Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!
Decision to teach kids to be gay allowed to stand.
worldnetdaily.com — A federal court decision approving mandatory public school instruction for children as young as kindergarten in how to be homosexual is being allowed to stand, drawing a description of "despicable" from the parent who unsuccessfully challenged his school district's "gay" advocacy agenda.
georgiajim- 54 diggs
- digg it
- georgiajim, on 10/09/2008, -13/+31Gays and your minions, convince us that this isn't social engineering and indoctrination. Is this really the battleground you want? The captive, impressionable minds of our very young children.
How can you convince us this is about your "equal rights" or "civil rights"? How can you justify not even allowing parents to have a choice? You may find you have a real battle over this.- lydecker, on 10/09/2008, -1/+12This school made a very wrong decision, parents should have the power to not learn ANY subject material if it is their will for their children. This is the school usurping power from the parents, and it's wrong.
It's also wrong to blame this all on gays.- georgiajim, on 10/09/2008, -3/+8@ lydecker - I never digg you up. But, this time you are right, twice.
- lydecker, on 10/09/2008, -1/+12This school made a very wrong decision, parents should have the power to not learn ANY subject material if it is their will for their children. This is the school usurping power from the parents, and it's wrong.
- ObamaIsCarter2, on 10/09/2008, -12/+25The homosexuals love to whine about discrimination, but this is far worse than anything done to them!! It is becoming clearer BY THE DAY that the ultimate goal oF the gay rights movement is NOT ACCEPTANCE OF GAYS IN SOCIETY BUT GAY DOMINATION OF SOCIETY!!
- pamam, on 10/09/2008, -7/+13The true church has to pray these judge's out of office. It can be done, God answers prayer. Pray for their removal, Or else America is lost.
artm- ThoughtfulWi, on 10/09/2008, -5/+8Pray away the gay! LMAO!
- Ruler4you, on 10/09/2008, -2/+10God doesn't vote November 4th
- lookingforHim, on 10/09/2008, -7/+4Yes He dose, through His children!
- kayala, on 10/10/2008, -4/+4I thought we were all children of this sky fairy. Does that mean that the sky fairy is actually voting three hundred million times for multiple candidates?
- yesyoucant, on 10/10/2008, -2/+4No, that'd be the folks ACORN registered.
- lydecker, on 10/09/2008, -6/+10Gays are not looking to dominate, they are looking to be equals.
- indygirl, on 10/10/2008, -6/+3No, gays are looking for a way to make themselves feel better about their sin. What one does in the bedroom does not make one equal to others; God made men equal, not homosexual sex.
- kayala, on 10/10/2008, -1/+5I wonder how you, a humble little Christian, know for a fact what's going on in the minds of millions of people whom you've never met?
- lydecker, on 10/10/2008, -1/+6At least you agree it's not about domination, indygirl.
"No, gays are looking for a way to make themselves feel better about their sin."
No, most gay people are as comfortable in their sexuality as straight people are. They don't need to be made to feel better.
"What one does in the bedroom does not make one equal to others; God made men equal."
We aren't all equal because of sex, we are all equal because humanity is that way, exactly. And therefore gays and straights are equal. And instead, you don't want to treat them as equal, because YOU want to make them feel WORSE about what you see as sin. If people decide to have premarital sex or are gay or are whatever, they are equal. And they deserve equal rights. And they deserve equal marriage. But since you don't like that, you're going to try and discriminate against them to make them feel worse. That's why discrimination exists, to make others feel worse and yourself superior. Get over it, and let others be others. They are looking for you to get over you superiority kick. - DevinKev, on 10/10/2008, -3/+3No, they're looking for a few more converts. What better way to do that than to brainwash our children when they are away from their parents. If you really felt good about the program, why would you hide it from the parents? Afraid they might read your curriculum and see the true agenda?
- lydecker, on 10/10/2008, -1/+4You cannot convert someone into homosexuality or heterosexuality. Reading a book that involves gay people is not going to convert anyone's sexual orientation. Schools are not brainwashing your children into shunning their heterosexuality and accepting homosexuality.
Of course, if you really are paranoid and think that homosexuals somehow have this great power to brainwash people into changing their sexual orientation, and upon having perfected this technique have secretly infiltrated the schools, and are one day going to turn all of civilization homosexual... well, then it's okay that your paranoid and crazy. Normal people that know homosexuals and understand them realize it's just about removing the fear of homosexuality and preventing the hatred of homosexuals. - StaticThunder, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2"No, they're looking for a few more converts. What better way to do that than to brainwash our children when they are away from their parents."
"God made men equal, not homosexual sex."
Bwahahahahahaa! No seriously.
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! ROFL.
Man, if they could make people gay I'd be all for it. The more gay people there are, the fewer screaming kids I have to listen to at the supermarket, the movies and on planes. And thats just for starters. They should add the magic gay pixie dust to the water supply.
- StaticThunder, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2"GAY DOMINATION OF SOCIETY!!"
Well, *I* for one welcome our fabulous overlords!
/second time using this joke
//still appropriate- lydecker, on 10/10/2008, -1/+3For some reason, the joke was funnier the first time.
That makes me sad. - StaticThunder, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2I still chuckle every time somebody says "Gay Domination of Society" and picture a well-groomed man and a butch woman with bullwhips herding politicians, bankers, and executives into salons.
- lydecker, on 10/10/2008, -1/+3For some reason, the joke was funnier the first time.
- pamam, on 10/09/2008, -7/+13The true church has to pray these judge's out of office. It can be done, God answers prayer. Pray for their removal, Or else America is lost.
- lajaw, on 10/09/2008, -12/+30an Obama presidency will only encourage these deviants.
- kayala, on 10/09/2008, -10/+10Who cares if they deviate from what you personally think is right, you uptight egotist?
- kayala, on 10/10/2008, -6/+4Answer me, you coward.
- rightwingkiller, on 10/09/2008, -13/+29As a resident of the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of Massachusetts I can attest to how aggressive and abusive the supposedly enlightened people of this place really are.
The term "Mass-hole" is so accurate!
I moved here 21 years ago and was actually Left of center back then. The time here has made me into a staunch conservative and Constitutionalist.
My son garduates high school next spring and I will attend with a loaded U-Haul!- Nannybell, on 10/09/2008, -7/+4But why didn't you leave before he was indoctrinated by the public schools there?
- flip2trip, on 10/09/2008, -2/+5Nannybell--You don't know what has kept him/her there--could be the care of a sick relative or some other reason, not everyone has the luxury of motility just because they may want to move.
- alkajazz, on 10/09/2008, -5/+9Are you proud of the name "rightwingkiller"? Jesus holding a shotgun? Are these christians values? No wonder I don't take you seriously.
- rightwingkiller, on 10/15/2008, -0/+0Yeah, the screen name can really tick off the Libtards, which is my sincere intent.
Modern Christianity has become very feminized with image of Christ meekly accepting all abuse. Christ also rose up and drove the wicked from the Temple. The Christian Bible instructs us to not accept the doings of evil but to stand and fight against it with God's Righteousness.
The Bible says that Christ will return to lead the final fight against evil and that man will be called to decide whether they are on the side of Righteousness or Evil.
Christ comes back, you might not like him.
- rightwingkiller, on 10/15/2008, -0/+0Yeah, the screen name can really tick off the Libtards, which is my sincere intent.
- Nannybell, on 10/09/2008, -7/+4But why didn't you leave before he was indoctrinated by the public schools there?
- dd12101, on 10/09/2008, -7/+9seems there is nothing supreme and the supreme court after all,,,,
- ThoughtfulWi, on 10/09/2008, -12/+13Teaching children "how to be homosexual." Oh you ***** idiots! ROFL.
- georgiajim, on 10/09/2008, -6/+12@ Thoughtful - You are usually pretty level headed. Why teach this to children so young? Why not inform parents? Why not let parents opt out? Convince me this is not an agenda. Convince me this isn't social engineering or indoctrination. I'm not laughing, and I'm not a ***** idiot.
- KCLorelei39, on 10/09/2008, -7/+8It was only indoctrination when Christ was presented and taught in the public schools, doncha know that?
Freedoms for *me*, but not for *thee*. As usual, few can see the inherent hypocrisy in taking this position. eh, we're all hypocrites on one point or another, right?
But, flippancy aside.....
Of course those that resist God want both to have company in their stubbornness, and to teach others to do the same. I expect there will come a day when the options to either home school or send a child to a private, Christ-oriented school will be both removed and demonized.
My salvation comes from the Lord, not men.
- KCLorelei39, on 10/09/2008, -7/+8It was only indoctrination when Christ was presented and taught in the public schools, doncha know that?
- georgiajim, on 10/09/2008, -6/+12@ Thoughtful - You are usually pretty level headed. Why teach this to children so young? Why not inform parents? Why not let parents opt out? Convince me this is not an agenda. Convince me this isn't social engineering or indoctrination. I'm not laughing, and I'm not a ***** idiot.
- robertrutger, on 10/09/2008, -8/+18Compulsory public education is the tenth plank in the communist manifesto; now you can see why. The Council on Foreign Relations no doubt has to be involved with this decision.
- Ruler4you, on 10/09/2008, -7/+22We have allowed ourselves to become the property of the state. Our Rights have been vanquished. We have effectively broken our system of government. Worse, we have broken our commitment to ourselves, and the rest of the world, to freedom and liberty. The result of incompetent education. We are staring at the wall here folks. And it's approaching mighty fast.
- Lutrasimilis, on 10/09/2008, -7/+18Teaching kids to be gay?
You know there are camps where kids are taken for heterosexual reprogramming, camps such as Refuge, which charges between $1500 and $4000 for a six week indoctrination. Here are a few of the regulatory highlights of the Refuge de-gayifying camp.
- Refuge clients may only read materials approved by staff.
- Refuge clients must be accompanied by a parent during any trip to a public restroom.
- Refuge clients must keep their bedroom doors open at all times, day or night.
- Clients are not allowed to visit any video, music or media stores that are not expressly Christian, even if accompanied by a parent or guardian. Clients may visit LifeWay Christian stores with a parent or guardian.
- Refuge clients are allowed a one-time 15-minute maximum closed bathroom door time for shower/grooming purposes. The only other closed-door alone time allowed is for using the restroom.
If anyone here has the gall to tell me that gays are 'indoctrinated', perhaps they ought to take a look at how gays are 'un-indoctrinated' also. Parents spend thousands of dollars to throw their kids in what amounts to summer jail, locked away from all friends and family. The control they seek is so absolute it almost seems like a joke. This is one of my favorites:
- All new Refuge clients will be placed into Safekeeping for the initial two to three days of their program. A client on safekeeping may not communicate verbally, or by using hand gestures or eye contact, with any other clients, staff members, or his/her parents or guardians. In case of a practical need, Safekeeping clients may write down their question or request and show it to another client, staff member, or their parent or guardian. Writing may only be used when absolutely necessary. Parents and guardians must enforce their child's safekeeping status at home or in their temporary lodging.
If gays had a camp like this, applying force, censorship, solitary confinement, and an utter lack of privacy, there would a mob with torches inside of fifteen minutes. If you're going to make the laughable claim that homosexuality is being taught children, make sure you don't have any forced-conversion camps sitting around, utterly destroying your moral high ground.- FullTimer, on 10/09/2008, -11/+6Buncha '*****'. How dare they try to save someone from self destruction? ;-)
- Lutrasimilis, on 10/09/2008, -2/+10Hey, if you can't do it to the adults, do it to the kids, right? ;)
- erasedgod, on 10/09/2008, -1/+6There is plenty of money to be made from the flock if you're willing to sink that low.
- linuxdad, on 10/09/2008, -11/+2Please lets just give all of the kids Soap-on-a-Rope!
Take stock out in Duncan and Ivory! - georgiajim, on 10/09/2008, -7/+6@ Lutra - Your example has nothing to do with this article. The "camp" you write about is private and parents must pay and take part.
I want you to justify this indoctrination. Tell me why any school official should be able to hide this from parents and not let parents have a say in what their children are taught in a "public" school. The taxes from the very same parents pay the salaries. Why in children so young? You know damn well what's going on. If you claim it's not obvious, you are lying. All of you atheists, homosexuals and liberals have fought like hell to get religion out of public schools. Is this what you replace it with? You always have a lot to say about things in America, Lutra, JUSTIFY THIS!!!!!- Lutrasimilis, on 10/09/2008, -2/+13My post has -everything- to do with this article, Jim. But I'll save you the effort of having to deal with it, let's focus on what you said.
The taxes you pay into public schools are going to teach kids social values, not your own personal values. Gay people pay taxes too, you know, and so do atheists and liberals. Sorry to break it to you, but they also form a part of society. And so do their kids, or the kids they're raising. If those kids are old enough to be told about Hell, and burning forever in demon-tortured agony and misery, they're certainly old enough to know about their own bodies. If that isn't obvious, you have a very sick mind.
First of all, 'sex' education at the levels you're talking about has NOTHING to do with sex, the ENTIRE focus of the curriculum centers on how to avoid sexual predators. If you don't believe that, you haven't read the curriculum. I repeat - there is zero sex involved. They teach kids how to recognize when someone is trying to molest them. Like, say, a PRIEST. They learn to report them, which is bad news for certain institutions.
Second, did you have any problem with atheists' taxes going to pay for schools when they still -did- enforce prayers and religion? Did you feel it was unfair then? No? Well then.
And don't cram all your stereotypes together, try to space them out a bit. - georgiajim, on 10/09/2008, -9/+4@ Lutra - You are writing all around what I posted. You have said nothing to convince me this isn't an agenda, social engineering or indoctrination. Let's break it down to this. Why not let parents opt their children out if they disagree? Why not at least notify the parents? Almost everything you said I agree with except why teach homosexuality to children so young? Are you a follower of Kinsey?
- Lutrasimilis, on 10/09/2008, -1/+12Maybe I should repeat:
Sex education at the levels stated in the article have nothing to do with sex. I'm not sure why parents wouldn't want their kids to recognize and report sexual predators and pedophiles. How is it 'social engineering' to protect children from molesters? I state again, the curriculum at that level does not promote any sexuality, it teaches kids where adults aren't supposed to be touching them.
I guess I could understand how some parents, who molest their children, wouldn't like that. You're defending them, I take it?
And no, I'm not a follower of anyone. - georgiajim, on 10/09/2008, -7/+4@ Lutra - You keep posting, but you haven't read the article completely or you want it to say what you want it to say. Read the email exchange I linked below. The whole curriculum is not about child molesters.
- Lutrasimilis, on 10/09/2008, -1/+13I think the bulk of the article point you're talking about boils down to this one paragraph.
"When Parker asked the Supreme Court for a review he noted the questions raised in the case have not been answered in previous cases. Those include: "Whether objecting parents have a constitutional right to opt their public school children out of, or even to receive notice of, undisputed government efforts to indoctrinate kindergarten, first and second grade school children into the propriety, indeed desirability, of same gender marriage."
Basically, the main point of objection is that they're teaching children that homosexuals exist, without condemning them. In the same way that Muslim fundamentalists complain when Saudi text books don't condemn Judaism. Or when Protestant textbooks in Protestant religious schools fail to include a condemnation of Catholicism. Etc. Etc. Etc.
What you're complaining about here is the REMOVAL of indoctrination, Jim. If the sex education curriculum told the kids that homosexuality was evil, you'd be applauding it. Instead, the curriculum explains that yes, gay couples do exist, and that gay people can get married.
In other words, they're telling them the truth. - flip2trip, on 10/09/2008, -7/+5"The taxes you pay into public schools are going to teach kids social values, not your own personal values."
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO---VALUES are the parent's domain, just teach the kids to read, write, and do math--God, they cannot event teach them that...do you think they should be trusted teaching VALUES? - Lutrasimilis, on 10/09/2008, -2/+11You're right, flip, I shouldn't have referred to them as values. They're 'facts'.
- nur07, on 10/09/2008, -8/+4Why for the love of Pete, can these people, these "teachers" and courts let children be children?
Why do they need to learn about homosexuality at this age? It will come soon enough with a society that is saturated in sex, including it's schools, but to teach it to first or second grade children?
Sick, sick, sick.
Parents have the right to not have this twisted "lifestyle" shoved into their kids faces, regardless of the excuses or justifications.
In addition, it is not needful to teach about homosexuality or "homosexual "marriage" (which is not true marriage at all) in order to warn children against inappropriate touching unless of course you feel all "gays" are pedophiles.
It is indoctrination pure and simple and it is a violation of nature, of parental rights (and children's rights not to have to be exposed to that, especially at such a young age) and just flat out wrong.
Christianity is no longer allowed in most schools in even simple ways, unless it is in a purely negative sense, so why should exceptions be made for homosexuals unless there is an agenda being relentlessly pushed.
The courts dropped the ball and failed in their duties as did this school which should be shut down. - alkajazz, on 10/09/2008, -1/+8Can you be trusted teaching VALUES?
- lydecker, on 10/09/2008, -2/+10School needs to teach the values of cooperation, and the values of working with people who are different than you. That's why school teaches about individuals who are different, so that others are cooperative in the school environment and in the real world.
If you don't teach this, you get problems like we had when we desegregated the schools, where people thought blacks were inferior, and the schools were not a cooperative place, and not a proper learning environment. You can also get problems like Larry King being murdered in his classroom because a child thought it was a worthy punishment for being hit on. This lack of cooperation and lack of tolerance that can lead to death is not a good thing, and I'm glad schools are teaching about the world to make it a tolerant place.
- Lutrasimilis, on 10/09/2008, -2/+13My post has -everything- to do with this article, Jim. But I'll save you the effort of having to deal with it, let's focus on what you said.
- KCLorelei39, on 10/09/2008, -6/+6Sounds like the rules for any number of detox programs. I expect that some addictive personalities have to go about ceasing from gay behavior in a similar 'detoxification' manner as any other harmful, addictive, behavior like drug or alcohol addiction. Smoking, overeating, gambling, etc....
Help is help, no matter the structure of the help. Right? I expect that many of these kids will go right back into those patterns of sexual activity upon release, just like those imprisoned by drug and alchohol addictions. Aren't self-harming behaviors classified these days not as sinful, but addictive?
If it is not indoctrination to teach kids about LGBT, then it cannot be indoctrination to teach about NOT being LGBT. Agree?- Lutrasimilis, on 10/09/2008, -2/+10KC, you seem to be under the impression that people can choose to be gay or straight any time they want. You don't seem to have any trouble with children being forced into silent shame for three days, or imprisoned with no outside communication. These aren't a bunch of drug-addled rockstars, these are -children-.
It amazes me that you don't see the irony all this. This is what they'd do to ALL homosexuals if they could get away with it. Since they can't, they have to force it on children. It sickens me. It ought to sicken you, too. Look at need for control, the demand for respect and the complete censorship.
- No slouching in chairs, sitting back on chairs hind legs, sitting with arms crossed, rolling eyes, or making disgusting faces.
- Absolutely no journaling or keeping a diary outside of the MI [Moral Inventory] process unless directed or approved by staff.
- No television viewing, going to movies, or reading/watching/listening to secular media of any kind, anywhere within the client¹s and the parent's/guardian's control. This includes listening to classical or instrumental music that is not expressly Christian (Beethoven, Bach, etc. are not considered Christian).
You MUST understand that it isn't Christianity that people are rebelling against. It's CHRISTIANS. It's people like this, who want to FORCE everyone to believe as they do. Do you not see a tone here? They used to kill unbelievers and homosexuals outright, and they -miss- that control. These people and these rules are the end result of insanity, and they grow from the same root as those funeral-protesting lunatics whose hatred has consumed all moral sense, all judgment and rationale.
- Lutrasimilis, on 10/09/2008, -2/+10KC, you seem to be under the impression that people can choose to be gay or straight any time they want. You don't seem to have any trouble with children being forced into silent shame for three days, or imprisoned with no outside communication. These aren't a bunch of drug-addled rockstars, these are -children-.
- FullTimer, on 10/09/2008, -11/+6Buncha '*****'. How dare they try to save someone from self destruction? ;-)
- watnext, on 10/09/2008, -12/+10I despise the term "gays" as they are queers, and nothing else. Gay at one time had a meaning of happiness and joy. Maybe that's what they are but in my estimation they are QUEERS and as it says in the BIBLE, "An obimation to the Lord."
- pjr12345, on 10/09/2008, -6/+15The constituency elected the school board members responsible for this perversion. This speaks volumes about the community, and would prompt me to make every effort to depart such a morally bankrupt venue.
- Coven, on 10/09/2008, -6/+6Don't let the door hit you where your good lord split you.
- lookingforHim, on 10/09/2008, -4/+4Coven, you are correct. To hesitate you might end up like Lot's wife.
- Coven, on 10/09/2008, -6/+6Don't let the door hit you where your good lord split you.
- onemidnight, on 10/09/2008, -8/+11If these are not the days of Lot as Jesus Christ warned us would rehaunt mankind just prior to His return in power and glory, I don't know what would be. How anyone can deny the truth of the Word of God is beyond me.
- lookingforHim, on 10/09/2008, -3/+5Day's of Noah. Which was worst than than day's of Lot. He only removed a couple cities in the day's of Lot. In the very near future He is going to remove a whole lot more than a couple cities.
- indygirl, on 10/09/2008, -3/+3Yes...let's see how much longer it takes for the prophesy of Damascus being destroyed in one night's time. When this happens, I wonder how many will come to know the one true God and how many will continue to deny.
Onemidnight, God didn't send His Son to save everyone, just the elect. "They" will never be able to understand the truth of God's Word because there minds aren't open to it. It is God that calls us to be saved, then we accept the gift with our free will, and not by anything else that we do... That is why there are so many out there who just don't get it. One day, as they kneel before the one true I AM, they will then know how wrong they were.
- indygirl, on 10/09/2008, -3/+3Yes...let's see how much longer it takes for the prophesy of Damascus being destroyed in one night's time. When this happens, I wonder how many will come to know the one true God and how many will continue to deny.
- lookingforHim, on 10/09/2008, -3/+5Day's of Noah. Which was worst than than day's of Lot. He only removed a couple cities in the day's of Lot. In the very near future He is going to remove a whole lot more than a couple cities.
- LifeguardMom, on 10/09/2008, -13/+16Homosexuality has never been the norm in human behavior. In thousands of years, it has always been a behavior that was classified as abnormal, except in societies that reveled in debauchery, such as ancient Rome. You cannot handle the truth - and the truth is that it is a learned behavior most cases, and that is not the normal sexual behavior. It is a perversion of the gift of sexual relations that God has given to a husband and a wife.
The Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco is an excellent example of this debauched behavior. If it were normal, why are the streets closed down and children barred from coming anywhere near this sex-fest? You can try and dress it up and force people to accept it as normal behavior, but you can't change the truth.
God have mercy on the administrators in this school district. They will be held accountable for forcing this perversion on our children.- IndyJim, on 10/09/2008, -9/+7Matthew 18:5-7 (NIV)
(5)"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. (6)But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
(7)"Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! - lydecker, on 10/09/2008, -5/+11"Homosexuality has never been the norm in human behavior."
Of course. It is statistically abnormal. For the people that occasionally claim they are trying to make it the norm, that is ridiculous. It's perfectly fine being an acceptable abnormality, like lefthandedness. Nobody is trying to say it's the norm.
"and the truth is that it is a learned behavior most cases"
Please provide evidence to support this assertion.
"It is a perversion of the gift of sexual relations that God has given to a husband and a wife."
Homosexuality is more than "sexual relations," it's also attraction, crushes, flirting, liking someone, loving someone, intimacy, romance... everything that's part of human sexuality.
"If it were normal, why are the streets closed down and children barred from coming anywhere near this sex-fest?"
Because it deals strictly with the sex aspect of homosexuality. A similar event of heterosexual sex is also a closed off private event.- indygirl, on 10/09/2008, -7/+6lydecker, wow, you have been programmed! Homosexuality is not normal behavior! The majority of gays have had a sexual trauma in their childhood and they "think" this is normal. This is not normal, just as someone who might be a "cutter" or someone who does something that causes themselves harm. It is just their way of dealing with pain. They will not find happiness in homosexuality and they do not find love. They find a lie and believe it to be something it is not.
- lydecker, on 10/09/2008, -2/+9"Homosexuality is not normal behavior!"
Yes, I have said it is an abnormality.
"The majority of gays have had a sexual trauma in their childhood and they "think" this is normal."
Incorrect. There is no evidence showing that the majority of gays have experienced sexual trauma in childhood. If you've seen differently, please provide your sources so I can review it. Also, nobody thinks homosexuality is the statistical norm.
"This is not normal, just as someone... who does something that causes themselves harm."
Correct, homosexuality is an abnormal sexual orientation. But it doesn't cause harm.
"It is just their way of dealing with pain."
Please provide evidence to prove this assertion. I believe this may be the case for some individuals who have experienced sexual trauma in youth and were not able to develop a healthy sexual identity, but I haven't seen it as a coping mechanism, nor have I seen any evidence proving this is true for any great number of homosexuals.
"They will not find happiness in homosexuality and they do not find love."
Nobody finds happiness in their sexual orientation, but they DO find happiness in love, and I know many who have found happiness with their partners, so this statement is incorrect.
"They find a lie and believe it to be something it is not."
Please provide evidence that homosexuals cannot feel love towards eachother, and show what this false emotion is, and how it feels like love.
I'm going to bet that YOU'RE the one who has been programmed into believing all these things that are not based in fact. If instead you can prove these statements, please do. But they are wrong.
- kayala, on 10/09/2008, -7/+12Who cares if it's normal, Mom? You've never been able to explain that to me. People do things all the time that aren't normal. I fence, some people play the bagpipes, and others might get a master's degree in environmental science. It doesn't matter what you think is "normal," because regardless of how many people are doing it, the people who enjoy it will continue to do it. You're kind of dumb for a bigot, you know that?
- indygirl, on 10/09/2008, -10/+5Kayala, fencing, playing the bagpipes, and getting a master's degree in environmental science are hobbies and/or goals. Being gay is a sin. How dumb are you to not be able to differentiate between that? If sin wasn't enjoyable, people wouldn't have a hard time not sinning! Sin is enjoyable and our hearts are desperately wicked. Christians must choose every day to be obedient to God and live for Him. Everything is a choice, so is being gay.
- lydecker, on 10/09/2008, -2/+12Being gay and being straight is not a choice. And what is sin to one person is not sin to another, and just because something is perceived as sin we do not legislate it as illegal.
- kayala, on 10/09/2008, -4/+8Correction: you THINK, incorrectly, that being gay is a sin. When it comes to making policy, your personal thoughts are really quite irrelevant since they're based on a ***** superstition. Keep your religious lies away from me.
- eir574, on 10/09/2008, -3/+12" Being gay is a sin. How dumb are you to not be able to differentiate between that?"
You've decided that being gay is a sin. If I don't think it is, then your conclusion that I'd be dumb for failing to recognize that it's different than having an unusual hobby doesn't follow. I think you know that, and you just assume that everyone should accept your interpretation of what your particular god has decided is sinful. - 10QGZus, on 10/10/2008, -6/+6Disagreeing with homosexuality does not make a person a bigot. It is a sexual perversion. A bigot is someone who is against someone because of their ethnic background. A person has no choice if they are born black, white, Asian, aborigine, etc.
- lydecker, on 10/10/2008, -3/+9A person also has no choice over their sexuality. But bigotry is not defined as dealing only with ethnicity or race, I suggest you get a dictionary.
"A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.
The origin of the word bigot and bigoterie in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite", especially a woman.
Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views. - kayala, on 10/10/2008, -4/+7We didn't say disagreement, 10QGZus, and you should know that we're not dumb enough to fall for your euphemisms. You don't just "disagree." You attack, you insult, you misrepresent, you mislead, you harm, you try to harm, and you try to dehumanize. That is not acceptable. We don't care what you think is a "perversion," because you mean that homosexuality is a perverted (different, changed) form of sexuality, where the correct form is whatever you personally think is correct. It's personal. Why won't you accept that your personal views can't be forced on us? You can believe in your own mind that gays are wrong and gross and icky, and you're perfectly fine to act on that belief by not being gay. Do what you think is right and just leave the rest of us alone.
- kayala, on 10/10/2008, -4/+4Now, I asked Mom to justify herself. Where's the coward to answer me?
- indygirl, on 10/10/2008, -7/+5Okay then, if you want to be left alone, and your gayness to be your own personal "thing" then stop shoving it down the throats of everyone who isn't gay. I could really care less what you do in your bedroom, however, I don't want to know what you do there! It's like unless you can declare to everyone that you are gay, AND they respond with political correctness that it is okay, then you aren't satisfied. Go ahead, be gay. Go ahead and sin. (By the way, when you are standing before the "sky fairy" and God judges you...I wonder how many witty things you will have to say then.)
- kayala, on 10/10/2008, -4/+8Hey indy, you know when a woman's talking about her husband, and you're like, "oh, she's married, that's nice"? We want you to have the same reaction when a woman's talking about her girlfriend. The latter isn't any more "shoving it down the throats of anyone who isn't gay" than the former is to anyone who is gay. Have you ever considered that? No, you haven't, because your pastor never told you to try to look at things from the perspective of the other person. Personally, I'm straight and in a committed relationship, but my sexuality doesn't halt me from supporting equal rights for human beings. Why do you want to oppress these innocent people in the name of your false beliefs?
(By the way... threatening me with judgment before "God," something much more likely to happen to you before another "God" who just happened to be right one, isn't going to do much. I figure "God" will reward me for being a free and rational thinker and punish scum like you for being nothing more than sheep.) - lydecker, on 10/10/2008, -3/+9Indygirl, what you ask is only acceptable if you ask the same of heterosexuals. It's only okay if you tell heterosexuals to stop shoving their straightness down the throats of everyone who isn't straight. That means guys stop talking about girls they like, girls stop talking about guys, take off your wedding rings, stop teaching about straight relationships in school, stop showing off parents, etc.
The fact is relationships are a natural part of life, and heterosexuality and homosexuality - human sexuality - is also a natural part of life. It's wrong to ask anyone to keep something that's so natural private... yes, keep the physical sex private, and heavy make out sessions can be behind doors, but everyone should be - and is - free to express their love.
That's what's different about gay and straight couples, is that there are a good number of people who will always focus on the gay couples as wrong... whereas they are naturally fine with straight couples being straight couples. You hear heterosexuals 10 times more than you hear homosexuals, but they're not "shoving it down your throat." Get over your bias, if you can, and then you will feel better. It's something YOU have power over, indygirl... don't blame others. - eir574, on 10/10/2008, -3/+8"We want you to have the same reaction when a woman's talking about her girlfriend."
No one can demand that another person have a particular reaction to homosexuality. But, we can demand that they not work to restrict the rights of homosexuals and that they keep their prejudice and any malice they might feel towards homosexuals out of the public sphere. Essentially, we can demand that they tolerate other people's right to make their own decisions in life, but we can't demand that they accept those decisions. - kayala, on 10/10/2008, -4/+6Eir, you're right - I was just demonstrating the way that homosexuality could ideally be approached. The reason I used that example is because right-wingers seem to think that any action a person makes that even slightly suggests gay tendencies is "shoving it down everyone's throats." So I used a common example to show the huge leap between a casual reaction to a reference to an opposite-sex partner and a freaked-out reaction to a reference to a same-sex partner.
- StaticThunder, on 10/09/2008, -5/+9" They will be held accountable for forcing this perversion on our children."
LOL, who is going to do it. You? Don't make me laugh.
- IndyJim, on 10/09/2008, -9/+7Matthew 18:5-7 (NIV)
- lazerus9, on 10/09/2008, -8/+5This is all connected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKcm9QI1eo8 - OldTimer1933, on 10/09/2008, -7/+12Sometimes 'stealth' candidates get elected and only then does their agenda show up. Once on a 'board' or other rule-making body, such as a State Legislature or Congress, they can do many things to 'endear' themselves to a constituency but one thing that most folks don't have that 'activsts' DO have, is perseverance over the long haul. If some outrageous law gets enacted, the TAXPAYERS have to fund the defense of lawsuits brought against that law, and even if 'damages' are awarded in overturning such laws, again the TAXPAYER foots the bill.
'Activists' often form coalitions with others of their ilk -- all having the same goal -- their agenda becoming the law of the community or the entire Nation. Oftentimes, activist groups will form groups that seemingly oppose other activist groups, but again, they work in collusion to change things to suit themselves -- with total disregard for the Rights (or property) of opposers.
Today, another 'stealth' candidate is seeking the Presidency, altthough his tendency toward socialism is obvious to those who don't want him as President. Those who don't pay taxes will likely support him because he promises to tax 'the rich'. He is likely to win the election because of a financial crisis brought on by his most ardent supporters in Congress who have been giving out enormous and ever increasing bribes for decades -- again funded by TAXPAYERS.
Is it any wonder that Sen. Obama made his first 'change' by deciding NOT to accept campaign funds from 'government' after first saying he would accept the limitations? The folks who want his kind of 'change' have contributed heavily and many contributions seem to be illegal because it is unlikely that can all be checked out before the election, just as the massive, and again seemingly fradulent 'voter registrations', that have no way of being verified BEFORE the election.
This is all part of the 'game plan' to replace democracy and capitalism with socialsm, Marxism or Communism. Saul Alinsky even wrote a book laying out the 'plan' and Obama was a very active 'player' before he was elected to the Illinois Senate.
Our Nation that promised so much is now in great jeopardy of being re-defined to something it was NEVER intended to be. Far too many voters seem to be suffering from some sort of mental problems preventing clear thinking because their sphincter is so tight around their necks as a result of where they have placed their heads. - aaarghonaut, on 10/09/2008, -8/+10Otherwise they would have to recognise the sin for what it is.
Readin', ritin', and re-education. - IndyJim, on 10/09/2008, -8/+12Matthew 18:5-7 (NIV)
(5)"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. (6)But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
(7)"Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! - FullTimer, on 10/09/2008, -7/+10"Gay people pay taxes too, you know, and so do atheists and liberals. Sorry to break it to you, but they also form a part of society." Robbers, thieves, wife beaters and child molesters (who are actually more commonly than 'gays') form part of the society too. Perhaps we should introduce these 'natural tendencies' to our kindergardeners too?
- lydecker, on 10/09/2008, -3/+11Of course we should teach in schools about theft, domestic abuse, molestation... and how they violate the rights of others, unlike two consensual people in a relationship.
- cnsrvatv, on 10/09/2008, -3/+11I'm thinking we need a separation of sexuality and state! It's not a school's obligation or right to teach my child about such things. Hell, they do a piss poor job of teaching the basics, surely they'll also screw-up sex ed.
This is one of the reasons they always have budget shortfalls. They're wasting time and money on subjects that parents should be teaching.
Sieg Heil US government! - kayala, on 10/09/2008, -8/+5The state wouldn't need to teach your children these things, cnsrvatv, if you and your ilk weren't such inept parents in the first place. If you'd do a decent job of teaching your kids the facts, then the state wouldn't have to do it for you. Of course, that'd require you to recognize facts when you saw them, so that's kind of a deal-breaker right there, isn't it?
- lydecker, on 10/09/2008, -3/+8If you don't want your child to learn about any families or interpersonal relationships, then that's your perspective which is fine. However, most people do learn something of the differences of people and families and relationships in daily life, in a school setting, and some education to go on top of that can be a good thing.
Do not forget that there's a lot more to sexuality than sex... the whole range of human behaviors relating to humanity being sexual beings is part of sexuality.
I don't see any reason why children can't learn about relationships, sex, emotion, STDs, and everything involving sexuality both in schools and by parents. Unless, of course, the parents don't want any outside perspectives. - georgiajim, on 10/09/2008, -4/+3@ lydecker - I personally agree with you, but there is a time to do that and I don't believe kindergarten or early elementary is that time. Those children have all they can do to learn their abc's and to write their name. They can't comprehend the complexity of relationships. If parents want their kids taught this at that early of an age, they have that right. But no one should be able to force this on parents if they don't agree.
- eir574, on 10/09/2008, -3/+9@georgiajim
I have no idea what the particular books/instructional material involved in this case say, but certainly you recognize that there are topics that can be brought up in age appropriate ways. Making a decision not to tell young children that some families have two dads doesn't mean they will never come into contact with it. Age appropriate instruction in kindergarten might be as simple as acknowledging that it happens and teaching that the fact that a classmate has two dads or two moms (or only one parent) doesn't make him any better or worse than the rest of the class. The instruction doesn't have to even begin to address the differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. - lydecker, on 10/09/2008, -2/+8Why not stimulate their minds young? They don't need to comprehend the whole complexity of relationships, they just like a good story. Like Rapunzel, or gay penguins, both deal with relationships. I don't think that kindergarten is too early for people to start becoming familiar with the fact that humans have relationships, without still grasping the whole complexity of it. We start small, we teach them to write letters so they eventually write papers, we teach them to color so they eventually paint masterpieces, we read them stories so they can eventually create book and movie plots, and we teach them about people so they can eventually become psychologists.
We start small, and stimulate their brain, so they desire to learn. We don't expect them to be able to perform calculus, we expect them to count to 100. This is what the schools realize, and it's why it's in the schools agenda. Parents should have the right to choose not to learn whatever they like. - georgiajim, on 10/09/2008, -5/+6@ eir574 - why do you folks keep thinking you have the right to shove this down our throats? I don't care if you want your children taught this. Go ahead. I should be able to see what my child's curriculum is going to be and if I perceive this to be social engineering and or indoctrination, as a parent and legal guardian of my child, I should be allowed to opt that child out of this course. This course has nothing to do with reading, writing and arithmetic.
- eir574, on 10/09/2008, -2/+8@georgiajim
So if your child's classmate had two fathers and the teacher said that it's wrong to treat that classmate any differently because of that fact, you'd consider that to be social engineering? What is it that you'd teach your child in that case? - lydecker, on 10/09/2008, -2/+8Because it's a part of humanity, and we teach it. That's why! It's not being shoved down your throats any more than math or science or the english language is. It's teaching about humanity.
Why do schools think they have the right to educate, is really what you're asking. Why do they think they have the right to teach numbers, to teach history, to teach biology, to teach art. Why? Because there is something to learn. I don't care if you don't want your children to learn, that is perfectly acceptable, and you can remove them from the learning environment, and let the children who do want to learn at it, and the parents who want their children to learn to be happy about it.
You should be able to see the school curriculum, and schools teach a hell of a lot more about life and the world than "reading, writing, and arithmetic." Why do people keep going back to those three, as if they are the only things they want their kids to know? - eir574, on 10/09/2008, -1/+6"Why do people keep going back to those three, as if they are the only things they want their kids to know?"
It seems to me that at least some of the people who complain that schools should only teach reading, writing, and math when they don't like what's being taught don't even really mean that. They want to say that the schools shouldn't teach anything approaching values to their children, but then in other conversations they'll say that they think the bible or other religious messages of which they personally approve should be taught in school. - georgiajim, on 10/09/2008, -6/+3@eir574 and lydecker - why can't you get this through your head. I'm not advocating stopping anyone that wants their children taught this. But, you WILL NOT dictate to me what my children will or will not be taught concerning this. They will certainly learn all about relationships, families and homosexuality, but it will be done when I think it is appropriate, not you.
- eir574, on 10/09/2008, -2/+7That's not the question I'm asking, georgiajim. I'm not asking you if you think it's appropriate for a school to teach your child about homosexuality or relationships between adults. A few posts back I said that age appropriate education in schools could merely consist of telling children that the fact that a classmate might have two dads instead of a mom and a dad (or a dad and no mom, to be even more general) and that the children shouldn't treat each other differently because of it.
You called that social engineering. I'm asking why you think that's social engineering. In that scenario, children aren't explicitly being taught about homosexuality. They're not being told that homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals. They're not being told that the dads in the two dad household deserve to be treated the same way as heterosexual adults would be. They're being told that the *children* of those adults don't deserve to be treated with less respect than their classmates.
The idea that we each get to be judged on our own merits rather than being held responsible for the actions of those over whom we have no control is fundamental to our society. You seem to be telling me that you object to your children being taught that children don't inherit the sins of the parents. Why is that? - lydecker, on 10/09/2008, -0/+7"But, you WILL NOT dictate to me what my children will or will not be taught concerning this."
Exactly. And you WILL NOT Dictate to me what my children - or any children - will or will not be taught concerning this either.
"They will certainly learn all about relationships, families and homosexuality, but it will be done when I think it is appropriate, not you."
Good for your kids. I don't have a problem with you removing your children from these story times if you want to. If you thought differently, I'd like to clear that up now - you have the power over what you permit your child to learn in school.
The school board will dictate what information will or will not be taught, and the parents will look over the curriculum and decide whether they are happy with each lesson for their own child.
What haven't I got through my head? - georgiajim, on 10/09/2008, -2/+3@ lydecker - We agree, Thank you.
- DevinKev, on 10/10/2008, -2/+4Kayala: "The state wouldn't need to teach your children these things, cnsrvatv, if you and your ilk weren't such inept parents in the first place. If you'd do a decent job of teaching your kids the facts, then the state wouldn't have to do it for you."
Maybe if your parents did a better job, you wouldn't be munching carpet? That logic is bull. It says the government is better at making my decisions. That's how the "conversion" programs start, people believing that their morales are better than someone elses.
Hypocrit
- cnsrvatv, on 10/09/2008, -3/+11I'm thinking we need a separation of sexuality and state! It's not a school's obligation or right to teach my child about such things. Hell, they do a piss poor job of teaching the basics, surely they'll also screw-up sex ed.
- lydecker, on 10/09/2008, -3/+11Of course we should teach in schools about theft, domestic abuse, molestation... and how they violate the rights of others, unlike two consensual people in a relationship.
- ThinkOutTheBox, on 10/09/2008, -7/+7This is why the government needs to stay out of education. Instead of these parents having to fight the schools agenda they could just simply move there kids to another school.
- Tookson, on 10/09/2008, -6/+8Government education = anti-Christ education.
- Pitofdoom, on 10/09/2008, -9/+9Gay's need new victims, your kid's next !
- KCLorelei39, on 10/09/2008, -7/+17At least parents are still free to homeschool. Praise God for that option!
Nothing new under the sun; this has all been played out before - just read the Old Testament. Methinks the times of the Gentiles is drawing to an end. This story of man's attempts to rule sans God is drawing to its inevitable grand finale, and the world to come won't have these issues, now will it?
My rights don't come from the goverment - they are God-given.- lookingforHim, on 10/09/2008, -3/+8"My rights don't come from the goverment - they are God-given."
AMEN! - DevinKev, on 10/10/2008, -1/+5Be careful, some states are proposing a mandatory Sex Education curriculum clause in the Home Schooling provision. Keep an eye on your state governments and prevent this from happening.
- lookingforHim, on 10/09/2008, -3/+8"My rights don't come from the goverment - they are God-given."
- Tookson, on 10/09/2008, -10/+13We don't need no "education." We don't need no thought control. No sarcasm in the classroom. Hey! Teacher! Leave those kids alone.
The day when our federal government requires little innocent kindergartners to be brainwashed into accepting homosexuality at the expense of our tax dollars, is the day when real Christians have to start asking themselves the hard questions about the supposed "democracy" they live in. Is the government representative, or is it FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSED to the teachings of Jesus Christ? Can you claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ and comply with the commands of your government? Has the term "secular government" become sufficiently EXPOSED recently to actually mean "anti-Christ government"? [And by "anti-Christ" I mean the Biblical definition of anti-Christ, rather than the hollywood definition, of any IDEOLOGY that denies Jesus Christ.]
I am a Christian first, and an American second. In opposite of what Michele Obama said earlier this year: This is the first time in my life that I was not proud to say "I am an American."- Nannybell, on 10/09/2008, -5/+10Tookson,
The day to ask the questions has come and gone. It's here already. It's time to act.- Tookson, on 10/09/2008, -3/+1very true
- watnext, on 10/09/2008, -7/+6It looks like this thread has been taken over by queers. I have not seen so much negativity and look at it two ways:The persons reading do not understand what is being said or they are queer themselves.
- georgiajim, on 10/09/2008, -6/+7@ watnext - The gaggle of gays and their merry minions attack threads like this and digg as many of the posts down as they can. I'm kind of surprised that they don't have as much to say this time. I think they know they can't defend this position.
- Nannybell, on 10/09/2008, -5/+10Tookson,
- nippinawassee, on 10/09/2008, -7/+14Time for parents to ramp up their home education as to why the homosexuals are prowling for fresh candidates... go ahead and teach them the filthy lifestyles, the abnormal lifestyles, the resulting disease (males I guess however some 'female' bi's end up with AIDS as well) - tell it like it is -
Warn them about the recruiting tactics - the way to identify the gay behavior, etc.
And likewise let them know that should a teacher, principal, anyone approach them as to their lifestyle being the way to go? Tell the kids they have your permission to let fly - teach them how to arrange their thoughts so when something happens, they don't have to THINK - they can react AND if the schools don't like it? TOUGH. If they can promote a perverted lifestyle YOU, as parents, can promote the NORMAL lifestyle.
why NOT? If anyone in the school systems doesn't like it, too bad... more and more private schools are going to crop up which isn't all a bad thing. The private schools can promote quality lifestyles which do not include some perverted creep promoting the homosexuals... - ApokalypseNow, on 10/09/2008, -9/+18From the article:
"...being taught about homosexual relationships..."
This does NOT say that they are being "taught to be gay". Typical WorldNutDaily trash, blatant distortion of the facts to make an incendiary headline - and you lot are eating it up.- Nannybell, on 10/09/2008, -14/+10They are teaching them to accept homosexuality as normal. That is not something to be taught at such a young age, nor is it something to be taught to chilren above their parents' objections. Also, I don't buy into the lacking-in-proof idea that homosexuality is inborn; therefore, suggesting to children that a certain way of being is acceptable is tantamount to encouraging them to engage in that way of being.
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/09/2008, -3/+15"They are teaching them to accept homosexuality as normal..."
Which countless studies of homosexual behavior in animals in the wild have shown it to be.
"That is not something to be taught at such a young age..."
Why not?
"Also, I don't buy into the lacking-in-proof idea that homosexuality is inborn"
Neither do I, but what you *do* buy into is the "lacking-in-proof idea" that homosexuality is in some way wrong.
"...suggesting to children that a certain way of being is acceptable is tantamount to encouraging them to engage in that way of being."
Telling children that wearing sandals is acceptable is in no way the same as telling them to wear sandals. Telling children that it is acceptable to go rock climbing is in no way the same as telling them to go rock climbing. Telling children that being homosexual is acceptable is in no way the same as telling them to be homosexual. - flip2trip, on 10/09/2008, -9/+7"Which countless studies of homosexual behavior in animals in the wild have shown it to be."
That doesn't make it ok to teach kids(especially if the parents object) the behavior is acceptable for humans. - ApokalypseNow, on 10/09/2008, -6/+11"That doesn't make it ok to teach kids... ...the behavior is acceptable for humans."
Why not? Nobody has answered that yet. Why do you make an exception for ***** sapiens sapiens?
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/09/2008, -3/+15"They are teaching them to accept homosexuality as normal..."
- Christianptriot, on 10/09/2008, -12/+7So let's teach them about bestiality, and pedophilia, and about the lifestyle of prostitutes and drug users, alcoholics and serial killers.
that is not teaching them to be that, only that it is a lifestyle they should/could consider.
Are you for real? If you have children I hope someone else is in their lives praying for and helping to raise them.- ApokalypseNow, on 10/09/2008, -4/+14"So let's teach them about bestiality, and pedophilia, and about the lifestyle of prostitutes and drug users, alcoholics and serial killers."
None of those things have any bearing on a consenting relationship between two adults.
"that is not teaching them to be that, only that it is a lifestyle they should/could consider."
The acts of bestiality, statutory rape, prostitution (in most places), drug use, and murder are illegal. Alcoholism is an addiction. None of these things have any bearing on a consenting relationship between two adults. You are attempting to commit a slippery slope fallacy - and doing so poorly.
"If you have children I hope someone else is in their lives praying for and helping to raise them."
If you have children I hope someone else is teaching them how to build an argument without basing their whole position on a poorly constructed informal fallacy and an ad-hominem. - kayala, on 10/10/2008, -4/+10Only a truly lazy mind thinks that a loving, consensual, sexual relationship between adults is equal to child molestation. Lay off the right-wing trash for a while, and maybe you'll come back to reality. In the meantime, why don't you shut your mouth until you can learn to stop lying?
- Christianptriot, on 10/10/2008, -8/+4I base my argument on the fact that ANY immoral, abnormal or illegal lifestyle is just as valid a topic as another. That once you begin to move the line in terms of what you allow to be taught, how do you justify NOT moving the line again?
The gay marriage debate is another example: If we redefine marriage to be ANY two consenting adults, then you MUST include brother-sister marriages; uncle-niece marriages; old man and young boy marriages. How can you justify teaching ONE type of lifestyle and choice if you don't allow them all?
That is the basic argument that the GLBT groups and supporters have argued for years - why stop at just a man-woman marriage definition? Why stop at just teaching kids about homosexuality? How far are YOU willing to let this go, and how will YOU stop someone frmo moving the line again in a few years, and changing the definition again? - lydecker, on 10/10/2008, -3/+10"I base my argument on the fact that ANY immoral, abnormal or illegal lifestyle is just as valid a topic as another. That once you begin to move the line in terms of what you allow to be taught, how do you justify NOT moving the line again?"
Simple. That's not where we draw the line. We draw the line at the Constitution. We draw the line that any consentual act between adults or act of an adult that doesn't violate the rights and freedoms of other individuals is a protected freedom.
We allow and can teach about heterosexuality and homosexuality because it's consensual acts between individuals that doesn't incriminate on the rights of others.
People who refuse to see that line, and pretend the line is something else, are making the same mistake people did when it came to interracial marriages. "If we allow this, we MUST allow ANY immoral, abnormal, or illegal lifestyle." But that's not a correct interpretation of what was happening at the time, and it's not where that line really was.
If anyone wants to move the line past that, we'll have a debate about that just as we are about this, and just as we have before. It's not all or nothing. - kayala, on 10/10/2008, -2/+6Brother-sister marriages: Who are we to tell them no? They are consenting, informed adults. I see this kind of like telling two carriers of a recessive disease that they get married, because there is that risk. It's not fair to them.
Uncle-niece marriages: So long as they're consenting, informed adults, who are we to tell them no?
Old man and young boy marriages: if by "young boy" you mean 18 years of age and consenting, then how is that different than an old man and a young girl?
Your arguments get weaker as you spew them, false patriot.
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/09/2008, -4/+14"So let's teach them about bestiality, and pedophilia, and about the lifestyle of prostitutes and drug users, alcoholics and serial killers."
- Nannybell, on 10/09/2008, -14/+10They are teaching them to accept homosexuality as normal. That is not something to be taught at such a young age, nor is it something to be taught to chilren above their parents' objections. Also, I don't buy into the lacking-in-proof idea that homosexuality is inborn; therefore, suggesting to children that a certain way of being is acceptable is tantamount to encouraging them to engage in that way of being.
- Nannybell, on 10/09/2008, -12/+13School vouchers, folks. John McCain is for school vouchers. Completely dismantle the public school system. It no longer properly serves the public but rather runs roughshod over the public. This is MARXISM.
School vouchers. Dismantle the public school system. And beyond that, the time is over for just complaining on public forums. The time has come to organize and fight back. There are millions of us who are becoming increasingly not just disenchanted but extremely angry about the socialism taking over this country. We have to act. We need people in every state to lead an organizing effort to take America back. Loud voices are heard. Outrage at the ballot box is heard. From your local school board to Wash. D.C., we must get organized and must act. Not scattered organizations, but rather one big massive movement.- mamashupe, on 10/09/2008, -8/+5The public schools waste the tax dollars that they get in the county I reside and every election try to extract more from us. They get plenty of money if used appropriately. I don't understand their constant need for more. There certainly needs to be a cleansing in our Government. Democracy only works if there is integrity in Government. I don't see any left.
- Seldon2639, on 10/09/2008, -7/+10Having run into these books in the past, these aren't books which advocate the virtues of a homosexual relationship. They don't condemn them, either, which may be WND's complaint. A book which endeavors to encourage acceptance of differences between people in how their families are built is no different from encouraging acceptance of people of different races, religions, and opinions. Hell, there are the same books which attempt to foster understanding of divorce. There's a difference between trying to celebrate diversity, and "indoctrination".
- mamashupe, on 10/09/2008, -7/+4One can only celebrate diversity if it doesn't conflict with their religious beliefs. The public schools do not accept diversity if it goes against their agenda in teaching homosexuality. That is very clear in this article that we all have comments on.
- johnnick, on 10/09/2008, -2/+11So basically you're saying that diversity conflicts with these parents' specific religious beliefs? What about parents whose religious beliefs accept diversity? What about parents without religious beliefs?
It would seem to me that a public school, funded by tax dollars and therefore subject to the 1st Amendment restriction that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" should create educational materials that are unrelated to anyone's religious beliefs, and a particular set of religious beliefs shouldn't be used to alter the program. "Celebrating diversity" means celebrating the differences between all types of beliefs/colors/creeds/etc. In this case, the materials reflect something that is legal and exists in the real world, no matter how much some people wish it didn't.
By the logic being applied here, Hindus could request that their children be excluded from activities that show pictures of people cooking and eating beef. Muslims could request that their children be excluded from activities that show people drinking alcohol. Pastafarians could request that their children be excluded from activities that claim pirates committed atrocities and were criminals.
Instead of that kind of chaos, the school and the courts said that if the parents don't like it, they have other options. - georgiajim, on 10/09/2008, -7/+4@ johnick - Yeah, here's how it works. You have choices:
1. Home school your children
2. Put your children in private school
3. If you decide on 1 or 2, no problem, but you will still pay public school taxes.
4. Accept the public school curriculum and shut up!!!
Which one do you like, johnnick? - johnnick, on 10/09/2008, -3/+11@georgiajim -
Everyone pays the taxes to support the public school system, so your opinions on what it should/should not teach don't get any more weight than anyone else's. Since the "Diversity Bag" was sent home and the children were instructed to share it with their parents, I choose 5 - be engaged in what's going on and discuss my beliefs with my children. As I said in another post, if you think homosexuality is wrong, this provides you with an opportunity to discuss it with your children.
If that discussion is too difficult for you, then you have options 1 or 2. - georgiajim, on 10/09/2008, -4/+4@ johnnick - Teachers have your children between 6 to 8 hours per day. Parents have them 4 if they are lucky. Considering meals, homework, bath time, etc. This school publicly said that they don't have to tell parents what they are teaching the children. The school system leaves it up to the teacher. Do you trust people that tell you your parental rights don't count? Do you trust people with your children that tell you, you have no say what we teach your children. I feel sorry for your children. If you have no idea what your children are being taught, how do you know what to instill in your children?
- kayala, on 10/09/2008, -3/+8I wonder what religious beliefs you have that prevent you from appreciating the differences in your fellow human beings. Have you considered that?
- johnnick, on 10/09/2008, -2/+6@georgiajim -
Your math doesn't take all of the factors into account. Using your numbers, teachers have your child plus 20-30 others for 6-8 hours a day. You and your spouse have yours (plus however many others you have) for 4-ish plus the whole weekend. In terms of indoctrination time, I think the advantage still goes to the parents.
I trust the school system to do the basics of the 3Rs, and I think that children need and deserve their parents' attention and assistance with their homework. I think that they look to their parents as role models far more than the teachers.
As far as your last question is concerned, "If you have no idea what your children are being taught, how do you know what to instill in your children?" What I believe I should instill in my children is what I teach them regardless of what they are hearing anywhere else. As for what they are being taught, ask them. My point about this "diversity exercise" is that it was sent home with the children who were directed to share it with their parents. The school was, in fact, giving parents an opportunity to have a conversation on this topic with their children. So, even for parents who aren't particularly engaged, the school told the children to engage them. Seems like the right approach to me. - lydecker, on 10/09/2008, -2/+8Also, consider that teachers only have children 6-8 hours a day for 180 days a year, and most of that time is spent teaching various topics... This includes Math, Music, English, Foreign Language, Art, Science, and of course Social Studies. Teachers have to teach these topics, parents can and will teach whatever they like for the 185 whole days they have their kids, and can and should engage their children after school about what they've learned in school that day.
- johnnick, on 10/09/2008, -2/+11So basically you're saying that diversity conflicts with these parents' specific religious beliefs? What about parents whose religious beliefs accept diversity? What about parents without religious beliefs?
- mamashupe, on 10/09/2008, -7/+4One can only celebrate diversity if it doesn't conflict with their religious beliefs. The public schools do not accept diversity if it goes against their agenda in teaching homosexuality. That is very clear in this article that we all have comments on.
- georgiajim, on 10/09/2008, -6/+9Here is a link to an email exchange from one parent to the school principle. She was a coward and had Paul Ash respond.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08b/ash_exc ...
Pretty damn arrogant. If your kid draws a picture of a gun, they kick him/her out and hold you responsible. But if they want to teach your child something you don't like, they say you don't have any parental rights. And it seems they are right. - FlyinWhee, on 10/09/2008, -4/+8Aaaah The Onion, always... oh wait, *****.
- kayala, on 10/09/2008, -6/+6Decision to lie to credulous right-wingers allowed to stand.
- johnnick, on 10/09/2008, -8/+12Allow me to check the facts here. While you have to go several links back, you eventually get to a WND article that says, "The dispute began in the spring of 2005 when the Parkers then-5-year-old son brought home a book to be shared with his parents titled, "Who's in a Family?" The optional reading material, which came in a "Diversity Book Bag," depicted at least two households led by homosexual partners."
That's it. The school is attempting to prepare children for things they deal with in real life. You can try to deny reality all you want, but there are households with children out there that are led by homosexual partners. If the concept of homosexuality offends you, this creates an opportunity for you to have a conversation with your children about why you believe it's wrong.
Public schools teach a curriculum. The government provides your children with an opportunity for education funded out of tax dollars. Some people wish it were different in different ways. If they tried to accommodate every parents' desires for how to change it, it would create chaos. (It's the same reason why you don't get to choose where your tax dollars go and withhold amounts that might subsidize things the government does that you don't approve of) If you don't like the public school offering, you can home school or send your kids to a private school of some type. You're not being forced to accept the public school offering.- Coven, on 10/09/2008, -6/+11Trying to insert the truth into a WND circle jerk? Good luck buddy.
- mamashupe, on 10/09/2008, -6/+7Exactly one of the many reasons we homeschool our children. Their hearts and minds are too valuable to let the liberal, anti-God teaching indoctrinate them. Parental rights are a big issue. The liberal's in government would like to strip them from us.
- USNavyBlue, on 10/09/2008, -7/+8Well since this is the case, Christan's need to stop whining and PULL their children out of the public school, it is really that simple. You may have to make personal adjustments in your life, like sell that NEW gas hog of an SUV and settle for a used car, No more Mc-Mansions, no more extravagant spending at the mall buying useless junk you don't need anyways on your credit card, no more keeping up with the Jones' next door, etc.....
Yes- Christan's I am talking to you and if this makes you mad then you are part of the problem! Stop being hypocrites Christan's - and come out of her my people. [verbatim] And for the Christians having removed their children from the indoctrination centers - my hats off to you and help other Christan's follow your lead.- Pitofdoom, on 10/09/2008, -5/+4Corp/Gov. brainwashing has over taken "we the people".
Generational responsibility lost, over run by Greed.
Cities serve Corp/Gov. slavery, not "we the people"
The only way out is the Amish ! - flip2trip, on 10/09/2008, -3/+6"You may have to make personal adjustments in your life, like sell that NEW gas hog of an SUV and settle for a used car, No more Mc-Mansions, no more extravagant spending at the mall buying useless junk you don't need anyways on your credit card, no more keeping up with the Jones' next door, etc....."
Not everyone has those options USN and I know this because my wife works for a Christian school and it is very expensive. I know people within the Church that would love to send their kids there but are just barely making it as it is and they aren't squandering their money. They may have 2 cars but both are over 14 years old. They may live in a decent place but can't afford to buy, so they rent and on and on.
The point is---unless the government gets behind school vouchers, the majority of parents are stuck with the public schools.- USNavyBlue, on 10/09/2008, -4/+4I was not necessarily referring to placing your children in a Christan private school, it is nice if you can do that. However, I was mainly referring to homeschooling as that would be a more affordable option. I should have stated that.
- socialisthunter, on 10/09/2008, -2/+2most times THERE IS enough money to pay for private education, but it requires sacrifice, how many of the ones complaining about the cost, have directv,cell phones,hd tvs,smokes, and have many other ways to cut expenses. it's your kids folks, wake up, get them out.
- jimw1357, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1The costs parents incur through the sacrifice of pulling their kids out of public school and educating them at home, and thus losing one parent's source of income, should be offset to some degree by the church. It is my opinion that churches should leave off building expensive "worship centers" and take care of the flock! The church has really missed the boat on this one.
- kayala, on 10/09/2008, -5/+3Christian's need to learn where apostrophe's go.
- Pitofdoom, on 10/09/2008, -5/+4Corp/Gov. brainwashing has over taken "we the people".
- Qerq, on 10/09/2008, -12/+7If everyone was a homosexual, thier would be no new generation, and our race would die out.
Why would homosexuals want this?
Just stupid,
- Coven, on 10/09/2008, -5/+13Homosexuals understand that not everybody is homosexual, therefore this scenario you describe would not be possible.
- kayala, on 10/09/2008, -3/+7They do not want it. They want to live without fear of being beaten and murdered (remember Matthew Shepard?). There is a massive difference.
- socialisthunter, on 10/09/2008, -9/+5then admit IT IS NOT NORMAL you moron. normal is MAN, WOMAN = CHILD
I don't give a F--- what you do with your life, just stay OUT of mine. - Qerq, on 10/09/2008, -7/+4So basically homosexuals need special laws not to be beaten.
, regular laws do not apply to them?? - kayala, on 10/09/2008, -5/+9socialisthunter, I do not care if it's "normal" or not. I'm a fencer; that's not "normal," but I do it anyway because I love ths port. Enough with "normality." Be who you are and leave others alone. If you want to be left alone, then leave others alone, you stupid bitch.
qerq, that is not what I said. What I said was that gays don't want everyone in the world to be gay; they want to be safe in their own homes. Note the difference.
Jesus, the bigots are out in droves today, aren't they? - lydecker, on 10/09/2008, -2/+10Incorrect. If you are referring to "hate crime" legislation, any crime that is a hate crime is first and foremost a crime under other legislation. IF the crime is hate inspired, and therefore threatens a community based on their race, sex, religion, gender identity, or sexuality, then the motive for these crimes are considered more heinous. These "special laws" are for everyone. The only people who don't think these "special laws" apply to everyone are the people who aren't victims of a crime based on their race, sex, religion, gender identity, or sexuality.
And socialisthunter, you do not have to worry, because nothing that is happening will in any way affect what you do with your life. - Coven, on 10/10/2008, -3/+8socialisthunter:
"I don't give a F--- what you do with your life, just stay OUT of mine."
Funny, the homosexual community is asking the same thing of you.
- socialisthunter, on 10/09/2008, -9/+5then admit IT IS NOT NORMAL you moron. normal is MAN, WOMAN = CHILD
- Qerq, on 10/15/2008, -1/+0I am not the one trying to change the laws to fit a small insignificant minority, I believe gays are in my face trying to change the laws to suit them, I am fine the way they are, I don;t need special treatment.
Or cry cry when 90% of the population do not agree with my views.
- Christianptriot, on 10/09/2008, -8/+12There are so many things wrong with this I am not sure where to start except to frame it this way:
What if they were teaching the children about Christianity in kindergarten, showing them the Bible and explaining about Jesus Christ. Would that be OK with the gay-lesbian agenda promoters? After all, if they are not teaching them to BE Christians, but only informing them that this is a lifestyle and a choice that people can make - and they will have to learn to live with those people in society when they grow up - THAT would be as OK as teaching them about the gay lifestyle..after all, they aren't teaching them to be gay, right?!?!
IF this were also allowed in school, then you would also have to allow them to teach about hinduism, buddhism, islam, Judaism...AND pedophilia, bestiality, and any other form of perverse and abominable lifestyle that they might be exposed to as adults - it si all about tolerance and acceptance isn't it?
SO WHY DO GAY-LESBIAN PROMOTERS ALWAYS REFUSE TO BE TOLERANT OF AN OPPOSING VIEW??- Coven, on 10/09/2008, -12/+10Christianity is a religion, a choice. Homosexuality is not a religion, it is a sexual orientation and not a choice.
- Christianptriot, on 10/09/2008, -9/+11You have the choice to start or stop any behavior - BEHAVIOR. Homosexuality is not a disease, nor is it pre-disposed into your genes, a many would try to prove.
- Coven, on 10/09/2008, -8/+10So those who find themselves attracted to members of the same sex should either lie to themselves for the rest of their lives or be celibate for the rest of their lives? If they fall in love with a member of the same sex then they should refrain from being with the person they love, all because it offends some fundamentalist somewhere?
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Homosexual sexual activity is a behavior. - nur07, on 10/09/2008, -10/+10Hogwash.
Homosexuality is a choice. It is a choice when you get into bed with someone of the same sex and proceed to indulge in all manner of sexual acts. It is and has always been a choice.
Yes, it is called self-control. It is called doing the right thing, not be someone else's standards, but by God's. Your argument is with Him and your justifications will not work. - Coven, on 10/09/2008, -6/+12Reading comprehension fails you. I said that homosexual sex is the behavior, and essentially the choice. Being a homosexual is another matter entirely and involves layers of personality, upbringing, body chemistry, etc. The choice you present to homosexuals is this one:
1. Be celibate.
2. Pretend to be straight for the rest of your life, lying to yourself and your partner (in violation of one of your god's ten commandments "Thou shalt not bear false witness...")
The second point I would like to make is this:
They are standards set by YOUR god. Your god is not the only god that is recognized by humanity, and some humans do not even recognize the existence of ANY god. Why should your beliefs trump those of others. It is your right to believe whatever you wish. Your rights end at you. You do not have the right to impose your beliefs on others. - lydecker, on 10/09/2008, -4/+7Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, that envelops certain behaviors. While we can control our behaviors, we cannot control our sexual orientation. This is a distinction a few of you are refusing to make.
You have the choice to start or stop any behaviors, Christianptriot, but you do not have the choice to start or stop human sexuality, be it heterosexual or homosexual, nor do you have the choice to change it.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not choices, nur07. Sex, as in "getting into bed with someone," is a choice. But you do not choose who you are attracted to and who one day you will have the desire for getting into bed with. When it comes to sexual behaviors, yes it is a choice, but homosexuality and heterosexuality are not choices. - Christianptriot, on 10/10/2008, -1/+5Hadn't seen a post from you in a while, lydecker. your point is well made. Like sex, our behaviors toward drugs, alcohol, violence, etc., are ALL choices. So do we let everyone express those behaviors as they please, regardless of their impact on society?
In the animal world, animals that display behaviors that are contrary to the established norm - as in those behaviors acceptable for good order in the pack, herd, school, gaggle, covey, etc. and that are not necessary for their survival - are driven out.
As it seems many homosexuals do not believe in God - and instead like to believe in some type of evolution - they then have created a serious dilemma: if we are evolved as the rest of the animals on the planet, then we should cast out those among us whose behaviors are contrary to good order, discipline and the survival of the majority. Homosexuality and the resultant sexual behavior does nothing for the survival and reproduction of the species.
Otherwise, you have to believe that God created us, and that His word is truth, and that acting out ANY behavior that is contrary to God's word is a sin. Divorce; drug and alcohol abuse; unrighteous and sinful anger; lying, stealing and cheating; murder; and homosexual behaviors.
You and I will, of course see this differently and I have no doubt you will attack the premise that homosexuality does not exist in nature - and you will say that it does and give examples. But there are anomalies in all species at all levels; and God knew there would be and has already made provision for that imbalance. You might also say that because we are of higher intelligence (although reading the newspapers and Digg articles you could easily question whether humans are smarter than most animals on the planet) and that we can make our own decisions and get along better than animals.
But we were not created to operate independently from God - thousands of years of groups trying to do so have lead to one undeniable truth: We were not created to BE gods and act like we are in control, but rather to serve the Creator and follow the plan He has for each of us.
OR you'll ignore the entire comment because we all go round and round on these topics and neither of us will convince the other of their opinion or change each other's minds. But I do appreciate your well-put comments and information! - lydecker, on 10/10/2008, -3/+4"Like sex, our behaviors toward drugs, alcohol, violence, etc., are ALL choices."
Correct, as I said, behaviors are choices, and sexual orientation is not.
"So do we let everyone express those behaviors as they please, regardless of their impact on society?
No, if certain behaviors have negative effects on other people's freedoms, we regulate them. It's why we regulate violence, drunk driving, etc. Other things that have little to no impact, such as smoking, drinking w/o operating machinery, and relationships are allowed freedom.
"In the animal world, animals that display behaviors that are contrary to the established norm - as in those behaviors acceptable for good order in the pack, herd, school, gaggle, covey, etc. and that are not necessary for their survival - are driven out."
I think it's more accurate to say that behaviors that are not good for the animal population as a whole have individuals driven out. There are many behaviors that are abnormal, and that have no detraction nor benefit towards society, and those individuals remain fine in animal societies.
"As it seems many homosexuals do not believe in God - and instead like to believe in some type of evolution"
The two are not opposites, one does not believe one or the other. One is religion, the other is a scientific theory. Of many homosexuals I know, they used to believe in God, until man's misunderstanding of homosexuality drove them away from God. I feel happy knowing some homosexuals who do believe in God, and as they say, "believe in God, not believe in religious people."
"If we are evolved as the rest of the animals on the planet, then we should cast out those among us whose behaviors are contrary to good order, discipline and the survival of the majority."
If they pose a threat to the survival of society, then it would seem to be the case. But the existence of homosexuals does not pose a threat to the continuation of society. While homosexuality doesn't help breed new people, it doesn't hurt the effort of heterosexuals. Homosexuals also can make good parents for the youth, even without the ability to breed with one another.
"Otherwise, you have to believe that God created us"
Or one of the other many many religions on the planet. Or no religion. It's not a dichotomy.
As you say, homosexuality is an anomaly in both humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. And if you believe God has made provision for that imbalance, than it is perfectly fine for that imbalance to remain- because no one needs to kill or drive off homosexual animals or humans in order for societies to continue.
You seem to be providing this flawed animal argument as something we should do... so I'll ask. Are you serious? If the premise were correct, do you think that if animals drove off anyone whose behaviors were simply "contrary to the established norm," that we should drive off humans in the same way? - kayala, on 10/11/2008, -4/+3I'm so confused, false patriot. Can we please decide for once and for all if relating human behavior to animal behavior is acceptable here? You say it's not natural, we say yes it is because animals do it, you say animals are held to a lower standard - and then you say animals act in such a way and we should emulate them.
"Like sex, our behaviors toward drugs, alcohol, violence, etc., are ALL choices. So do we let everyone express those behaviors as they please, regardless of their impact on society?"
And what, precisely, is the impact on society when two consenting adults of the same sex decide to have sex? The impact is pretty near zero, unless they're exhibitionists or something, and we already have laws against that - so there's really nothing to see here.
"if we are evolved as the rest of the animals on the planet, then we should cast out those among us whose behaviors are contrary to good order, discipline and the survival of the majority. Homosexuality and the resultant sexual behavior does nothing for the survival and reproduction of the species."
Thank you for showing your total lack of understanding of how evolution affects human social behavior, false patriot! First, you need to demonstrate that homosexuality is "contrary to good order [and] discipline." Second, if your statement were true, what would the point be in taking care of the ill? Shouldn't we instead focus on ourselves? Third, you're confused and trying to make the process of natural selection appear conscious. It's not. Natural selection means that when a selective pressure (a new predator, for example, or diminishing habitat) acts upon a population, the members of that population who have genetic blueprints that allow them to adapt will be more likely to survive and reproduce, thereby passing along those advantageous genes to their offspring. This selective process is not a conscious one; we do not "cast off" people who cannot or will not reproduce. We have little selective pressures acting upon us, so we're freed up to do things like have sex for pleasure rather than for reproduction. You're unbelievably stupid. Fourth:
Scientific research publications from October 2004 and June 2008 stated that scientists have found that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the “gay” genetic factors in circulation. A lead researcher said "You have all this antagonism against homosexuality because they say it's against nature because it doesn't lead to reproduction. We found out this is not true because homosexuality is just one of the consequences of strategies for making females more fecund" and that their findings offered "a solution to the Darwinian paradox and an explanation of why natural selection does not progressively eliminate homosexuals."
http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditar ...
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/200501 ...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18561014?ordina ...
"Otherwise, you have to believe that God created us, and that His word is truth, and that acting out ANY behavior that is contrary to God's word is a sin."
Absolutely incorrect. False dichotomy fallacy. You could believe that Allah created us, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it, or it's the work of Russell's Teapot. This section falls flat on its face because you completely ignored every other religion's equal possibility of being the "right" one.
So, false patriot, let me summarize, since I'm not sure you're literate enough to work through all the above argument and sources: You just lost. A wise reaction would be to retreat with your tail between your legs, or I will taunt you another time-a! - kayala, on 10/11/2008, -1/+3Look at the little cowards! They can bury, but even they know that they can't argue with the cold, hard facts of the matter.
- kayala, on 10/09/2008, -8/+8Public schools cannot teach religion except from an academic standpoint. Homosexuality is not a religion, but for many it is a fact of life. Your argument is flawed.
- lydecker, on 10/09/2008, -6/+8GLBT allies are not always intolerant of opposing views. You believe gays are bad, and I tolerate that.
I don't, however, tolerate people's ACTIONS to discriminate against other human beings. I don't tolerate people that think all children shouldn't learn the truth about homosexuality because it's their personal viewpoint that contradicts with what the truth is.
By the way, I learned about Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism in my social studies class when we discussed world religions. I think talking about world religions is a good thing. I think talking about human sexuality is a bit more important because it affects us all, and we as humans run into it a lot more.
I don't have a problem with teaching various religions in kindergarten, as long as we're teaching that it's a religion... we can also teach Greek mythology and continue fairy tales as far as I'm concerned. That would be okay.
- Coven, on 10/09/2008, -12/+10Christianity is a religion, a choice. Homosexuality is not a religion, it is a sexual orientation and not a choice.
- Pitofdoom, on 10/09/2008, -7/+7Americans be ye democrat, republican, independent or other, "citizens", abandon ship !
Our country has become the land of lot, Sodom & Gomorrah. The time to come out of
the immoral tolerances, political and money changer classes has come.
The times of Job, for Truth, Honor, Wisdom, love of family and friends is coming upon us all !
As their tolerance surrounds GOD discriminates !
'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have. - kayala, on 10/09/2008, -8/+6I wonder why it is that Christians think they're not being "tolerated" the way that they're expected to "tolerate" gays. We'll happily sit by and let you think that gays are gross, evil, immoral, the spawn of Satan, whatever you like. But the second you try to strip those innocent human beings of their rights, you are not within your little bubble of tolerance anymore. Nobody is under any obligation to accommodate that homophobic hatred. Live and let live, guys. Mind your own goddamned business for once in your sad little lives.
- socialisthunter, on 10/09/2008, -6/+5you are right queer, nobody is under any obligation to accommodate anybody, specially amoral people like you. they are not "accommodating" the kids, they are INDOCTRINATING them. i'll go with your definition, as long as you agree to also have a school where they INDOCTRINATE them that the straight life is the right one.
- kayala, on 10/09/2008, -5/+3Go back to Stormfront, you stupid bitch.
- socialisthunter, on 10/09/2008, -6/+5you are right queer, nobody is under any obligation to accommodate anybody, specially amoral people like you. they are not "accommodating" the kids, they are INDOCTRINATING them. i'll go with your definition, as long as you agree to also have a school where they INDOCTRINATE them that the straight life is the right one.
- watnext, on 10/09/2008, -8/+2CROOKED! I just now hit the green button for agreeing and instead the counter went the opposite way. Somebody in headquarters is QUEER!
- kayala, on 10/09/2008, -3/+7Apparently your opinion is in the minority. Hatred and bigotry tend to be pretty unpopular 'round these here parts. Why don't you go back to Stormfront, where you'd undoubtedly be among kindred spirits?
- lydecker, on 10/09/2008, -4/+6If there was an error made, you can press the green button again to fix it.
I know it's only a very very select few, but the people who think the computer is working against them are crazy. - eir574, on 10/09/2008, -2/+8Yes, watnext. Someone at digg inserted a snippet of code that detects when people with particular viewpoints try to digg up particular types of comments and alters your digg from up to down.
Is it possible that in between the time when you loaded the page and when you pressed the digg button, other people dugg it down? If not, is it possible that there's just a bug in the code rather than some vast digg conspiracy to make people think that you disagree with their comments?
I realize that you might have been joking, but there are actually people on digg who think that bugs that affect all of us are targeting only them in order to suppress their viewpoints.- watnext, on 10/10/2008, -5/+1There was no joke about it. I DO READ CAREFULLY most posts. But when I push for positive and it immediately shows negative I know something is wrong. If it's the computer, why only on this subject?
- lydecker, on 10/10/2008, -1/+5It's a bug, and it doesn't only happen on this thread. That's WHY they introduced the correction feature - you previously would only be able to click once, and it would be cemented. People would occasionally click the wrong icon because they were small, and couldn't undo it.
"If it's the computer, why only on this subject?"
If it happened on a thread about LOLcats, would you say the same thing?
Or have you tested it, and the error has occured MANY times on this thread, and NONE on other threads?
What's your testing methodology to prove it's "only on this subject?"
The truth is that the people who work for digg are not hiding in code that scans people's comment history and judges them in order to falsify their diggs. There is so much activity on digg and what goes on in comment threads is not their priority.
- sexydarin, on 10/09/2008, -10/+5take over these judges and try them in the street with some mexican justice. The fire squad is waiting.
- Coven, on 10/09/2008, -4/+6Yet another brilliant comment! Bravo!
- georgiajim, on 10/09/2008, -5/+5For a change, I'm glad to see that the gays, minions and liberals are getting it handed to them. I know this is off point, but let me make a bad day worse for you gays and minions.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id= ... - cloudglider, on 10/09/2008, -6/+2When society becomes this lawless, there can be only one outcome. Look at world conditions on every front, across the board. The lawless are those who have turned the world into the mess it is today, up to this very moment, and they keep getting away with it.
Ah, what outcome? Well, consider the points made by the majority who are commenting on this article. Honest and upright and moral people have had their fill of this sort of thing. Dread will grip the masses when this anger finally overflows.- kayala, on 10/10/2008, -5/+4Lawless? I didn't know that teaching equality and acceptance was "lawless." What kind of a world are you living in, you strange, sad person?
- battleline, on 10/09/2008, -8/+5Its never been about ***** equality,its always been about "recruitment",Look to see how much MAMBLA has to do with it.This is only the beginning,next and already starting is educate students to the Muslim faith.We have all had it to good for to long in the US and we take our life's for granted,
.I'd tell you all to wake up and UNITE but its to late,all you can do is hope to find a state that has still got moral standing,might be hard.- lydecker, on 10/09/2008, -2/+8You can't recruit people into becoming homosexuals.
NAMBLA is a pedophile organization, and is distinct from gay equality groups that advocate freedom between consenting individuals.
- lydecker, on 10/09/2008, -2/+8You can't recruit people into becoming homosexuals.
- momw, on 10/10/2008, -7/+5Read David Kupelian's "The Marketing of Evil" on how radicals, elitists, and Pseudo-experts sell us corruption disguised as freedom.
To those who are in the homosexual lifestyle, you may interpret some as being bigots. Not all are bigots. Maybe you do not want to confront the truth that homosexuality is wrong. There is a Savior who forgives of all sins. We all sin in every area of our lives. All anyone has to do is ask for forgiveness through Jesus Christ. - aaarghonaut, on 10/10/2008, -7/+4Teaching children that 'anima