications that take away the rights of people who have done no wrong, according to the law. Based on this fact, your view is an attack on the law. Being that it is an attack on the law, your views are in the proper position that permits reactionary "intolerance", so to speak. The law does not tolerate views contrary to the propositions that it holds. You are obligated to conform to the views shared by the law. Do you accuse the government of forcing you to conform to their views on murder? On extortion? On torture? On rape? On discrimination? I would like you to actually respond to my points and not simply accuse me of being the one who is intolerant.