Good for them. I can't believe how quickly everyone has come to "accept" this gay bullshit.

I guess I don't understand the problem? The students didn't like the play and they got up and left. Good for them. I think, given the extreme slant of the article, that if they had suffered repercussions for leaving, it would have been featured in the article, or at least mentioned.

Reportedly, many students expressed a desire to skip the show beforehand because of the subject matter of the musical, which depicts life at a fictitious high school, where students with academically charged interests sit atop the popularity echelon while football players are the outcasts and heterosexuals must conceal their sexual preference to avoid public scrutiny.

All it says is that, "reportedly", whatever that means, "many" students expressed a desire to skip the show. It doesn't say they were forced to attend at all.

I do question the kiss, just because it seems kind of gratuitous if the purpose of the play was indeed to force students to see a different point of view (smart kids as popular, football players outcasts, straight kids having to hide their sexuality). If they were going for pure, in-your-face, shock value, then the kiss makes sense.

Reading the comments did make me uncomfortable. Who knew there could be so much venom among the forgiven?

No-one should HAVE to consider a different Point of View.

Some POVs are ludicrous; some simply misguided: some dangerous and looney.

Some POVs do not need to be examined at all. You can tell from a brief glance that they are not good for you. Just as smelling a turd is enough and eating the damned thing is not necessary. Despite all the protests from homosexuals that they have a 'right' to this and that, I am not obliged to recognise it. Of course they are going to say that their POV is valid. They aren't going to say it isn't, now are they? But that does not make it valid.

Shit is shit.

Walk on by.

Learning to see life through someone else's eyes is how we develop empathy.

If the play was "enforced attendance" then I applaud the walkout. Compulsion is evil.

Personally, I find the premise to be utterly hilarious and if given the opportunity to watch the play voluntarily, I'd have done so voluntarily.

I don't believe homosexuality is immoral, but that is not the essential issue here. The issues here are individual choice and freedom of conscience.

If the kids that left did so out of a belief that homosexuality is immoral, then they still have the right to their beliefs even though I strongly disagree with them. People's beliefs should not be subject to thought reform, even if said beliefs are uninformed or controversial or whatever.

The bullying of gay kids in schools is evil, but I don't think that you'll fix the problem by using COMPULSION in an attempt to eradicate anti-nonhetero beliefs.

Quote from KellyMac

Learning to see life through someone else's eyes is how we develop empathy.

Nevertheless, it is wise to chose the best eyes to look through. You do not have to abandon discrimination and judgement simply because some marxist-feminist slogan says you should. There are many bloodshot eyes out there. You gain very little from looking through the eyes of a murderer or a paedophile, or a feminist for that matter. There are better means for developing empathy.

Quote from Garak

Good for them. I can't believe how quickly everyone has come to "accept" this gay bullshit.

Ya well,it is gonna be force-fed here soon;

Teaching gay acceptance in schools urged

Teaching acceptance of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual students needs to be part of the curriculum in Canadian schools, say two anti-bullying experts, after the suicide of 15-year-old Ottawa teen Jamie Hubley.

Teaching gay acceptance in schools urged - Ottawa - CBC News

Quote from Percy

Nevertheless, it is wise to chose the best eyes to look through. You do not have to abandon discrimination and judgement simply because some marxist-feminist slogan says you should. There are many bloodshot eyes out there. You gain very little from looking through the eyes of a murderer or a paedophile, or a feminist for that matter. There are better means for developing empathy.

Murderers hurt people.
Pedophiles hurt people.
Feminism is a choice.
Gay people are attracted differently than you and I.

Are you honestly saying there's a comparison?

Gays can choose not to act on their attraction, yes. So they can live their lives without a partner, or with a partner that feels unnatural to them. But they can't help who they're attracted to, any more than you or I can. They can't force anyone else to be attracted the same way they are, any more than you or I can. If no one is being victimized, you can't honestly compare them to murderers or pedophiles or feminists.

Teaching acceptance of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual students needs to be part of the curriculum in Canadian schools, say two anti-bullying experts, after the suicide of 15-year-old Ottawa teen Jamie Hubley.

We should be taught to accept those who are different than us in general terms. Singling out acceptance of sexual orientation (or gender, or race, or anything else) to be taught in schools is questionable at best. There's no way you can single out every group. As soon as you miss one, you've got a problem.

Murderers hurt people.
Pedophiles hurt people.
Feminism is a choice.
Gay people are attracted differently than you and I.

Are you honestly saying there's a comparison?

Do YOU think paedophilia is a choice?

Do YOU think murderers choose to be Psychopathic?

Their choice is neither here nor there.

Feminism hurts people. If their forms of insult, villification, manipulation and coercion are found acceptible to some it is because those 'some' are masochistic. Is that a choice too?

I am attracted to aeroplanes but I do not see the need to have infant shool classes taught to 'accept' that 'pilots are different'. School children have reading, writing and arithmatic needs to be met that are neglected.

If homosexuals were simply attracted differently, it would be all well and good. But thieves are attracted to other people's goods and I don't see you defending theft.

It is what one DOES with one's proclivities, not the proclivity itself.

Now, a question: What role does 'Disgust' play?

Is 'disgust' a feeling we should ignore, or permit/use/respond to, to inform our judgment?

Pedophilia a choice? No.
Psychopathology a choice? No.
Feminism a choice? Yes.
Stealing a choice? Yes.

Are any of these things possible without hurting someone? No.

I don't get homosexuality. Truly, it makes me uncomfortable. I don't want to see two men or two women even holding hands, much less kissing.

None of that gives me the right to vilify them or to condone violence and hatred toward them.

This wasn't a class students were required to take to graduate. It was a play they were encouraged to attend. With an inappropriate kiss. Some students got up and left. With no repercussions. More power to them. Was the choice of play questionable? Undoubtedly, and sadly more schools would choose to present it than would not.

Does the thought of homosexual sex disgust me? Yes. Could anyone teach or convince me to go against my nature and become homosexual? Highly doubtful. I believe gay behavior is a sin. People certainly can choose not to act on those urges. I can't imagine the difficulty of that, and I'm sure it's a lifelong struggle for those individuals.

I don't think most of us are that strong.

I had a friend in high school who was gay. He got tired of the rumors one day and decided to come out in the lunch room. He was jumped by a bunch of guys and beaten to a pulp. Matthew Shepard was tied to a fence and beaten into a coma, from which he never recovered. Because he was gay.

You and I may agree that homosexuality hurts people. I'm just not sure we'd agree about who is getting hurt.

Quote from Percy

It is what one DOES with one's proclivities, not the proclivity itself.

Now, a question: What role does 'Disgust' play?

Is 'disgust' a feeling we should ignore, or permit/use/respond to, to inform our judgment?

If you find "what gays do" to be unpleasant, that's partly understandable. But you don't have to find it pleasant in order to tolerate it. Tolerating (in the political sense) X requires only the following things; 1) you don't START the use of violence, fraud/deception, or threats thereof, against X, 2) you don't ADVOCATE the use of violence, fraud/deception, or threats thereof, against X, and 3) you DO advocate equal treatment under the law for X.

Now, this is tolerance in a narrow political sense. The article also deals with tolerance in a moral sense (moral tolerance). This simply means that, if you morally tolerate X, you don't regard X as automatically evil (it doesn't mean you have to see X as good, it simply means you have to see X as amoral). It should be noted that it IS possible to politically tolerate something without morally tolerating it.

Regarding "disgust," that which is disgusting (or very unpleasant) and that which is evil aren't necessarily the same thing. Open-heart surgery is pretty gross, but is it evil? Horror movies can be gruesome, but are they evil?

There are lots of things we'd all consider unpleasant. But unpleasant doesn't necessarily mean evil. I think eating oysters is gross, but I'm not exactly going to call it an act of evil.

So, what about a consensual sex act that you happen to find unpleasant (and I should add, many people would agree here) suddenly renders an unpleasantry into an evil?

Another point I want to make... I think you MIGHT have a slightly inaccurate impression in your head about what "gay sex" actually involves. I know a lot of people that find it strongly distasteful seem to equate "gay sex" with "butt sex." This is inaccurate. First, not all gay or bisexual people enjoy butt sex. I have friends of all sexual preferences, and I know several gay men that do NOT like butt sex! Second, butt sex isn't exclusive to gay and bisexual people; heterosexuals do it too (as thousands of porn sites will attest), some would argue the amount of heterosexual butt sex is actually larger than the amount of homosexual butt sex.

Now, if you don't like butt sex, fine! I don't exactly have enthusiastic feelings about it either. Its clearly a niche-market taste and its not for everyone.

But how does the (understandable) "ewww" factor suddenly become "THIS IS EEEEEVIL!!!!"???

As for the role of feelings like disgust in moral judgment, as the examples I have above (oysters, open heart surgery etc) attest, not everyone finds the same things disgusting and even things which disgust the majority of people aren't necessarily evil. Moral evaluations should be based on reason.

Additionally, Cognitive Psychology argues that feelings are actually the RESULTS of previously-made moral evaluations. We feel good about things which we have morally evaluated as good and bad about things we have morally evaluated as bad (this requires the evaluation to have been made and accepted long enough for the evaluation to get 'automatized' into one's subconscious). Disgust isn't an "input" into a moral calculus, it is the RESULT of a previously-performed moral calculus. The feeling of disgust is only as relevant as the underlying moral judgment which informs the feeling. So the real question should be "why do I feel this disgust?"

Now, if the feeling of disgust is based on a matter of taste, well that's an understandable personal preference, but it isn't something that should be moralized.

A straw man, SK.

I did not say that disgust = evil.

And I do not say that disgust is equivalent to 'unpleasant'.

Surgery is not in the slightest 'unpleasant' nor disgusting. That is a peculiar example to bring. That some people may be sqeamish is a quite different matter.

Sticking your dick into someone's arse is frankly disgusting. An arse was not designed for that but for excreting from. I apply that to anal sex with females too.

I did not mention a 'moral' issue either. But as you raise it, perhaps you can explain it to us.

Quote from Percy

A straw man, SK.

I did not say that disgust = evil.

You brought up the subject of where disgust belongs in the role of moral evaluation (judgment). It seems obvious from your posts you consider same-sex sexual acts immoral (correct me if I'm wrong here). I've noticed that many people who share this moral belief also have a high level of revulsion to "what gays do" (which, in their mind, means butt sex). I'm speculating that perhaps they have moralized their own personal feelings of disgust.

And I do not say that disgust is equivalent to 'unpleasant'.

Disgust is a reaction to many things we'd classify as 'unpleasant.' I admit that 'unpleasant' can refer to a broader class of things, but I'm using it because I prefer to use softer language simply out of charity. I wouldn't want to represent anyone's argument as more extreme than it actually is.

Surgery is not in the slightest 'unpleasant' nor disgusting. That is a peculiar example to bring.

Really? Have you seen videos of open heart surgery being performed? I think it is pretty gross. All the organs and viscera all over the place etc. Close-ups can make it look even worse.

Sure, its a necessary procedure that saves lives, absolutely. Doesn't make it any nicer to watch.

That some people may be sqeamish is a quite different matter.

Really? My feelings of 'squeamishness' about, say, open heart surgery, or maybe watching Hannibal Lecter eat someone's brains, are just 'squeamishness' but your own feelings towards butt sex are something superior?

Sticking your dick into someone's arse is frankly disgusting.

Many people agree with you, including some gay men! But I don't see how "I find butt sex disgusting" leads to "any act of anal sex is immoral."

Unless you subscribe to the theory of universally-held moral sentiments. But then the problem becomes one of explaining how some people can find butt sex to be enticing and exciting, rather than disgusting.

An arse was not designed for that but for excreting from.

If you wish to make a Natural Law argument, please be prepared to prove the existence of a God (yes, I am an atheist) who has designed all things we see to have a singular, specific, intended natural function.

That said, I disagree with the idea of natural functions (or 'inherent uses'). A "use" presupposes a "user" and thus a "use" requires a consciousness that can utilize things. Since people have multiple different aims which can be reached in multiple different ways, it follows that people will find multiple different uses for the same thing. Not only that, but since even a single individual can be creative, they probably will be able to find multiple different uses for the same thing.

Natural Law arguments (which have a God that sets the natural functions of things) seem to deny their own omniscient God that same level of creativity. Strange, since proponents of these arguments typically argue that we're made in God's image.

I apply that to anal sex with females too.

I applaud your consistency (sincerely; I'm glad to see you're actually consistent on this matter).

I did not mention a 'moral' issue either. But as you raise it, perhaps you can explain it to us.

Your previous posts on this very thread strongly imply that you consider homosexual acts immoral. Quoting:

Some POVs do not need to be examined at all. You can tell from a brief glance that they are not good for you. Just as smelling a turd is enough and eating the damned thing is not necessary. Despite all the protests from homosexuals that they have a 'right' to this and that, I am not obliged to recognise it.

You do not have to abandon discrimination and judgement simply because some marxist-feminist slogan says you should. There are many bloodshot eyes out there. You gain very little from looking through the eyes of a murderer or a paedophile

Quotes such as these, including using murderers and paedophiles (two groups of people which I think are universally agreed to be evil) as analagous to homosexuals (implying that a homosexual's point of view is worth the same as that of a murderer or paedophile), certainly give off the impression that you strongly morally condemn homosexuality as such, even if you have also said that "It is what one DOES with one's proclivities, not the proclivity itself."

So no, I did not turn this into a moral issue. I made a very reasonable inference on the basis of your posts. If my inference is incorrect, I'd be glad for you to clarify your stance on the issue.

Sudbury school helps LGBT students feel safe

Alliance aims to make lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered students less 'invisible'

Sudbury school helps LGBT students feel safe - Sudbury - CBC News