'State interest' argued in teaching homosexuality

[stephanie]

Posted: February 14, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Lawyer for parent says school's agenda amounts to 'indoctrination'

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
David Parker and his team of lawyers approach the reporters and TV cameras. Left to right: Robert Sinsheimer, Jeffrey Denner, David Parker, Neil Tassel

Lawyers representing a Massachusetts school district named as a defendant in a parent's civil rights complaint have said teachers at Estabrook Elementary School have a "legitimate state interest" in teaching the homosexual lifestyle, and parents have no input into those decisions.

The arguments came in a recent hearing on the district's motion to dismiss the complaint filed by David Parker, a parent whose concern over the school's promotion of the homosexual agenda to grade-schoolers prompted a meeting with school officials, for which they had him arrested for trespassing.

According to a report from the activist group MassResistance.org, those arguments echoed the claims made earlier in the case when a brief in support of the school's position was filed by a collection of homosexual advocacy organizations.

"The state must fight 'discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation' in ways that 'do not perpetuate stereotypes,'" the lawyers for the school district argued. They also explained to the judge that, in their opinion, parents have no right to control what ideas the school presents to elementary schoolchildren, and if parents disagree with that dictate, they can take their children elsewhere.

"Once I have elected to send my child to public school, my fundamental right does not allow me to direct what my child is exposed to in the public school," said the school's lawyer.

Dozens of parents' rights supporters of the Parker family braved freezing temperatures to offer moral support to David Parker in the hearing on his case against school officials in Lexington, Mass.

Parker was represented by lawyers Jeffrey Denner, Robert Sinsheimer and Neil Tassel, who argued before Judge Mark Wolf that what the school calls "diversity training" more accurately would be called "indoctrination," since several viewpoints were absent from the school's presentations, and only the pro-homosexual position was present.

And lawyers said the school "ultimatum" to "remove yourself and go somewhere else" was vulgar.

"American values rely on religion. Religious rights trump the secular. Parents have the right to direct the moral upbringing of their children," said Sinsheimer. "It is the Constitution that protects the minority segment from the majority… The Parkers choose to send their children to the Lexington Public Schools to be part of the fabric of the community."

The elementary curriculum promoting homosexuality, he said, was specifically intended to change a child's outlook of the world to something that his parents didn't teach him.

An ACLU lawyer, however, told the judge that "it is a tremendous bonus" for children to be given information of which their parents wouldn't approve, and that teaching children homosexuality when their parents' Biblical beliefs do not support that has nothing to do with a violation of religious freedom, according to the MassResistance.org reports.

"David Parker's dilemma … threatens the parental rights and religious freedom of every Massachusetts parent, and indirectly every parent in America," said John Haskins of the Parents' Rights Coalition.

"As the Lexington schools themselves are arguing, the state's right to force pro-homosexuality indoctrination on other people's children arises directly from former Gov. Mitt Romney's nakedly false and unconstitutional declaration that homosexual marriage is now legal."


Supporters march in front of the courthouse where arguments over parental rights were being held in David Parker's case

Haskins said when the Massachusetts state Supreme Court demanded homosexual marriages in the state, it didn't have the constitutional or legal authority to order the governor to act or to order the Legislature to make any changes.

Officials said Wolf usually announces a decision within several weeks of a hearing, and that's what is expected in this case. Parker's lawyers are scheduled to supplement their oral arguments with written briefs this week.

The brief filed earlier by the Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in support of the school's homosexual promotions said parental rights "have never meant that a parent can demand prior notice and the right to opt a child out of mere exposure to ideas in the public schools that a parent disapproves of."

Brian Camenker, a spokesman for MassResistance.org, said the high-profile groups must see Parker's claims "as quite a threat to their ability to push their message on children."

He said his organization, a "pro-family action center for Massachusetts" which equips citizens to fight attacks on freedoms, constitutional government, children and parental rights, can see the "true agenda" of the homosexual organizations in their demands.

Parker was arrested and jailed in Lexington in April 2005 over his request – and the school's refusal – to notify him when adults discuss homosexuality or transgenderism with his elementary-age son. The school took that position despite a state law requiring such notification.

Then in April 2006 the same school chose to present the same single-perspective information, and again refused to notify Parker, who followed with the federal civil rights lawsuit.

Just days later, David Parker's son, Jacob, was beaten up at the school, officials said. MassResistance said a group of 8-10 kids surrounded him and took him out of sight of "patrolling aides," then pummeled and beat him.

Joining David and Tonia Parker in the lawsuit were Joseph and Robin Wirthlin. They allege district officials and staff at Estabrook violated state law and civil rights by indoctrinating their children about an immoral lifestyle, circumventing parental responsibilities.

The school is claiming a state law permitting parents to pull their children applies only to classes in which such sensitive topics are the main focus, and the books promoting homosexuality were not the main focus.


David Parker's son brought home the book 'Who's in a Family?' in school's 'Diversity Book Bag' (Image: Article 8 Alliance)

The arguments on behalf of homosexuals were remarkably similar to a recent European court's conclusion.

The European Human Rights Court several months ago concluded in a case involving similar objections that parents do not have an "exclusive" right to lead their children's education and any parental "wish" to have their children grow up without adverse influences "could not take priority over compulsory school attendance."

That court said a German family had no right to provide homeschooling for their children. The family had argued the public school endangered their children's religion beliefs and violated the family's Christian faith.

Irrelevant, said the court. "The parents' right to education did not go as far as to deprive their children of that experience," it said.

"The (German) Federal Constitutional Court stressed the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society," the European ruling said.

In Germany, the situation has continued to deteriorate for homeschoolers, with one 15-year-old student recently being taken into custody by a SWAT team and ordered by a judge to a psychiatric ward of a hospital because she was being homeschooled. WND's latest update on that situation has confirmed authorities now have removed the teen from the psych ward, and she has been taken to a location that is being withheld from her parents and lawyer.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54241

[stephanie]

In the last half of the article I posted above..It talks about the European Court findings....And the German courts finding on a family who wanted to homeschool..They took the child away and put them in a psyc. ward...
Well, this article caught my eye earlier today..I'll just say I'm glad my child only has five more yrs of school..

Try Parenting Instead Of Mental Health Screening


by Phyllis Schlafly February 7, 2007

Mental health screening of all children is the goal of legislation introduced into many state legislatures this year. Typical of these highly controversial bills is the Missouri bill that would require every Missouri school district, in collaboration with "the office of comprehensive child mental health," to develop "a policy of incorporating social and emotional development into the district's educational program."

The Missouri bill requires schools to "address teaching and assessing social and emotional skills and protocols for responding to children with social, emotional or mental health problems." The bill also requires the Missouri state board of education to set "social and emotional development standards."

One marvels at the arrogance of government officials who think they can set children's social and emotional standards. Where on the chart would they place a child crying because he fell and skinned his knee?

Cortland County, New York, has already announced a plan to annually screen every fifth-grader and ninth-grader for mental health problems. The purpose, according to the county director of youth services, is "to raise awareness that mental health issues are in essence no different than other physical issues, such as heart disease." Apparently, you are not "aware" if you think otherwise.

The screening process, which takes 15 minutes, involves getting the kids to answer a series of yes-or-no questions, on either computer or paper. It is claimed that parental permission will be necessary, but all children of any age in foster care will automatically be screened.

Mental health screening is based on the assumption that ten percent of children suffer from a mental disorder severe enough to cause impairment, and that five percent of children have emotional or behavior difficulties that interfere with learning, friendships and family life.

Cortland County plans to refer the ten percent to the county mental health clinic or other providers for further evaluation, and it is well known that referrals often result in orders for drug therapy. The clinic will be rewarded with $50 of taxpayers' money for every child sent to the clinic.

Parents are starting to wake up to this invasion of their authority over the care and upbringing of their own children. A bill that would prohibit school personnel from making mental health recommendations or requirements for children, including the use of psychotropic medications, just passed out of a committee of the Utah legislature.

This bill would also prohibit schools from requiring a student to take psychiatric medication in order to attend school and prohibit the state from removing a child from parental custody based on a parent's refusal to consent to the administration of psychotropic medication.

A bill introduced into the Connecticut legislature is more specific. It would require that all parents who are requested by the school to have their child evaluated be first provided with a statement that the government does not recommend any particular checklist, assessment or evaluation for psychiatric or psychological disorders, plus a copy of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (the federal law that requires prior written parental consent before schools can require students to submit to psychological or psychiatric testing or treatment).

Last year, Alaska enacted a law forbidding schools from conducting psychiatric or behavioral health evaluations and from requiring that a child take a psychotropic drug as a condition for attending a public school. Also last year, Arizona passed a law requiring that schools obtain written parental consent before conducting any mental health screening on any pupil and must make the actual survey questions available for inspection by parents.

Someone should notify state legislators and school districts that are contemplating mental health screening requirements that the American Psychological Association recently urged that "in most cases" of childhood mental disorders, non-drug treatment should "be considered first." This should include techniques that focus on parenting skills as well as help from teachers.

Even the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, an organization whose members strongly favor drug treatment, just completed new guidelines recommending that children receive talk therapy before being given drugs for the common complaint of moderate depression.

Parents should take on the responsibility of being parents, and they should beware of the psychotropic drugs that have unfortunate or even tragic side effects. Parents should help to pass pro-parent legislation before those who think the "village" should raise all children use mental health screening to label their child as nuts.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2007/feb07/07-02-07.html

[Pale Rider]

When I read articles like this, my blood just boils. I just want to run outside and find the first liberal and beat the fucking dog piss out of them.


"Once I have elected to send my child to public school, my fundamental right does not allow me to direct what my child is exposed to in the public school," said the school's lawyer.
THEEEERRREE'S your LIBERAL doctrine RIGHT THERE. "YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO THINK FOR YOURSELF, YOU NEED US TO THINK FOR YOU". And that folks is hitlery's vision, "The Village", and the village is COMMUNISM.

[darin]

God...what are we coming to? Quickly God...C'mon...we're ready. Your creation has given up truth and made a mockery of reason and logic. :(

[Pale Rider]

God...what are we coming to? Quickly God...C'mon...we're ready. Your creation has given up truth and made a mockery of reason and logic. :(

I'd love it. I'm ready. I just think I'd have mixed emotions as I ascended looking back at my home. I'd be happy I was ascending, but I'd be sad to know what the godless have done to my world, my home.

[darin]

I'd love it. I'm ready. I just think I'd have mixed emotions as I ascended looking back at my home. I'd be happy I was ascending, but I'd be sad to know what the godless have done to my world, my home.

Eh? I couldn't give a rat's behind about this place. This place isn't my home. I'm a stranger here. An Alien. :)

[Pale Rider]

Eh? I couldn't give a rat's behind about this place. This place isn't my home. I'm a stranger here. An Alien. :)

In a sense yeah, but we're also custodians of the earth. I hate to see it get so messed up.

Heaven is our real home. With the Son and the Holy Ghost.

[darin]

In a sense yeah, but we're also custodians of the earth. I hate to see it get so messed up.

Heaven is our real home. With the Son and the Holy Ghost.

..we're merely travelers. This earth will pass away, brother.

[avatar4321]

Since when do lawyers rather than the people themselves determine what the states interest are? The state is the people.

[Nienna]

...the Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in support of the school's homosexual promotions said parental rights "have never meant that a parent can demand prior notice and the right to opt a child out of mere exposure to ideas in the public schools that a parent disapproves of."

Since when do homosexual activists worry about the HISTORY of rights? Marriage in history HAS NEVER MEANT two people of the same gender getting married. If the meaning of marriage is "evolving," why aren't parental rights allowed to "evolve" also?

[Hagbard Celine]

Couldn't they have avoided all of this by just saying that they were going to teach tolerance in the schools?

[jillian]

Since when do homosexual activists worry about the HISTORY of rights? Marriage in history HAS NEVER MEANT two people of the same gender getting married. If the meaning of marriage is "evolving," why aren't parental rights allowed to "evolve" also?

Marriage also, historically, never meant inter-racial marriage. Luckily, that went by the wayside when Virginia's law preventing it was struck down during the 70's.

What parental rights concern you?

[avatar4321]

Marriage also, historically, never meant inter-racial marriage. Luckily, that went by the wayside when Virginia's law preventing it was struck down during the 70's.

What parental rights concern you?

While there were laws against inter racial marriage in early decades. I find your argument difficult to sustain because inter-racial marriage has indeed happened throughout history.

Gay marriage on the other hand has not. Indeed, allowing it creates something that is no longer marriage.

[jillian]

While there were laws against inter racial marriage in early decades. I find your argument difficult to sustain because inter-racial marriage has indeed happened throughout history.

Gay marriage on the other hand has not. Indeed, allowing it creates something that is no longer marriage.

The 70's are "early decades"??? Cause that's when the last of the laws were struck down by Loving v Virginia (you know, under that lovely right to privacy, that the right hates so much).

Personally, I don't care what you call it. People shouldn't be prohibited from entering into a lawful relationship because you have a problem with gays and think it's ok to discriminate against them.

[darin]

People shouldn't be prohibited from entering into a lawful relationship because you have a problem with gays and think it's ok to discriminate against them.


First explain how gays are discriminated against. How many times can rational people explain to irrational "Straights and Homos have the SAME regulations regarding marriage".

wow. Thick.

[Hagbard Celine]

First explain how gays are discriminated against. How many times can rational people explain to irrational "Straights and Homos have the SAME regulations regarding marriage".

wow. Thick.

We're moving toward a world with no exclusivity and no personal responsibility. I don't know if I like it.

[darin]

We're moving toward a world with no exclusivity and no personal responsibility. I don't know if I like it.

I sure dont.

[avatar4321]

We're moving toward a world with no exclusivity and no personal responsibility. I don't know if I like it.

We can't always change the world. But we can take responsibility for ourselves. We can teach our children personal responsibility. We can certainly encourage it.

A world without personal responsibility will soon turn into a dead world. its only those that have it that will survive.

[OCA]

Marriage also, historically, never meant inter-racial marriage. Luckily, that went by the wayside when Virginia's law preventing it was struck down during the 70's.

What parental rights concern you?

Your equating of a lifestyle choice to a person's skin color from birth is degrading and disrespectful to people of color. Please stop.

[Ado]

When I read articles like this, my blood just boils. I just want to run outside and find the first liberal and beat the fucking dog piss out of them.


THEEEERRREE'S your LIBERAL doctrine RIGHT THERE. "YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO THINK FOR YOURSELF, YOU NEED US TO THINK FOR YOU". And that folks is hitlery's vision, "The Village", and the village is COMMUNISM.


Excuse me--but I don't think that is a very smart thing to say.

I don't think sex beyond the physical basics needs to be taught in
public school. Beyond learning about STD's, pregnancy, & sexual
predation, the kids can learn or not learn about other things themselves.

So 'the liberals all do or say blahblahblah' is pure garbage.

And saying you'd beat one over this is a real dumbass thing to post.:gay:

[OCA]

Seems to me way back when when sex wasn't even mentioned in public schools we had alot less problems, people OTHER THAN THE CHILD'S PARENTS start talking about it, people who have no emotional or personal interest vested in the children they are teaching to and voila! we got problems up the ass. Kind of like the same deal with the massive shift to secularism(evil).

[Hagbard Celine]

Your equating of a lifestyle choice to a person's skin color from birth is degrading and disrespectful to people of color. Please stop.

Gays claim that they are born homosexual and given that I throw up a little in my mouth when I think about naked men, I tend to believe that they are telling the truth. I just don't think someone can choose to "go down that road."

[jillian]

Your equating of a lifestyle choice to a person's skin color from birth is degrading and disrespectful to people of color. Please stop.

And you disparaging people based on their sexuality is disrespectful to them.

Please stop. :poke:

[Ado]

Couldn't they have avoided all of this by just saying that they were going to teach tolerance in the schools?

That would never work---any group that insists their way
is THE way, doesn't understand the meaning.

If the schools would stick to anatomy and phyisiology,
and teaching kids how to protect themselves, they'd make more
headway in teaching kids what they really need know.

Once kids get out into the world, they usually
see for themselves and make their own choices.

Usually if a parent beats you over the head with
an issue, you usually end up on the polar opposite http://smilies.sofrayt.com/^/aiw/smile.gif

[OCA]

Gays claim that they are born homosexual and given that I throw up a little in my mouth when I think about naked men, I tend to believe that they are telling the truth. I just don't think someone can choose to make that "leap."


People choose to do vile things all the time, they choose to fuck animals, they choose to shoot drugs, they choose to engage in scat(play with other's shit) etc. etc. etc. so its quite possible and even likely that they choose this lifestyle.......especially given the fact that after billions and decades spent on research to find the gay gene or genes there is absolutely nada to date.

[Merlin]

The 70's are "early decades"??? Cause that's when the last of the laws were struck down by Loving v Virginia (you know, under that lovely right to privacy, that the right hates so much).

Personally, I don't care what you call it. People shouldn't be prohibited from entering into a lawful relationship because you have a problem with gays and think it's ok to discriminate against them.

Think its ok to discriminate against them?? "THINK" ITS OK TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THEM????????? Its your duty and obligation to discriminate against faggots!!!!!! They even took a beautiful english word and made it one of the most vile and vulgar words in the world. Gay!!! I, and most people in this world, don't have any use for a queer. If they were all taken out to the middle of an ocean and made to walk the plank they would be getting off easy. Now analyze that.....

[OCA]

And you disparaging people based on their sexuality is disrespectful to them.

Please stop. :poke:

I don't disparage, I make them face the ugly truth about their horrible life choices which is actually showing the more love than probably anyone else has ever shown them.

You couldn't do homos any more harm if they were heroin addicts and you were going out and scoring for them. Stop being an enabler.

[Hagbard Celine]

People choose to do vile things all the time, they choose to fuck animals, they choose to shoot drugs, they choose to engage in scat(play with other's shit) etc. etc. etc. so its quite possible and even likely that they choose this lifestyle.......especially given the fact that after billions and decades spent on research to find the gay gene or genes there is absolutely nada to date.

Have they really spent "billions" on finding the gay gene? What's the point? They could've bought me and several million other people a porsche for all that money! I guess if they actually found the gene they could somehow justify their deviant behavior to the rest of society. :dunno:

[OCA]

Think its ok to discriminate against them?? "THINK" ITS OK TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THEM????????? Its your duty and obligation to discriminate against faggots!!!!!! They even took a beautiful english word and made it one of the most vile and vulgar words in the world. Gay!!! I, and most people in this world, don't have any use for a queer. If they were all taken out to the middle of an ocean and made to walk the plank they would be getting off easy. Now analyze that.....

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[5stringJeff]

Marriage also, historically, never meant inter-racial marriage. Luckily, that went by the wayside when Virginia's law preventing it was struck down during the 70's.

What parental rights concern you?

Sorry, Jillian, but that's just plain wrong. Races have intermarried throughout history. Even throughout American history, whites and Indians intermarried, starting with Pocahontas and continuing down on through my great-grandparents - all before the 1970's. Some states may have barred black-white marriages, in the context of Jim Crow, but not all of them did, and I know of no states that barred Anglo-Indian marriages.

[OCA]

Have they really spent "billions" on finding the gay gene? What's the point? They could've bought me and several million other people a porsche for all that money! I guess if they actually found the gene they could somehow justify their deviant behavior to the rest of society. :dunno:


Yes, if they had found a gene or cause they could justify their behavior but..........they haven't and after all this time logic leads you to believe that it doesn't exist and therefore its a choice.

[Hagbard Celine]

Think its ok to discriminate against them?? "THINK" ITS OK TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THEM????????? Its your duty and obligation to discriminate against faggots!!!!!! They even took a beautiful english word and made it one of the most vile and vulgar words in the world. Gay!!! I, and most people in this world, don't have any use for a queer. If they were all taken out to the middle of an ocean and made to walk the plank they would be getting off easy. Now analyze that.....

That's a pretty bigoted statement right there. Even if you did exterminate all the gays on the planet, more would be born. As long as a penis can go in an anus, there will be gays. Just get used to it and tolerate their existence.

[Hagbard Celine]

Yes, if they had found a gene or cause they could justify their behavior but..........they haven't and after all this time logic leads you to believe that it doesn't exist and therefore its a choice.

Well, you're missing the third possibility and that is that it is a behavior manifesting itself out of early experiences or environmental factors--or that it is biological. Has anyone ever done a study to find out if effeminate boys are more likely to be homosexual due to hormonal deficiencies or something? I tend to think that it has to do with psychology more than anything else.

[OCA]

Well, you're missing the third possibility and that is that it is a behavior manifesting itself out of early experiences or environmental factors--or that it is biological. Has anyone ever done a study to find out if effeminate boys are more likely to be homosexual due to hormonal deficiencies or something? I tend to think that it has to do with psychology more than anything else.

Which then leads to this: if it was psychological then why can it not be treated like other psychological disorders? Why is the psychological community deadset against that? I know the answer, want to see if you do.

[Hagbard Celine]

Which then leads to this: if it was psychological then why can it not be treated like other psychological disorders? Why is the psychological community deadset against that? I know the answer, want to see if you do.

I'm sure there are some psychologists who want to treat homosexuality--I mean isn't that what happens when Christian families send their gay children to religious camps when their kids "come out?" Their parents send them off to get the "gay" washed out of them. I don't know the answer to your question. I don't get psychological community magazine so I don't know what the community's opinion on the subject is. :dunno:

[Merlin]

That's a pretty bigoted statement right there. Even if you did exterminate all the gays on the planet, more would be born. As long as a penis can go in an anus, there will be gays. Just get used to it and tolerate their existence.

OK, I'll accept that analization as being bigoted. But one thing is for sure, it's my God given right to be bigoted against anyone and/or anything I chose, and I chose queers. There will be no toleration of them on my part.

[Ado]

How are they going to be treated?

There's no anti-gay pill.

Therapy doesn't work for many other
problems--people just learn to cope
over time-- or not.

I think there is an unreal view of
the success of psychiatry here.

[jillian]

I'm sure there are some psychologists who want to treat homosexuality--I mean isn't that what happens when Christian families send their gay children to religious camps when their kids "come out?" Their parents send them off to get the "gay" washed out of them. I don't know the answer to your question. I don't get psychological community magazine so I don't know what the community's opinion on the subject is. :dunno:

Except we know that kids can't become "ungay". There is no scientific basis for assertions that they can be "cured". All you have are kids being taught to hate themselves and who become closeted.

Things like that are a huge part of the reason for the high suicide rate among gay kids.

[Ado]

and the marrying of straight women as cover,
soiling The Sanctity of Marriage.

[jillian]

Ah yes.. the age old tradition of a gay guy having a "beard". True enough.

Sanctity of marriage??? riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight..... how long was Brittany married for?... the first time, of course.

[trobinett]

Ah yes.. the age old tradition of a gay guy having a "beard". True enough.

Sanctity of marriage??? riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight..... how long was Brittany married for?... the first time, of course.

What, like twelve minutes or so?

[Ado]

That's why the straights should have
their sanctimonious marriage and the gays
should have theirs, then the 2 need never
meet.

Problem solved.

[Ado]

Think of all the money that will be generated when the gays
get divorced--damn, if I were a Republican divorce lawyer,
I'd be pulling for that one.

[jillian]

That's why the straights should have
their sanctimonious marriage and the gays
should have theirs, then the 2 need never
meet.

Problem solved.

yep.

[OCA]

How are they going to be treated?

There's no anti-gay pill.

Therapy doesn't work for many other
problems--people just learn to cope
over time-- or not.

I think there is an unreal view of
the success of psychiatry here.

Your thinking is much too simplistic, maybe a less difficult board is what you need. Perhaps there is a board at PBS Kids.

[OCA]

Except we know that kids can't become "ungay". There is no scientific basis for assertions that they can be "cured". All you have are kids being taught to hate themselves and who become closeted.

Things like that are a huge part of the reason for the high suicide rate among gay kids.

We know this? Any UNBIASED links to back this up?

BTW on this subject I consider the APA to be biased.

[jillian]

We know this? Any UNBIASED links to back this up?

BTW on this subject I consider the APA to be biased.

You can consider anything you want biased, I suppose. Given that you think lifenet isn't, I can't say I'm surprised.

Damned scientists... how dare they not mirror your biases.

[OCA]

There are high suicide rates among "gay kids" because after a while they discover that they weren't really born gay and that everyone who told them it was ok and coddled them was telling them a big fucking lie......they then decide everyone is a liar, life is a lie and they eat a bullet.

Gee thanks homo enablers.

[jillian]

There are high suicide rates among "gay kids" because after a while they discover that they weren't really born gay and that everyone who told them it was ok and coddled them was telling them a big fucking lie......they then decide everyone is a liar, life is a lie and they eat a bullet.

Gee thanks homo enablers.

You aren't even going to find anything to substantiate that on lifenet.

Sheesh! :gay:

[OCA]

I've got the fish on boat, now to put the gaff in it.

[Pale Rider]

Except we know that kids can't become "ungay". There is no scientific basis for assertions that they can be "cured". All you have are kids being taught to hate themselves and who become closeted.

Things like that are a huge part of the reason for the high suicide rate among gay kids.

If they can chose to be queer, they can just as easily chose NOT to be queer. Two way street here.

[Merlin]

Things like that are a huge part of the reason for the high suicide rate among gay kids.

I think you may have hit on something. Encourage more gay kids, and wala, problem solved.

[OCA]

If they can chose to be queer, they can just as easily chose NOT to be queer. Two way street here.

Now now Pale how dare you imply that people are responsibe for their own decisions?:no:

[darin]

Except we know that kids can't become "ungay". There is no scientific basis for assertions that they can be "cured".


Wait just a minute here - You demand scientific proof kids cant be come 'ungay' yet you WILLINGLY drink from the Kool-Aide trough of the Homophiles who - without scientific basis for there assertions - INSIST they are 'born gay'?

WTF?

Double-standard much? lmao :)

[Gaffer]

That's a pretty bigoted statement right there. Even if you did exterminate all the gays on the planet, more would be born. As long as a penis can go in an anus, there will be gays. Just get used to it and tolerate their existence.

Fags are not born they are recruited.

[Grumplestillskin]

Wait just a minute here - You demand scientific proof kids cant be come 'ungay' yet you WILLINGLY drink from the Kool-Aide trough of the Homophiles who - without scientific basis for there assertions - INSIST they are 'born gay'?

WTF?

Double-standard much? lmao :)

What scientific basis are there for assertions you were born hetro?

[Grumplestillskin]

Fags are not born they are recruited.

For the 10 billionth time - so homos actually like women, but they choose to sleep with men because?? :gay:

[OCA]

For the 10 billionth time - so homos actually like women, but they choose to sleep with men because?? :gay:

This question has been answered many times by me and others. Refrain from cluttering up the board with useless posts such as this in the future.

[OCA]

What scientific basis are there for assertions you were born hetro?

Its a natural instinct, a given so to speak same as water flows down, not up, sun rises in east, sets in west.

Tell me your not more reatarded than I already think you are, please.

[darin]

What scientific basis are there for assertions you were born hetro?


Logical Fallacy Grump. Hilarious question. It's like me asking you for something you can't provide, so you ask ME for something unrelated.

[Gunny]

Now now Pale how dare you imply that people are responsibe for their own decisions?:no:

Heaven forbid THAT!:uhoh:

[Gunny]

For the 10 billionth time - so homos actually like women, but they choose to sleep with men because?? :gay:

You got several good answers in another thread which you chose to ignore.

[Gunny]

What scientific basis are there for assertions you were born hetro?

The first and easiest answer is it is 100% cogent with biological function.

[Grumplestillskin]

This question has been answered many times by me and others. Refrain from cluttering up the board with useless posts such as this in the future.

Translation: I can't answer the question.

Either shit in the pot or get off...

regards...

[Grumplestillskin]

Logical Fallacy Grump. Hilarious question. It's like me asking you for something you can't provide, so you ask ME for something unrelated.

No fallacy at all. Your failure to answer it speaks volumes...

[Grumplestillskin]

The first and easiest answer is it is 100% cogent with biological function.

Which has what to do with science re a homo liking another homo?

[Grumplestillskin]

Its a natural instinct, a given so to speak same as water flows down, not up, sun rises in east, sets in west.

Tell me your not more reatarded than I already think you are, please.

Ah, so now you're a scientist and you know the whole world is based around "instinct". And know how water flows and the sun's activities are "instinct". Tell me you've had a lobotomy - it's the only explanation...

[Gunny]

Which has what to do with science re a homo liking another homo?

You didn't ask that. You asked this:


What scientific basis are there for assertions you were born hetro?

[Grumplestillskin]

You didn't ask that. You asked this:

If you can't tell I was flipping it around forgeddaboutit....

[Gunny]

If you can't tell I was flipping it around forgeddaboutit....

I could tell your question was ridiculous. The fact is, heterosexuality is biologically correct while homosexuality is not. The evidence that supports heterosexuality is nature itself.

The evidence regarding homosexuality in nature is that in every species except man, homosexuals die without perpetuating their abnormality. Man gets around this by allowing homosexuals to exist within society and to adopt children they would not otherwise have.

[darin]

No fallacy at all. Your failure to answer it speaks volumes...

There you go again - you cannot answer the question so you deflect to a new topic in hopes of taking the pressure off. Not answering your ridiculous question does not concede your point it's that your question borders on asinine.

Your Fallacy is transparent. You're saying is somebody is Born Normal, they can therefore be Born Gay. It's ridiculous.


Ad Ignorantiam: YOU saying because I cannot PROVE I was born normal somehow means OTHERS are born gay.


So - back to my comment to jillian - she demands scientific evidence kids can reject homosexuality, yet asks for NO such evidence people are born gay.

See there? the point is not for me to PROVE people are born gay, it's HER creating a double standard in order to make herself FEEL BETTER about what she says she believes.

[Missileman]

BTW on this subject I consider the APA to be biased.

Of course you do...they don't believe the same thing you do so they must be biased. :rolleyes:
Of course it would never occur to you that they just might be right.

[Grumplestillskin]

I could tell your question was ridiculous. The fact is, heterosexuality is biologically correct while homosexuality is not. The evidence that supports heterosexuality is nature itself.

The evidence regarding homosexuality in nature is that in every species except man, homosexuals die without perpetuating their abnormality. Man gets around this by allowing homosexuals to exist within society and to adopt children they would not otherwise have.

The question is not ridiculous with regard to sexuality. I'm trying to point out that someone having homo feelings in no different from somebody having hetro. There is no science, it is just the way some people are wired. The fact that nobody has attempted a half decent answer as to why some men could shag women but don't want to proves the point IMO. Using yoru logic, we should only all like one colour, one type of car, one type of house yadda, yadda. Biologically you are right, homos cannot reproduce. If you want to strip nature back to its bare, then do so - no cars, no running water, no roads, houses, stoves, fridges, aeroplanes. Things change, people adapt....:blues:

[Missileman]

I could tell your question was ridiculous. The fact is, heterosexuality is biologically correct while homosexuality is not. The evidence that supports heterosexuality is nature itself.

The evidence regarding homosexuality in nature is that in every species except man, homosexuals die without perpetuating their abnormality. Man gets around this by allowing homosexuals to exist within society and to adopt children they would not otherwise have.

So homosexuals come from adoptive homosexual couples? Interesting...got a link?

[Gunny]

The question is not ridiculous with regard to sexuality. I'm trying to point out that someone having homo feelings in no different from somebody having hetro. There is no science, it is just the way some people are wired. The fact that nobody has attempted a half decent answer as to why some men could shag women but don't want to proves the point IMO. Using yoru logic, we should only all like one colour, one type of car, one type of house yadda, yadda. Biologically you are right, homos cannot reproduce. If you want to strip nature back to its bare, then do so - no cars, no running water, no roads, houses, stoves, fridges, aeroplanes. Things change, people adapt....:blues:

Well, yes it is different. Heterosexuality is the default normal. Homosexuality is abnormal, so one is NOT equal to the other.

Your analogy of "using my logic" is poor, taking biologically normal behavior and attempting to compare it to an extreme.

Dude, if you take away everything I own right this minute, I WILL survive, so your other extreme example is no threat to me. I'm EXTREMELY well-trained in the art.

[Grumplestillskin]

There you go again - you cannot answer the question so you deflect to a new topic in hopes of taking the pressure off. Not answering your ridiculous question does not concede your point it's that your question borders on asinine.

Your Fallacy is transparent. You're saying is somebody is Born Normal, they can therefore be Born Gay. It's ridiculous.


Ad Ignorantiam: YOU saying because I cannot PROVE I was born normal somehow means OTHERS are born gay.


So - back to my comment to jillian - she demands scientific evidence kids can reject homosexuality, yet asks for NO such evidence people are born gay.

See there? the point is not for me to PROVE people are born gay, it's HER creating a double standard in order to make herself FEEL BETTER about what she says she believes.

Um, hate to tell this Darin, but people are born gay every day. You know there are gay people out there, right? You saying otherwise is ridiculous.
If you think everybody is born normal and gay is a learned behaviour, IMO, you are wrong. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence to back up your assertion. Not one peer reviewed, held up to scientific scrutiny piece, has ever been published...

[Gunny]

So homosexuals come from adoptive homosexual couples? Interesting...got a link?

Is that what I said? No it isn't (this where you shake your head).

However, if you choose to ignore the OBVIOUS fact that people raised in homosexual households would naturally have a higher propensity to become homosexual themselves, then you are ignoring logic and common sense.

[Missileman]

There you go again - you cannot answer the question so you deflect to a new topic in hopes of taking the pressure off. Not answering your ridiculous question does not concede your point it's that your question borders on asinine.

Your Fallacy is transparent. You're saying is somebody is Born Normal, they can therefore be Born Gay. It's ridiculous.


Ad Ignorantiam: YOU saying because I cannot PROVE I was born normal somehow means OTHERS are born gay.


So - back to my comment to jillian - she demands scientific evidence kids can reject homosexuality, yet asks for NO such evidence people are born gay.

See there? the point is not for me to PROVE people are born gay, it's HER creating a double standard in order to make herself FEEL BETTER about what she says she believes.


How about using the same standard for everyone? I know I could never choose to engage in homosexual sex...how about you? Any other heterosexuals here on the board think they could choose to take one for the other team?

When the answer is unanimously NO, how is it that you can arbitrarily say that's the case for homosexuals?

[Grumplestillskin]

Well, yes it is different. Heterosexuality is the default normal. Homosexuality is abnormal, so one is NOT equal to the other.

Your analogy of "using my logic" is poor, taking biologically normal behavior and attempting to compare it to an extreme.

Dude, if you take away everything I own right this minute, I WILL survive, so your other extreme example is no threat to me. I'm EXTREMELY well-trained in the art.

Homosexual may be "abnormal" in the sense that it is not as "popular", but the behaviour is not abnormal in a devious sense.

I am not comparing it to the extreme. You guys keep taking it back to nature - that is us at its barest IMO..

As for your last paragraph, that makes YOU abnormal, because not everybody is as well trained as you...

[Missileman]

Is that what I said? No it isn't (this where you shake your head).

However, if you choose to ignore the OBVIOUS fact that people raised in homosexual households would naturally have a higher propensity to become homosexual themselves, then you are ignoring logic and common sense.

Again...got a link or just spouting BULLSHIT?

[Missileman]

Homosexual may be "abnormal" in the sense that it is not as "popular", but the behaviour is not abnormal in a devious sense.


Homosexuality is abnormal behavior, you can't get around it. The question is whether it is immoral and whether it should be tolerated.

[darin]

I know I could never choose to engage in homosexual sex...how about you?

Of COURSE you could choose to engage in homosexual sex. Same as you could choose to drink BEER if you're a WINE guy. (shrug).



When the answer is unanimously NO, how is it that you can arbitrarily say that's the case for homosexuals?

It's not No. It's absolutely true than ANYONE 'could' do ANYTHING under motivation.

[manu1959]

Homosexuality is abnormal behavior, you can't get around it. The question is whether it is immoral and whether it should be tolerated.

i am pro choice.....and i choose not to tollerate it

[Pale Rider]

Um, hate to tell this Darin, but people are born gay every day. You know there are gay people out there, right? You saying otherwise is ridiculous.
If you think everybody is born normal and gay is a learned behaviour, IMO, you are wrong. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence to back up your assertion. Not one peer reviewed, held up to scientific scrutiny piece, has ever been published...

Looks like others here have your less than fun little game figured out too grump.

But just to comment on your lunacy, it's even MORE rediculous for you to say people are born queer, than it is to say people are born straight, when the fact of the matter is, there is absolutely NO scientific proof a person can be born a homo. See, it's sooooo easy to blow holes in your thinking.

[Grumplestillskin]

i am pro choice.....and i choose not to tollerate it

I choose not to tolerate your intolerance...:blsmile:

[Grumplestillskin]

Homosexuality is abnormal behavior, you can't get around it. The question is whether it is immoral and whether it should be tolerated.

Which is why I added the devious clause. Michael Jordan is abnormal, but is he devious?

[Grumplestillskin]

Looks like others here have your less than fun little game figured out too grump.

But just to comment on your lunacy, it's even MORE rediculous for you to say people are born queer, than it is to say people are born straight, when the fact of the matter is, there is absolutely NO scientific proof a person can be born a homo. See, it's sooooo easy to blow holes in your thinking.

I wouldn't call Darin "others" - I'd call him cut from the same cloth as you but not as crude.

Well if you can prove homos aren't born that way, be my guest. Take your time...And you are right there is no scientific evidence to support me in that they aren't born that way, neither is there any scientific evidence that they are..and?

Pale, you haven't even blown a pinprick let alone a hole...

[Pale Rider]

I wouldn't call Darin "others" - I'd call him cut from the same cloth as you but not as crude.

Well if you can prove homos aren't born that way, be my guest. Take your time...And you are right there is no scientific evidence to support me in that they aren't born that way, neither is there any scientific evidence that they are..and?

Pale, you haven't even blown a pinprick yet a hole...

Whhhoooowww grump. You said Darin was "WRONG" to say the homosexuality wasn't a "learned behavior". I'd like you to prove it's NOT.

OK... we'll all be waiting for your proof... I'm sure you have some, or you wouldn't have made that claim.

[Grumplestillskin]

Whhhoooowww grump. You said Darin was "WRONG" to say the homosexuality wasn't a "learned behavior". I'd like you to prove it's NOT.

OK... we'll all be waiting for your proof... I'm sure you have some, or you wouldn't have made that claim.

And he has no proof that it is a learned behaviour. In my personal opinion I do not think it is a learned behaviour. In case you don't realise, Darin's is a personal opinion too. As is yours if you believe in his side of the argument.

[Abbey Marie]

Except we know that kids can't become "ungay". There is no scientific basis for assertions that they can be "cured". All you have are kids being taught to hate themselves and who become closeted.

Things like that are a huge part of the reason for the high suicide rate among gay kids.

Another result of our schools "enlightened" treatment of homosexuality is many more teens (esp. girls) claiming they are gay for a while in high school, hooking up with other girls, and then deciding, "oh, wait, I'm not". It's actually trendy now. Of two lesbian girls I know in my daughter's school, one made a weak suicide attempt, and the other suffers from depression.

Acccording to my daughter, neither of these girls have been ostracized or picked on. It's all quite accepted these days, at least as far as we can tell in this PC world. It seems that embracing their gayness, and not being persecuted for it, is not helping them much after all.

[Ado]

Your thinking is much too simplistic, maybe a less difficult board is what you need. Perhaps there is a board at PBS Kids.

Can't. Funding got cut.

And you can't answer my question, for the second time.

[Grumplestillskin]

And you can't answer my question, for the second time.

You'll find with this particular character, and a few of his compadres, they rarely do.

[jillian]

Another result of our schools "enlightened" treatment of homosexuality is many more teens (esp. girls) claiming they are gay for a while in high school, hooking up with other girls, and then deciding, "oh, wait, I'm not". It's actually trendy now. Of two lesbian girls I know in my daughter's school, one made a weak suicide attempt, and the other suffers from depression.

Acccording to my daughter, neither of these girls have been ostracized or picked on. It's all quite accepted these days, at least as far as we can tell in this PC world. It seems that embracing their gayness, and not being persecuted for it, is not helping them much after all.

Well, I certainly can't comment on the specific players since you know them and I don't. I think, though, we can both agree that a couple of lesbian teens NOT being persecuted is a good thing. As for why the depression and why the "weak" suicide attempt. Well, we don't know what's happening in their homes, their churches. School is only one aspect of their lives.

What I think... I think it's adolescent angst compounded by the fact that they have to learn to deal with who they are.

oh man, do I remember adolescent angst!

[Missileman]

Of COURSE you could choose to engage in homosexual sex. Same as you could choose to drink BEER if you're a WINE guy. (shrug).



It's not No. It's absolutely true than ANYONE 'could' do ANYTHING under motivation.

Speaking for myself, I cannot think of any scenario where I could freely choose to engage in homosexuality. I guess you're different. Kudos to you though to admit that you might have a little queer in you.

[Abbey Marie]

Well, I certainly can't comment on the specific players since you know them and I don't. I think, though, we can both agree that a couple of lesbian teens NOT being persecuted is a good thing. As for why the depression and why the "weak" suicide attempt. Well, we don't know what's happening in their homes, their churches. School is only one aspect of their lives.

What I think... I think it's adolescent angst compounded by the fact that they have to learn to deal with who they are.

oh man, do I remember adolescent angst!


No question adolescense can be tough! My main point, though, is that while it is obvious that ostracizing teens is a bad thing, it may also be bad (apart from religious objections, of course) and I believe it is, to use curriculum to make them so accepting of gayness that it becomes trendy to try it out. Kind of like trying on a new style of shoes. The confusion must be enormous. These girls may just be victims of that particular liberal cultural phenomenon. I used to think that gay people were just born gay, and I don't know what to make of this "temporary" gayness. Or bisexuality, for that matter! What's up with that? Lol.

You make a valid point that we simply cannot know all the reasons why these girls are in their particular states of mind. I do know the parents of one- one parent is a doctor, they are practicing Jews, and all around nice and intelligent people. I am fairly confident that at least her home life is good. But I can't really know.

[darin]

Speaking for myself, I cannot think of any scenario where I could freely choose to engage in homosexuality. I guess you're different. Kudos to you though to admit that you might have a little queer in you.

I cannot think of a scenario where I'd freely rob a bank, either. EVERYBODY is in control of their behavior, unless there exists illness or drugs.

[darin]

No question adolescense can be tough! My main point, though, is that while it is obvious that ostracizing teens is a bad thing, it may also be bad (apart from religious objections, of course) and I believe it is, to use curriculum to make them so accepting of gayness that it becomes trendy to try it out. Kind of like trying on a new style of shoes. The confusion must be enormous. These girls may just be victims of that particular liberal cultural phenomenon. I used to think that gay people were just born gay, and I don't know what to make of this "temporary" gayness. Or bisexuality, for that matter! What's up with that? Lol.

You make a valid point that we simply cannot know all the reasons why these girls are in their particular states of mind. I do know the parents of one- one parent is a doctor, they are practicing Jews, and all around nice and intelligent people. I am fairly confident that at least her home life is good. But I can't really know.

eggs zachary!

[Hagbard Celine]

There are high suicide rates among "gay kids" because after a while they discover that they weren't really born gay and that everyone who told them it was ok and coddled them was telling them a big fucking lie......they then decide everyone is a liar, life is a lie and they eat a bullet.

Gee thanks homo enablers.

I think your wrong. They probably get depressed because they shoulder so much shame over being gay. And of course the shame comes from society's unwillingness (often starting with their own parents) to accept them the way they are and leave it at that. They probably encounter hate and discrimination at every turn. You'd probably be depressed too if you didn't belong anywhere and most people shunned you.

[darin]

I think your wrong. They probably get depressed because they shoulder so much shame over being gay. And of course the shame comes from society's unwillingness (often starting with their own parents) to accept them the way they are and leave it at that. They probably encounter hate and discrimination at every turn. You'd probably be depressed too if you didn't belong anywhere and most people shunned you.


It's easy to blame 'society' - If people get depressed and kill themselves over their homosexual tendencies, WHY do you not support treatment for their problem? Wouldn't being taught to DEAL with one's urges be better than living as a homosexual? Nobody exer killed themselves because they were depressed they weren't gay. :)

[KarlMarx]

You know.. none of this would be a problem if we allowed people to choose their schools.

Don't want your kids praying in school? Send them to the school that doesn't have prayers

Don't want your kids learning evolution? Send them to the school that teaches creationism.

Once the government controlled the education in this country, where do you think it would take us, toward flag waving, Christian dominated madrassas? Not likely! No, government controlled schools are great aren't they? They can tax you if you own property (which helps redistribution of wealth --- the liberal holy grail).

But you'd think those people are always complaining about the "Religious Right" trying to get their claws into the minds of our young and converting them into heathen hating zombies would be in favor of a private school set up... and they're not. Why?

The problem with going to a system where people are allowed to choose their schools is that it takes control away from the government and hurts membership in Teachers' Unions (one of the largest contributors to the Democrats).

[Hagbard Celine]

You know.. none of this would be a problem if we allowed people to choose their schools.

Don't want your kids praying in school? Send them to the school that doesn't have prayers

Don't want your kids learning evolution? Send them to the school that teaches creationism.

But then conservatives' kids would have a big disadvantage next to normal kids especially in the sciences. And just for the record, nobody's forcing you to send your kids to public school. There are thousands of private institutions all over the country you can send your kids to.

[jillian]

You know.. none of this would be a problem if we allowed people to choose their schools.

Don't want your kids praying in school? Send them to the school that doesn't have prayers

Don't want your kids learning evolution? Send them to the school that teaches creationism.

Once the government controlled the education in this country, where do you think it would take us, toward flag waving, Christian dominated madrassas? Not likely! No, government controlled schools are great aren't they? They can tax you if you own property (which helps redistribution of wealth --- the liberal holy grail).

But you'd think those people are always complaining about the "Religious Right" trying to get their claws into the minds of our young and converting them into heathen hating zombies would be in favor of a private school set up... and they're not. Why?

The problem with going to a system where people are allowed to choose their schools is that it takes control away from the government and hurts membership in Teachers' Unions (one of the largest contributors to the Democrats).

You know the problem with government paying for parochial school is the separation of church and state. There's nothing keeping you from sending your kid to a religious school that teaches what you want them to learn.... even if its telling them that science and faith are interchangeable.

The reason schools are secular and NOT private is because there's this little thing called educational opportunity that the economic royalists seem to hate, unless, of course, it's the opportunity to indoctrinate kids with stuff like I.D......

Why is it so difficult to NOT pray for 8 hours? to not be indoctrinated in the bible for 8 hours? If you can't tolerate that level of constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, then by all means, send your kids to parochial schools. You have that absolute right.

But, much as you may hate it, government has an obligation to educate kids, same as parents have an obligation to get their kids to school every day. If you're not satisfied with what the government is doing, take your kids out of public school. People do it all the time.

But stripping the state of the funds necessary to provide education by claiming to have some right to a "refund" if you choose a different school is just silly. My tax dollars are being used to fund a war I never supported, but I can't opt out of that either. That's the way it works. We live in a representative democracy and government is charged with spending the money we pay in taxes.

(And please don't start about income tax not being constitutional. that issue has been long ago settled by the high court).

[Abbey Marie]

...There are thousands of private institutions all over the country you can send your kids to.

Can I reallocate my public school-funding tax dollars to pay for the tuition?

[stephanie]

[QUOTE=Hagbard Celine;15476]But then conservatives' kids would have a big disadvantage next to normal kidsQUOTE]

Did you really just say.....Then conservative kids would have a big disadvantage next to NORMAL KIDS???

WTF....

[Hagbard Celine]

[QUOTE]

Did you really just say.....Then conservative kids would have a big disadvantage next to NORMAL KIDS???

WTF....

Yes Steph. Most normal people don't deny their kids from learning about evolution or think that the ACLU is out to get them :tinfoil:

[Abbey Marie]

[QUOTE=stephanie;15483]

Yes Steph. Most normal people don't deny their kids from learning about evolution or think that the ACLU is out to get them :tinfoil:

I don't mind my child learning about the theory of evolution, as long as it is clearly presented as such.

But yes, the ACLU is out to get us. If by us, you mean people with traditional Christian values.


So, to clarify, in your opinion, are conservatives abnormal, but gays are normal?

[jillian]

No question adolescense can be tough! My main point, though, is that while it is obvious that ostracizing teens is a bad thing, it may also be bad (apart from religious objections, of course) and I believe it is, to use curriculum to make them so accepting of gayness that it becomes trendy to try it out. Kind of like trying on a new style of shoes. The confusion must be enormous. These girls may just be victims of that particular liberal cultural phenomenon. I used to think that gay people were just born gay, and I don't know what to make of this "temporary" gayness. Or bisexuality, for that matter! What's up with that? Lol.

You make a valid point that we simply cannot know all the reasons why these girls are in their particular states of mind. I do know the parents of one- one parent is a doctor, they are practicing Jews, and all around nice and intelligent people. I am fairly confident that at least her home life is good. But I can't really know.

Again, so many variables. I don't think tolerance is ever a bad thing when the behavior being "tolerated" has no effect on anyone else.

I can tell you that there's nothing in the world that could make me want to have sex with a woman (ok...maybe angelina jolie after I saw Gia, but only for a minute. lol...). I don't care how many people would tell me it's "ok". Nor could the heterosexual men I know ever be attracted to a guy. Tolerance doesn't make people more likely to be something. It makes them more likely not to hate themselves.

I figure that's otay. ;)

As for the other stuff in those kids' lives... who knows??? :dunno:

[Hagbard Celine]

I don't mind my child learning about the theory of evolution, as long as it is clearly presented as such.

But yes, the ACLU is out to get us. If by us, you mean people with traditional Christian values.


So, to clarify, in your opinion, conservatives are abnormal, but gays are normal?

How about the theory of the water cycle or the theory of geology or the theory of mitosis and meiosis hey, none of us were actually there to witness historical events as they unfolded so I guess today's history classes are lessons in theory as well :rolleyes: This is such a retarded thing to argue over. Why don't you just take your kid out of school and send him/her to Bible school seven days a week? They could become a preacher or a priestess and they'd never have to learn a thing about the physical world their entire lives.

And I never said gays are normal. You're making stuff up as usual.

[stephanie]

[QUOTE=stephanie;15483]

Yes Steph. Most normal people don't deny their kids from learning about evolution or think that the ACLU is out to get them :tinfoil:

:lol:
Aa yes,All of 23 yrs old..

You got all this parenting stuff down, I see..

[Hagbard Celine]

:lol:
Aa yes,All of 23 yrs old..

You got all this parenting stuff down, I see..

Yeah, because that's the claim I'm making. That I'm a better parent than you are.

[Abbey Marie]

...
I can tell you that there's nothing in the world that could make me want to have sex with a woman (ok...maybe angelina jolie after I saw Gia, but only for a minute. lol...). I don't care how many people would tell me it's "ok". Nor could the heterosexual men I know ever be attracted to a guy. Tolerance doesn't make people more likely to be something. It makes them more likely not to hate themselves.


I'm going to have to disagreee. What you say may be true for adults but I think in adolescense, what other people think is paramount to teens. Peer pressure is enormous. At the same time, at this age, kids are trying to figure out who they are and what they believe, all at an accelerated level.

Finally, perhaps you've seen those medical studies which show (I think it was through with MRI's) that the portion of the brain that controls judgment is actually still not fully formed in teens.

The result can be a powerful brew of confusion and sponge-like behavior.

Just my 2cents on it.

Interesting thread, btw.

[Hagbard Celine]

I'm going to have to disagreee. What you say may be true for adults but I think in adolescense, what other people think is paramount to teens. Peer pressure is enormous. At the same time, at this age, kids are trying to figure out who they are and what they believe, all at an accelerated level.

Finally, perhaps you've seen those medical studies which show (I think it was through with MRI's) that the portion of the brain that controls judgment is actually still not fully formed in teens.

The result can be a powerful brew of confusion and sponge-like behavior.

Just my 2cents on it.

Interesting thread, btw.

I agree with Jillian on this topic. I also want to have sex with Angelina Jolie. But I think Abbey is right about adolescence. Remembering my own adolescence and witnessing my brother's first hand, there is a marked change in a teen's hormonal balance. My brother used to be a plump, sweet little kid and now he's a 6'4 stud pitching varsity for his highschool and nobody can tell him anything because he knows better than everybody. And so concerned over appearance. At that age I can remember it seemed like everybody was looking at you at all times. You had to look your best! And then there were all the dumbass decisions. Geez. Adolescence sux!

[jillian]

I'm going to have to disagreee. What you say may be true for adults but I think in adolescense, what other people think is paramount to teens. Peer pressure is enormous. At the same time, at this age, kids are trying to figure out who they are and what they believe, all at an accelerated level.

Finally, perhaps you've seen those medical studies which show (I think it was through with MRI's) that the portion of the brain that controls judgment is actually still not fully formed in teens.

The result can be a powerful brew of confusion and sponge-like behavior.

Just my 2cents on it.

Interesting thread, btw.

Well, I don't pretend to have all the answers.... particularly not knowing the individuals. I agree that how we're viewed by peers is hugely important in adolescence, but I can't imagine that I could ever have succumbed to peer pressure to choose a relationship with a woman (even assuming for the sake of argument that there is such peer pressure). I think raging hormones can do a lot of things, but I'd wager there's far more peer pressure for them to get a hot boyfriend.

Your 2 cents is always welcome. ;)

And I agree. It turned out to be an interesting thread. :cheers2:

[darin]

But then conservatives' kids would have a big disadvantage next to normal kids especially in the sciences.


I'll never understand why you are against the truth. Creationism is science.

[Hagbard Celine]

I'll never understand why you are against the truth. Creationism is science.

The premise is based on faith in a supernatural creator. There's nothing supernatural about science. The word science literally means "knowledge gained by systematic study." It doesn't mean "look at something complex, decide it's hurts your brain, then attribute it to magic."

[darin]

The premise is based on faith in a supernatural creator. There's nothing supernatural about science. The word science literally means "knowledge gained by systematic study." It doesn't mean "look at something complex, decide it's hurts your brain, then attribute it to magic."

The premise of creationism is this: Life is too complex to have happened by accident - every living system is SO complex it cannot simply, randomly, 'happen'.

You believe life comes from non-life. Which takes more faith?

[KarlMarx]

But then conservatives' kids would have a big disadvantage next to normal kids especially in the sciences. And just for the record, nobody's forcing you to send your kids to public school. There are thousands of private institutions all over the country you can send your kids to.
As Abbey asked... if I send my children to a private school, do I get to opt out of the system of taxation to fund public schools? The answer is "NO".

Furthermore, I no longer have children that attend public schools, nor do my parents, and many elderly. However, just the same, we all must pay taxes.

Even more egregiously, only property owners are taxed. Those that rent do not (directly) pay school taxes.

Then we wonder why educational costs are so high. There is no incentive to reduce costs. For instance, our local school district spent several million dollars on renovations to the high school footback and track. Regardless that many of us voted against the measure, it still passed.

This past June, the entire complex was submerged under more than 10 feet of water (and, incidentally, it floods each spring). As a result, the complex was unusable during the early part of the school year.

Plus, there always is a need to hire more teachers and increase teachers' salaries, ignoring the fact that SAT scores have been declining for decades.

[Grumplestillskin]

I'll never understand why you are against the truth. Creationism is science.

You can pin a tail on it and call it a weasel for all I care, but any which way you call it, creationsim is NOT science...

[KarlMarx]

You know the problem with government paying for parochial school is the separation of church and state. There's nothing keeping you from sending your kid to a religious school that teaches what you want them to learn.... even if its telling them that science and faith are interchangeable.

Separation of church and state? How is allowing parents the right to chose which school to send their children to a violation of that? It isn't. Simply because such a system would not give preferential treatment to religious schools over non-religious schools.




The reason schools are secular and NOT private is because there's this little thing called educational opportunity that the economic royalists seem to hate, unless, of course, it's the opportunity to indoctrinate kids with stuff like I.D......

Why is it so difficult to NOT pray for 8 hours? to not be indoctrinated in the bible for 8 hours? If you can't tolerate that level of constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, then by all means, send your kids to parochial schools. You have that absolute right.
People have the right to go to parochial school, true. However, what you don't address (apparently you're not aware of this), is that parochial schools and other private schools charge tuition. Those who send their children to private schools are expected to pay public school tax as well as tuition. So, in effect, those parents are being penalized for exercising a right. It's like the poll tax that was levied in the South.

And because of that, many parents choose to keep their children in public schools because they can't afford otherwise.

Giving parents vouchers to send their children to the school of their choice would right this injustice.

Oh, and by the way, many parents change schools not because of what is being taught there, but because the schools are not teaching at all. Many parents in inner city school districts are just in that position.


But, much as you may hate it, government has an obligation to educate kids, same as parents have an obligation to get their kids to school every day. If you're not satisfied with what the government is doing, take your kids out of public school. People do it all the time.
Actually, parents have an obligation to see that their children are educated, as well as fed and clothed, thank you. Government should simply give parents the freedom to choose where they


But stripping the state of the funds necessary to provide education by claiming to have some right to a "refund" if you choose a different school is just silly. My tax dollars are being used to fund a war I never supported, but I can't opt out of that either. That's the way it works. We live in a representative democracy and government is charged with spending the money we pay in taxes.
Silly, that's a different tax. My school district is taxing me, it isn't a government, yet it taxes me.

[Hagbard Celine]

As Abbey asked... if I send my children to a private school, do I get to opt out of the system of taxation to fund public schools? The answer is "NO".

Furthermore, I no longer have children that attend public schools, nor do my parents, and many elderly. However, just the same, we all must pay taxes.

Even more egregiously, only property owners are taxed. Those that rent do not (directly) pay school taxes.

Then we wonder why educational costs are so high. There is no incentive to reduce costs. For instance, our local school district spent several million dollars on renovations to the high school footback and track. Regardless that many of us voted against the measure, it still passed.

This past June, the entire complex was submerged under more than 10 feet of water (and, incidentally, it floods each spring). As a result, the complex was unusable during the early part of the school year.

Plus, there always is a need to hire more teachers and increase teachers' salaries, ignoring the fact that SAT scores have been declining for decades.
If you really don't understand why you pay for public education I can't help you because you're a lost cause. If you want to live in a country where only the elites get education and the poor are left to their own devices, go live in Kazakstan. I hear it's nice this time of year.

What you're really frustrated about is the system itself. I agree that it needs to be revamped. There are egregious inefficiencies in education funding. That's what we need to work on. If you want to change the tax system, vote Libertarian. None of you seem to grasp that you'll never get the kind of change you are calling for by voting Republican (a.k.a. the status quo).

[Birdzeye]

I'll never understand why you are against the truth. Creationism is science.
No it isn't. Science has no way of proving, or disproving "creationism."

Creationism is a matter of faith, and there's certainly nothing wrong with believing that. It's just not based on "science."

[Hagbard Celine]

The premise of creationism is this: Life is too complex to have happened by accident - every living system is SO complex it cannot simply, randomly, 'happen'.

You believe life comes from non-life. Which takes more faith?

Honesly it takes more faith to believe in an invisible, supernatural creator who left absolutely no evidence of its existence than it does to believe that life originated from natural processes.

If what vexes you about evolution is the "random" part, you need to look a little closer. The genetic mutations that occur in nature are much more than simply "random," though they can occur that way too. Many mutations occur out of necessity--i.e. they are adaptations to the environment. Legs, for instance, are an adaptation to land. Land animals wouldn't have legs if they had stayed in the oceans, they'd have fins like fish. I mean you can see adaptation and mutation actively occuring in nature everyday. It doesn't take faith to get me to the realization that life came from the Earth and not from some unseen supernatural force.

[The ClayTaurus]

The premise of creationism is this: Life is too complex to have happened by accident - every living system is SO complex it cannot simply, randomly, 'happen'.

You believe life comes from non-life. Which takes more faith?Life comes from non-life vs. life comes from the supernatural vs. Life comes from non-life via the supernatural.

[Abbey Marie]

How about the theory of the water cycle or the theory of geology or the theory of mitosis and meiosis hey, none of us were actually there to witness historical events as they unfolded so I guess today's history classes are lessons in theory as well :rolleyes: This is such a retarded thing to argue over. Why don't you just take your kid out of school and send him/her to Bible school seven days a week? They could become a preacher or a priestess and they'd never have to learn a thing about the physical world their entire lives.

And I never said gays are normal. You're making stuff up as usual.

I'll take the high road and ignore your attacks on my credibility and misrepresentations of my words, and answer your points anyway. :(

Yes, anything that isn't proven by scientific fact should be taught as theory. Why not? Isn't that the rational and scientific thing to do? I know that I would appreciate being told as I am taught which things have been proved, and which are theory.

Where did I say I did not want my child to learn science? I'd love you to point that out to me.

What I did ask, but you have not answered was this: Since your stated solution to those who are unhappy with public schools is to just send our kids to private school, can I have my school-funding tax money reallocated to a private school? Otherwise, to state the obvious, it is not a solution, as many people simply cannot afford private school tuition.

To your final point, can you show me where I stated that you said gays were normal? I asked if you thought they were, as compared to those abnormal conservatives you were talking about. It's a question. One also not yet answered, by the way... :)

[Hagbard Celine]

I'll take the high road and ignore your attacks on my credibility and misrepresentations of my words, and answer your points anyway. :(

Yes, anything that isn't proven by scientific fact should be taught as theory. Why not? Isn't that the rational and scientific thing to do? I know that I would appreciate being told as I am taught which things have been proved, and which are theory.

Where did I say I did not want my child to learn science? I'd love you to point that out to me.

What I did ask, but you have not answered was this: Since your stated solution to those who are unhappy with public schools is to just send our kids to private school, can I have my school-funding tax money reallocated to a private school? Otherwise, to state the obvious, it is not a solution, as many people simply cannot afford private school tuition.

To your final point, can you show me where I stated that you said gays were normal? I asked if you thought they were, as compared to those abnormal conservatives you were talking about. It's a question. One also not yet answered, by the way... :)

No, you said,
So, to clarify, in your opinion, conservatives are abnormal, but gays are normal? That indicates that I said somewhere in my posts that I think gays are normal, which I never even remotely said or even hinted at. You're making things up to make me seem irrational and then acting like you didn't say what you said. Don't play!

I'd support an extra line on the tax form that says, "I'd like my property tax to fund ________ school." I don't see any problem with that.

[Abbey Marie]

Hagbard said:


No, you said,

Quote:
"So, to clarify, in your opinion, conservatives are abnormal, but gays are normal?"

That indicates that I said somewhere in my posts that I think gays are normal, which I never even remotely said or even hinted at. You're making things up to make me seem irrational and then acting like you didn't say what you said. Don't play!

Here is my exact quote, just copied from Post # 106

So, to clarify, in your opinion, are conservatives abnormal, but gays are normal?

Notice where the word "are" is in my post? Somewhow, you juxtaposed that one little word in your copy of my quote, and it makes all the difference.
Now who's playing?

[Abbey Marie]

...
I'd support an extra line on the tax form that says, "I'd like my property tax to fund ________ school." I don't see any problem with that.

That sounds interesting, but I'm not clear- how does that help my child to go to that school?

[Hagbard Celine]

Hagbard said:



Here is my exact quote, just copied from Post # 106


Notice where the word "are" is in my post? Somewhow, you juxtaposed that one little word in your copy of my quote, and it makes all the difference.
Now who's playing?

You are tripping.

[Hagbard Celine]

That sounds interesting, but I'm not clear- how does that help my child to go to that school?

It would only logically follow that you would send your kid to the school you were funding. No one sane would stand for it to be any other way.

[Abbey Marie]

You are tripping.


Oh, lord. Just admit you're wrong, Hagbard. It happens. We will still love you.

[darin]

Oh, lord. Just admit you're wrong, Hagbard. It happens. We will still love you.



lol :) It's difficult for libs to admit fault in ANYTHING; hence their refusal, on large part, to admit God's existence, and Christ's work.

[Hagbard Celine]

Oh, lord. Just admit you're wrong, Hagbard. It happens. We will still love you.

Man I highlighted and right clicked your post. If you edited it after I copied it to make me look wrong what kind of person does that make you? I'm not crazy! I know what you posted! :tinfoil:

[Abbey Marie]

Man I highlighted and right clicked your post. If you edited it after I copied it to make me look wrong what kind of person does that make you? I'm not crazy! I know what you posted! :tinfoil:

If I had edited it, it would say at the bottom, "edited by Abbey" and the date. Would it not?

Oy vey.

[darin]

Man I highlighted and right clicked your post. If you edited it after I copied it to make me look wrong what kind of person does that make you? I'm not crazy! I know what you posted! :tinfoil:

Dude - If "Integrity" were a dance, Abbey would be the Queen of Walz. Don't question her integrity, brother.

[Hagbard Celine]

Dude - If "Integrity" were a dance, Abbey would be the Queen of Walz. Don't question her integrity, brother.

I highlighted, right clicked and "copied." from that post. Something fishy is going on around here.

[darin]

I highlighted, right clicked and "copied." from that post. Something fishy is going on around here.

Okay TheSage...moving to "Conspiracy theories"

:D

lol.

[Abbey Marie]

I highlighted, right clicked and "copied." from that post. Something fishy is going on around here.

No, there's not. If you think I would go back and edit a post in the middle of a debate, and use it against someone, you surely do not know me.

As an aside, it would have been a much more engaging debate, imo, if you would have answered the question instead of trying to discredit me by accusing me of lying, playing, etc.

Anyway, I think this topic is done for me. It was mostly enjoyable.

Hasta.

[OCA]

Um, hate to tell this Darin, but people are born gay every day. You know there are gay people out there, right? You saying otherwise is ridiculous.
If you think everybody is born normal and gay is a learned behaviour, IMO, you are wrong. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence to back up your assertion. Not one peer reviewed, held up to scientific scrutiny piece, has ever been published...

Got definitive scientific evidence to prove that? Of course you don't, you never have any evidence to back any fucking thing you say.

[OCA]

Homosexual may be "abnormal" in the sense that it is not as "popular", but the behaviour is not abnormal in a devious sense.




There it is, irrefuteable proof that you lack any common sense or logic.

Explain how two men fucking each other up the ass is normal and not devious.

[OCA]

Which is why I added the devious clause. Michael Jordan is abnormal, but is he devious?

Jordan isn't abnormal. Stop with the stupid ass analogies.

[OCA]

Can't. Funding got cut.

And you can't answer my question, for the second time.

I don't answer inane questions, try another one and maybe one of us intelligent folks will answer it for you.

Funding got cut? Excellent! The government is cutting waste, yeah!

[OCA]

People choose to do vile things all the time, they choose to fuck animals, they choose to shoot drugs, they choose to engage in scat(play with other's shit) etc. etc. etc. so its quite possible and even likely that they choose this lifestyle.......especially given the fact that after billions and decades spent on research to find the gay gene or genes there is absolutely nada to date.

This is a great answer to the why if you can bang broads would you bang hairy asses "vaudeville routine" question.

[Hagbard Celine]

Jordan isn't abnormal. Stop with the stupid ass analogies.

I'd say Jordan definately deviated from what would be classified as "normal." He was a phenom. Probably the best fit for an athlete to his sport in all of history. "Abnormal" doesn't have to be a derogatory nomenclature. Jesus, your mind has zero margin in it for conceptual thought doesn't it?

[Hagbard Celine]

This is a great answer to the why if you can bang broads would you bang hairy asses "vaudeville routine" question.

There's no subsitution for a vagina and a pair of long, smooth, lotiony legs. Gays are definately crazy. I'll give you that.

[Birdzeye]

lol :) It's difficult for libs to admit fault in ANYTHING; hence their refusal, on large part, to admit God's existence, and Christ's work.

:lol:

That's going to be news for all the church-going, God-loving liberals in this world.

[darin]

:lol:

That's going to be news for all the church-going, God-loving liberals in this world.

I doubt I could find ANY liberals who are Christians.

[OCA]

:lol:

That's going to be news for all the church-going, God-loving liberals in this world.

Now there is an oxymoron, churchgoing and Godloving liberal. That breed don't exist.

[Birdzeye]

I doubt I could find ANY liberals who are Christians.

Me.

[manu1959]

I doubt I could find ANY liberals who are Christians.

how about conservatives that are not christians.....think they exist?

[Birdzeye]

I don't answer inane questions, try another one and maybe one of us intelligent folks will answer it for you.

Funding got cut? Excellent! The government is cutting waste, yeah!

Why do you try so hard to hide your intelligence?

:laugh:

[darin]

how about conservatives that are not christians.....think they exist?


Sure. Tons. :)

[darin]

Me.


Are you Pro-Death of the unborn? Do you support special rights protecting/sanctioning homosexuality? Do you feel pastors should preach against ALL sin - even homosexuality? Do you doubt any parts of the Bible? Are there MANY ways to Heaven?

[manu1959]

Sure. Tons. :)

so why not the other

[Grumplestillskin]

Are you Pro-Death of the unborn? Do you support special rights protecting/sanctioning homosexuality? Do you feel pastors should preach against ALL sin - even homosexuality? Do you doubt any parts of the Bible? Are there MANY ways to Heaven?

What is the relevence of those questions? If pastors preach ONLY the above does that mean they are the ONLY true Christians?

[shattered]

how about conservatives that are not christians.....think they exist?

Unless I'm a figment of your imagination, they exist. :)

[darin]

What is the relevence of those questions? If pastors preach ONLY the above does that mean they are the ONLY true Christians?

The relevence of those questions is obvious to a Christian, as depending on the answers one can know if they follow Christ or not. If pastors preach anything but the repentance of sin - INCLUDING homosexuality - if the Pastors preach of the sanctity of life - If pastors preach against the bible being infallible - they are NOT Christians.

[darin]

so why not the other

Because liberals tend to promote ideas which are clearly anti-God.

[Yurt]

Lawyers representing a Massachusetts school district named as a defendant in a parent's civil rights complaint have said teachers at Estabrook Elementary School have a "legitimate state interest" in teaching the homosexual lifestyle, and parents have no input into those decisions.


Ironically in this case, this is the lowest standard interest the government has to prove (the BOP is actually on the plaintiff).

However, they are intruding on family beliefs, those are of the highest scrutiny. So not sure how they weasel "legitimate" out of this.

"
The state must fight 'discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation' in ways that 'do not perpetuate stereotypes,'" the lawyers for the school district argued. They also explained to the judge that, in their opinion, parents have no right to control what ideas the school presents to elementary schoolchildren, and if parents disagree with that dictate, they can take their children elsewhere.

Here is the fun or not:

who determines what 'sexual orientation' is good or bad? If parents have no control, then a sado/child molester should not be discriminated against. Heck, it is just their orientation.

The question then becomes:

What is normal, who determines, and what is discrimination?

ok, question(s)

[jillian]

The relevence of those questions is obvious to a Christian, as depending on the answers one can know if they follow Christ or not. If pastors preach anything but the repentance of sin - INCLUDING homosexuality - if the Pastors preach of the sanctity of life - If pastors preach against the bible being infallible - they are NOT Christians.

With all due respect, what the Pastors preach is supposed to guide their congregations. It's irrelevant to government determination of any particular issue.

[darin]

With all due respect, what the Pastors preach is supposed to guide their congregations. It's irrelevant to government determination of any particular issue.

Right - Christians cannot support some of the things i've mentioned. Christians cannot be supportive of the abortion situation which currently exists. It's anti-God. Christians cannot be supportive of the homo-situation as it currently exists (there are some churches PROMOTING Homosexual pastors - that flies in the face of God).

[jillian]

Right - Christians cannot support some of the things i've mentioned. Christians cannot be supportive of the abortion situation which currently exists. It's anti-God. Christians cannot be supportive of the homo-situation as it currently exists (there are some churches PROMOTING Homosexual pastors - that flies in the face of God).

I understand your religious objections. But, again, those objections can't shape government policy. I don't think anyone asks you to support gay rights. But that doesn't mean you're entitled to laws prohibiting gay marriage simply because your religion dictates a particular pov.

[OCA]

I understand your religious objections. But, again, those objections can't shape government policy. I don't think anyone asks you to support gay rights. But that doesn't mean you're entitled to laws prohibiting gay marriage simply because your religion dictates a particular pov.

Why shouldn't religion be given a chance to shape government policy? I mean liberal secularism has been such a resounding success, right?

Apparently state supreme courts all across this land disagree with you on whether we can prohibit queer marriage as in every state where its been challenged on constitutional grounds its been upheld. Guess you are wrong again as usual.

[darin]

I understand your religious objections. But, again, those objections can't shape government policy. I don't think anyone asks you to support gay rights. But that doesn't mean you're entitled to laws prohibiting gay marriage simply because your religion dictates a particular pov.

Are you changing the topic now?

Aight, I suppose. Whatever.

[OCA]

Even liberal New York upheld queer marriage ban:

http://pewforum.org/news/rss.php?NewsID=10827

[jillian]

Why shouldn't religion be given a chance to shape government policy? I mean liberal secularism has been such a resounding success, right?

Apparently state supreme courts all across this land disagree with you on whether we can prohibit queer marriage as in every state where its been challenged on constitutional grounds its been upheld. Guess you are wrong again as usual.

Well, that's actually a good question. Say we for a moment decided to forget about the Constitution's separation of church and state and said, ok, let's give religion a chance. Whose religion? The answer to that question is what makes it a violation of the Constitution, because the answer has to be you can't choose ANYONE'S religion to shape government since there are many different religious groups comprising this country, none of which can be given preference.

As for your second paragraph, you saying something or just spouting off as usual?

[jillian]

Even liberal New York upheld queer marriage ban:

http://pewforum.org/news/rss.php?NewsID=10827

You shocked that the republican appointees of a republican governor took that position?

BTW, it was a VERY divided Court. So apparently two of the judges agreed with me. ;)

They also didn't prohibit a law which would create a legally recognized same-sex relationship, they just said it wasn't constitutinally mandated.

But maybe that's too subtle for you?

[jillian]

Are you changing the topic now?

Aight, I suppose. Whatever.

I wasn't the one who brought up the religious objections. You were. I merely acknowledged your religious objections and said they weren't relevant to a determination of public policy.

You having a senior moment, Darin and forgetting who brought that up? :poke:

[OCA]

You shocked that the republican appointees of a republican governor took that position?

BTW, it was a VERY divided Court. So apparently two of the judges agreed with me. ;)

They also didn't prohibit a law which would create a legally recognized same-sex relationship, they just said it wasn't constitutinally mandated.

But maybe that's too subtle for you?

The only way you guys can get marriage passed is to circumvent the will of the people, legislatures are becoming less willing to do that nowadays.

[darin]

I wasn't the one who brought up the religious objections. You were. I merely acknowledged your religious objections and said they weren't relevant to a determination of public policy.

You having a senior moment, Darin and forgetting who brought that up? :poke:


I was talking about Christian Liberals. You changed that to "Christianity determining Public Policy.

Forget your meds tonite? lol.

[Grumplestillskin]

I was talking about Christian Liberals. You changed that to "Christianity determining Public Policy.

Forget your meds tonite? lol.

Are so now YOU get to decide who Christians are? Suddenly Darin is God.
What do you get when you get a Catholic, Presbytarian, Born Again, Assembly of God, Baptist, Southern Baptist, Jehovah's Witness, Methodist, Unitarian, Greek Orthadox, Russian Orthadox, Anglican and Mormon in the same room? A theological nightmare...

[stephanie]

Are so now YOU get to decide who Christians are? Suddenly Darin is God.
What do you get when you get a Catholic, Presbytarian, Born Again, Assembly of God, Baptist, Southern Baptist, Jehovah's Witness, Methodist, Unitarian, Greek Orthadox, Russian Orthadox, Anglican and Mormon in the same room? A theological nightmare...


Ugh!

[CockySOB]

BTW, it was a VERY divided Court. So apparently two of the judges agreed with me. ;)

Two of six is a VERY divided court? OK. If you say so.

[darin]

Are so now YOU get to decide who Christians are? Suddenly Darin is God.
What do you get when you get a Catholic, Presbytarian, Born Again, Assembly of God, Baptist, Southern Baptist, Jehovah's Witness, Methodist, Unitarian, Greek Orthadox, Russian Orthadox, Anglican and Mormon in the same room? A theological nightmare...

Again - more logical fallacy from you. I'm serious when I say you reply with MORE intellectually dishonest hyperbole than I've EVER seen online.


CHRIST decides who Christians are. I'm just telling you what He's said. Read it yourself.

Every one of those you mentioned above - if the pastors are NOT teaching Christ as the ONLY path to God, Repentance of ALL sin, and the Bible's unfailing accuracy, they are "NOT" Christians, because they call Christ a Liar.

[Gunny]

Homosexual may be "abnormal" in the sense that it is not as "popular", but the behaviour is not abnormal in a devious sense.

It is abnormal in the sense that it is not biologically natural/normal. That IS deviant.

I am not comparing it to the extreme. You guys keep taking it back to nature - that is us at its barest IMO..

As for your last paragraph, that makes YOU abnormal, because not everybody is as well trained as you...

I'm not trying to force legislation on people dependent on others for survival to accept my way as "the" way. Nor does my knowledge and/or training make me stand out from or go against the accepted norms of our society.

BIG difference.

[Gunny]

Again...got a link or just spouting BULLSHIT?

I neither have a link to support the bullshit YOU are spouting and attempting to attribute to me, nor am I spouting bullshit.

Learn to read.

[Missileman]

I neither have a link to support the bullshit YOU are spouting and attempting to attribute to me, nor am I spouting bullshit.

Learn to read.

You're the one claiming that adoptive homosexual parents produce homosexual children. If you can't back it up with any data, then it IS bullshit. REAL common sense dictates that if the majority of homosexuals were raised by heterosexuals, the orientation of the parents has nothing to do with the orientation of the children.

[OCA]

Two of six is a VERY divided court? OK. If you say so.

Lol some of the crap that she says is so friggin moronic that why bother responding.

I get a kick in this case that to her it has to be cronyism at play because it could never be people just genuinely opposed to queer marriage.

[Grumplestillskin]

Again - more logical fallacy from you. I'm serious when I say you reply with MORE intellectually dishonest hyperbole than I've EVER seen online.

CHRIST decides who Christians are. I'm just telling you what He's said. Read it yourself.

Every one of those you mentioned above - if the pastors are NOT teaching Christ as the ONLY path to God, Repentance of ALL sin, and the Bible's unfailing accuracy, they are "NOT" Christians, because they call Christ a Liar.

Ah, so now me pointing out all the different Christian denominations is "dishonest hyperbole"? Darin, why do you think there are different denominations? Because they disagreed with one another at different times. You do know that the Anglican church allows gay pastors, right? Are they no longer Christians. If anybody is being dishonest around here it is you. Why? Because when it comes down to it, if I got you, a Catholic, a Mormon and a JW in the same room to discuss theology, you'd be at each other's throats (in a nice way). And the reason you are dishonest is because you will not come out and say you believe your take on Christianity is the "one true way". Example - do you believe in the Holy Trinity like Catholics? If not, then you prove my point...No dishonest hyperbole, just an honest observation...

[Gunny]

You're the one claiming that adoptive homosexual parents produce homosexual children. If you can't back it up with any data, then it IS bullshit. REAL common sense dictates that if the majority of homosexuals were raised by heterosexuals, the orientation of the parents has nothing to do with the orientation of the children.

To start with, the claim you attempt to attribute to me is an absolute: Homosexual parents produce homosexual children. Obviously a comprehension problem on your part if that is what you read from what I posted.

REAL common sense dictates that children raised in families where homosexuality is considered abnormal behavior are going to be less likely to become homosexuals themselves than children raised in a homosexual household and taught every day from Day One that homosexuality is just fine and dandy.

If the logical conclusion escapes you, don't know what else I can say. It's about as simple and obvious a comparison as it can be.

But DO try to differentiate between the absolute, statement of fact you keep trying to attribute to me and my voicing my opinion on an obvious logical conclusion.

[Gunny]

Ah, so now me pointing out all the different Christian denominations is "dishonest hyperbole"? Darin, why do you think there are different denominations? Because they disagreed with one another at different times. You do know that the Anglican church allows gay pastors, right? Are they no longer Christians. If anybody is being dishonest around here it is you. Why? Because when it comes down to it, if I got you, a Catholic, a Mormon and a JW in the same room to discuss theology, you'd be at each other's throats (in a nice way). And the reason you are dishonest is because you will not come out and say you believe your take on Christianity is the "one true way". Example - do you believe in the Holy Trinity like Catholics? If not, then you prove my point...No dishonest hyperbole, just an honest observation...

There's nothing dishonest about not wanting to get into an unwinnable pissing contest by declaring "my way is the one, true way." It's called avoiding and exercise in futility that usually leads to nothing but cheap insults.

I also see no reason to state the obvious. If I, or any other Christian didn't believe my way was "the" way, I would obviously discard it in favor of the whichever way I considered IS "the" way.

In addition, the fact that many denominations/religions within Christianity may or may not have superficial differences, if the bottom line at the end of the day is that "salvation is thru Christ," the fundamental belief is the same.

[Missileman]

To start with, the claim you attempt to attribute to me is an absolute: Homosexual parents produce homosexual children. Obviously a comprehension problem on your part if that is what you read from what I posted.

REAL common sense dictates that children raised in families where homosexuality is considered abnormal behavior are going to be less likely to become homosexuals themselves than children raised in a homosexual household and taught every day from Day One that homosexuality is just fine and dandy.

If the logical conclusion escapes you, don't know what else I can say. It's about as simple and obvious a comparison as it can be.

But DO try to differentiate between the absolute, statement of fact you keep trying to attribute to me and my voicing my opinion on an obvious logical conclusion.


Do you have any knowledge of a homosexual couple raising a child who turned out to be a homosexual? Do you have any data that points to children raised by homosexuals turning out to be homosexual in disproportionate numbers?

And in regards to the bolded part, since the majority of homosexuals here in the U.S. are born into Christian households, and at least half of those are conservative households, it appears that REAL common sense isn't your forte.

[Bonnie]

Lawyers representing a Massachusetts school district named as a defendant in a parent's civil rights complaint have said teachers at Estabrook Elementary School have a "legitimate state interest" in teaching the homosexual lifestyle, and parents have no input into those decisions.

Wow that really just spells it out doesn't it. Parents tax dollars are just fine but input..... Sit down and shut up, the government knows how to better raise your child than you do.....

[Missileman]

Wow that really just spells it out doesn't it. Parents tax dollars are just fine but input..... Sit down and shut up, the government knows how to better raise your child than you do.....

Can you imagine what the curriculum might look like if we let every single parent have an input? It would create chaos and none of the kids would learn anything.

[Abbey Marie]

Can you imagine what the curriculum might look like if we let every single parent have an input? It would create chaos and none of the kids would learn anything.

Can we apply your reasoning to teaching intelligent design?

[Missileman]

Can we apply your reasoning to teaching intelligent design?

In what way?

[Gunny]

Do you have any knowledge of a homosexual couple raising a child who turned out to be a homosexual? Do you have any data that points to children raised by homosexuals turning out to be homosexual in disproportionate numbers?

And in regards to the bolded part, since the majority of homosexuals here in the U.S. are born into Christian households, and at least half of those are conservative households, it appears that REAL common sense isn't your forte.

Why do you insist on attempting to play this dishonest game? You have done nothing but attempt to change what I have said, add your own ever-changing parameters to the discussion, insult me, and try to stand on an intellectually dishonest argument.

I have not addressed the topic of what environment homosexuals currently come from, and it is irrelevant to whether or not homosexual household would be more likely to produce homosexuals than heterosexual households.

A completely dishonest argument since homosexuals being allowed to adopt children is so new that there has not been sufficient time to compile any data that supports or refutes a trend. Instead, you attempt to use data compiled from a completely different environment to support your bullshit argument.

Common sense comes quite easily to me. It's obvious you either have none, or purposefully choose to ignore it in your ongoing quest to support the aberrant minority.

[Missileman]

Why do you insist on attempting to play this dishonest game? You have done nothing but attempt to change what I have said, add your own ever-changing parameters to the discussion, insult me, and try to stand on an intellectually dishonest argument.

Did you or did you not allege that homosexuals are "continuing their line" by recruiting through adoption when you wrote this?


The evidence regarding homosexuality in nature is that in every species except man, homosexuals die without perpetuating their abnormality. Man gets around this by allowing homosexuals to exist within society and to adopt children they would not otherwise have.

That's all in context. I didn't twist anything, spin anything, or change it around.


A completely dishonest argument since homosexuals being allowed to adopt children is so new that there has not been sufficient time to compile any data that supports or refutes a trend.


And yet you've got no problem making the claim that a homosexual couple is more likely to give rise to a homosexual child simply on the basis that they are homosexual. Whose argument is dishonest again?

[SassyLady]

Can you imagine what the curriculum might look like if we let every single parent have an input? It would create chaos and none of the kids would learn anything.



What is wrong with teaching our children the necessary skills to be productive once they are on their own? How does having a class on sexual persuasion help anyone get a job?

[SassyLady]

What parental rights concern you?


I personally am concerned about the fundamental right of a parent to monitor and object to what their children are being taught in public schools.

[Missileman]

What is wrong with teaching our children the necessary skills to be productive once they are on their own? How does having a class on sexual persuasion help anyone get a job?

I'm totally in favor of stressing the basics in public eduaction. However, children don't go to school to just learn the 3 R's...they also learn how to interact with other people. Whether you like it or not, the kids are going to come into contact with homosexual peers or peers who are being raised by a homosexual couple.

[Missileman]

I personally am concerned about the fundamental right of a parent to monitor and object to what their children are being taught in public schools.

And the chaos resulting from every parent being allowed to have an input into the curriculum would shut down the school.

[manu1959]

And the chaos resulting from every parent being allowed to have an input into the curriculum would shut down the school.

you confuse input with actually having an effect.....parents give input all the time.....the schools ignor you....like the time my son got beat up....the school has a zero tollerance policy....they made the kid sit out one recess....i called the police and had the kid arrested for assult and battery.....i then mad sure the principal got fired.....

when my wife and i give input they tend to listen now.

[jillian]

I personally am concerned about the fundamental right of a parent to monitor and object to what their children are being taught in public schools.

That's fair. And I certainly understand why you'd want to be active in your child's school. I sit through excrutiatingly boring PA meetings for just that reason. But curriculum is set by the school. I know my son was given at least a couple of books since he started school that I wasn't happy with. I didn't learn that they were doing those books, though, til after the fact.

To me, how a school does relative to the rest of the State in terms of math and reading scores and how well the G&T program is doing are my most important concerns.

[Missileman]

you confuse input with actually having an effect.....parents give input all the time.....the schools ignor you....like the time my son got beat up....the school has a zero tollerance policy....they made the kid sit out one recess....i called the police and had the kid arrested for assult and battery.....i then mad sure the principal got fired.....

when my wife and i give input they tend to listen now.

I'm not confusing anything...the thread is about a lawsuit filed by A parent who wants the curriculum changed to his liking. If you let him make a change then you have to let ALL the parents make whatever changes they want.

[Gunny]

Did you or did you not allege that homosexuals are "continuing their line" by recruiting through adoption when you wrote this?


That's all in context. I didn't twist anything, spin anything, or change it around.

You stand corrected. Saying that man gets around true homosexuals in nature dying without reproducing by allowing homosexuals to adopt says just that.

Reading "recruiting homosexuals" into it is 100% all on you, and is not spinning, twisting or changing anything ... it's fabricating words that aren't there.



And yet you've got no problem making the claim that a homosexual couple is more likely to give rise to a homosexual child simply on the basis that they are homosexual. Whose argument is dishonest again?

That is a completely honest and logical assumptionm based on relevant information, common sense, and logical conclusion.

Let's take it a step further:

Do you think children raised in racist household are more likely to be racist than children rased in non-racist household?

Or do you think racists are just "born that way?"

[jillian]

you confuse input with actually having an effect.....parents give input all the time.....the schools ignor you....like the time my son got beat up....the school has a zero tollerance policy....they made the kid sit out one recess....i called the police and had the kid arrested for assult and battery.....i then mad sure the principal got fired.....

when my wife and i give input they tend to listen now.

Seems to me that there's a difference between parents interfering in curriculum and making the school enforce its stated policy.

I'm all for intervening to make sure they do what they're supposed to do.

[Missileman]

You stand corrected. Saying that man gets around true homosexuals in nature dying without reproducing by allowing homosexuals to adopt says just that.

Reading "recruiting homosexuals" into it is 100% all on you, and is not spinning, twisting or changing anything ... it's fabricating words that aren't there.

If you weren't inferring that homosexuals adopt in order to make baby homosexuals, then your statement about adoption doesn't say anything at all does it?



That is a completely honest and logical assumptionm based on relevant information, common sense, and logical conclusion.

And just a minute ago, you admitted that there wasn't sufficient relevant information on which to base an opinion.



Let's take it a step further:

Do you think children raised in racist household are more likely to be racist than children rased in non-racist household?

Or do you think racists are just "born that way?"

You can't reasonably compare race relations with sexuality.

You know, the same way that you argue discrimination based on race can't be compared to discrimination against homosexuals.

There are a lot of things passed to children by their parents: eating habits, religion, language...sexuality isn't one of them. As I said, the fact that the majority of homosexuals here in the U.S. come from heterosexual, Christian homes points to the lack of any link to a child and parents sexuality.

[SassyLady]

Whether you like it or not, the kids are going to come into contact with homosexual peers or peers who are being raised by a homosexual couple.

Yes they will. However, how does this equate with a cirriculum of teaching about homosexuality?

My kids will go to school with other races, other religions, other ideology. I find it offensive that the government (school board) feels it should indoctrinate my children with their own version ideology without any input in what, when and how they teach it.

[manu1959]

Seems to me that there's a difference between parents interfering in curriculum and making the school enforce its stated policy.

I'm all for intervening to make sure they do what they're supposed to do.

you mean like not teaching gay sex is appropriate behaviour.....but they do any way....how about having pics of clinton up but not bush?....

[SassyLady]

And the chaos resulting from every parent being allowed to have an input into the curriculum would shut down the school.

I don't believe this for a minute. None of the schools I attended growing up were shut down because the parents showed an interest in the cirriculum. And, when my children were growing up none of their schools were shut down due to parental attention to the cirriculum.

What makes you think this would be the situation today?

[Gunny]

If you weren't inferring that homosexuals adopt in order to make baby homosexuals, then your statement about adoption doesn't say anything at all does it?

It says exactly what it says. It makes the point that man circumvents the natural order of true homosexuals dying without reproducing by allowing homosexuals to adopt children. Nothing more or less.



And just a minute ago, you admitted that there wasn't sufficient relevant information on which to base an opinion.

I said "there has not been sufficient time to compile any data that supports or refutes a trend." Nowhere does that say there is no data at all available, nor that one cannot formulate an opinion.

More of your reading what isn't there. Perhaps if you'd spend more time reading what's posted than attempting in vain to make me look dishonest, you might come up with some responses that actually pertain to what I've posted.



You can't reasonably compare race relations with sexuality.

You know, the same way that you argue discrimination based on race can't be compared to discrimination against homosexuals.

There are a lot of things passed to children by their parents: eating habits, religion, language...sexuality isn't one of them. As I said, the fact that the majority of homosexuals here in the U.S. come from heterosexual, Christian homes points to the lack of any link to a child and parents sexuality.

I can compare children being raised in an evironment that supports certain beliefs to children being raised in an environment that supports certain beliefs. If you don't believe children can be brought up to believe they are homosexual the same way children can be brought up to believe they are racist, then it has to be because you just don't want to hear the truth.

You are attempting to defend the indefensible. Simple as that.

[SassyLady]

That's fair. And I certainly understand why you'd want to be active in your child's school. I sit through excrutiatingly boring PA meetings for just that reason. But curriculum is set by the school. I know my son was given at least a couple of books since he started school that I wasn't happy with. I didn't learn that they were doing those books, though, til after the fact.

To me, how a school does relative to the rest of the State in terms of math and reading scores and how well the G&T program is doing are my most important concerns.

My grandchildren are in private schools, with a limited enrollment and the cirriculum is open for input from the parents. If there is enough concern over what will be taught there are meetings to discuss the issues. The parents are also given a heads up when anything new might be covered.

My daughter does not feel that the school system is a substitute parent -- responsible for teaching cultural values........that is her job as a parent and she is responsible for the people her children come into contact with. She listens to her children and when something doesn't sound right she investigates the situation.

Perhaps the government needs to shift their focus on teaching adults how to be better parents so the schools can focus on teaching the basic skills for being a productive individual in society.

[jillian]

you mean like not teaching gay sex is appropriate behaviour.....but they do any way....how about having pics of clinton up but not bush?....

In younger grades, I don't think it's appropriate to deal with things like romantic relationships at all. A child in elementary school should be taught what his/her parents want them to know and that's it. In older grades, changes are that there are going to be gay kids in the class or kids with gay parents. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, per se, to teach tolerance so the gay kids don't get the piss beat out of them. I know my son has known that there are people who like people of the same sex since he was little (and that's all the detail he was given) because we have friends who are gay. Beyond that, he saw two men kiss once and couldn't stop laughing. He just thought it was really weird. It didn't traumatize him or make him think it was something he'd want to do. He just couldn't stop giggling when he saw it. (A reaction that's pretty understandable for a 9 year old).

I think whoever is president gets to have their picture up. One of the perks of the office. Beyond that, I think it's ok for a teacher to put up pictures of the people they admire, within common sense limits.

[SassyLady]

I'm not confusing anything...the thread is about a lawsuit filed by A parent who wants the curriculum changed to his liking. If you let him make a change then you have to let ALL the parents make whatever changes they want.

Well, I sure wished they hadn't let that individual parent in Sacramento, CA file his lawsuit to have the Pledge of Allegiance banned because he was an atheist and didn't want his daughter (who is not an atheist by the way) to have to say the word God.

So, in this respect, you are right. Individuals should not be allowed to bring an individual lawsuit. Perhaps class action is better. That way the school understands what the majority of their base would like to have taught.

[jillian]

My grandchildren are in private schools, with a limited enrollment and the cirriculum is open for input from the parents. If there is enough concern over what will be taught there are meetings to discuss the issues. The parents are also given a heads up when anything new might be covered.

My daughter does not feel that the school system is a substitute parent -- responsible for teaching cultural values........that is her job as a parent and she is responsible for the people her children come into contact with. She listens to her children and when something doesn't sound right she investigates the situation.

Perhaps the government needs to shift their focus on teaching adults how to be better parents so the schools can focus on teaching the basic skills for being a productive individual in society.

There are definitely benefits to private school that one doesn't get from public school. It's a right that comes with paying for school as opposed to using public education.

I don't feel that school is a substitute parent at all. I think parents are largely responsible for teaching things like morality and religion. But there does come an age where children are going to come into contact with certain things, like gay kids or kids with gay parents, and I don't particularly have a problem with those things being discussed as not being deserving of derision.

I also have no problem with parenting skills being taught to people who clearly need it.... as well as programs like Head Start, because that will make their children more productive human beings who do better at the job of getting educated.

[SassyLady]

There are definitely benefits to private school that one doesn't get from public school. It's a right that comes with paying for school as opposed to using public education.

I don't feel that school is a substitute parent at all. I think parents are largely responsible for teaching things like morality and religion. But there does come an age where children are going to come into contact with certain things, like gay kids or kids with gay parents, and I don't particularly have a problem with those things being discussed as not being deserving of derision.

I also have no problem with parenting skills being taught to people who clearly need it.... as well as programs like Head Start, because that will make their children more productive human beings who do better at the job of getting educated.

We agree on something.:scared:

[jillian]

We agree on something.:scared:

Heh! Might happen more than you think. I tend to surprise people occasionally. :2up:

[Birdzeye]

Well, I sure wished they hadn't let that individual parent in Sacramento, CA file his lawsuit to have the Pledge of Allegiance banned because he was an atheist and didn't want his daughter (who is not an atheist by the way) to have to say the word God.

So, in this respect, you are right. Individuals should not be allowed to bring an individual lawsuit. Perhaps class action is better. That way the school understands what the majority of their base would like to have taught.


My cousin, who is a lawyer, once cynically remarked that anybody can sue anybody, anytime, for any reason (or no good reason, for that matter). Sad, huh?

In my county, a few years back, some student got caught cheating on a final exam. The teacher gave him a zero for the exam and flunked him for the course.

The parents sued. They were worried that their little darling would not be able to get into a good college if he had a failing grade on his transcript. Whatever happened to letting kids have to suffer the consequences of their actions?

(The settlement that was reached between the school system and the parents was that the kid got a failing grade for the final but a passing grade for the course.)

[Gunny]

My cousin, who is a lawyer, once cynically remarked that anybody can sue anybody, anytime, for any reason (or no good reason, for that matter). Sad, huh?

In my county, a few years back, some student got caught cheating on a final exam. The teacher gave him a zero for the exam and flunked him for the course.

The parents sued. They were worried that their little darling would not be able to get into a good college if he had a failing grade on his transcript. Whatever happened to letting kids have to suffer the consequences of their actions?

(The settlement that was reached between the school system and the parents was that the kid got a failing grade for the final but a passing grade for the course.)

They don't. The result is an ever-increasing number of people within our society who do not believe they are liable for the consequences of their actions, and continually find some way to bail themselves out.

When those kids turn out to be sociopaths, the first people to deny responsibility is the parents.

[Birdzeye]

They don't. The result is an ever-increasing number of people within our society who do not believe they are liable for the consequences of their actions, and continually find some way to bail themselves out.

When those kids turn out to be sociopaths, the first people to deny responsibility is the parents.

My SIL was a middle school teacher before she retired. She complained about the pressure on her to pass kids who, in her opinion, did not deserve to pass. She had an unlisted phone # to avoid harassing phone calls from irate parents, but she still had to deal with the pressures from "management."

Ironically, I think she was really a good teacher. At least she got my brother very interested in English literature, a subject he could have cared less about before he met her.

[Gunny]

My SIL was a middle school teacher before she retired. She complained about the pressure on her to pass kids who, in her opinion, did not deserve to pass. She had an unlisted phone # to avoid harassing phone calls from irate parents, but she still had to deal with the pressures from "management."

Ironically, I think she was really a good teacher. At least she got my brother very interested in English literature, a subject he could have cared less about before he met her.

Couldn't pay me to be a teacher nowadays. The inmates are allowed to run the asylum.

[Missileman]

It says exactly what it says. It makes the point that man circumvents the natural order of true homosexuals dying without reproducing by allowing homosexuals to adopt children. Nothing more or less.

The only way that a homosexual adoption would circumvent the natural order of dying out would be to produce another homosexual. If a homosexual raises a child who's a heterosexual the homosexual isn't reproducing, right?



[COLOR="olive"]
I said "there has not been sufficient time to compile any data that supports or refutes a trend." Nowhere does that say there is no data at all available, nor that one cannot formulate an opinion.

Ahh, okay then, how about providing the data on which you are basing your opinion as I asked in the first place.



[COLOR="olive"]
I can compare children being raised in an evironment that supports certain beliefs to children being raised in an environment that supports certain beliefs. If you don't believe children can be brought up to believe they are homosexual the same way children can be brought up to believe they are racist, then it has to be because you just don't want to hear the truth.

You are attempting to defend the indefensible. Simple as that.

And you continue to ignore the fact that the majority of homosexuals WERE brought up to believe homosexuality is immoral and unacceptable. That fact invalidates your comparison and your adoptive parent hypothesis.

[Missileman]

I don't believe this for a minute. None of the schools I attended growing up were shut down because the parents showed an interest in the cirriculum. And, when my children were growing up none of their schools were shut down due to parental attention to the cirriculum.

What makes you think this would be the situation today?

I'm not talking about a parent having an opinion about what things are included in the curriculum, they are entitled to one. I'm talking about one parent trying to dictate the content as in the law suit, and the resulting stream of other parents who would want the same ability to dictate what to include or exclude in the curriculum.

[Gunny]

The only way that a homosexual adoption would circumvent the natural order of dying out would be to produce another homosexual. If a homosexual raises a child who's a heterosexual the homosexual isn't reproducing, right?

The fact remains, the homosexual is raising a child.



Ahh, okay then, how about providing the data on which you are basing your opinion as I asked in the first place.

I'm begining to wonder what drugs you're on today. Since I have made no definitive statement based on any data, you can do your own homework. The only "data" I used to come to my logical conclusion was the simple math that led to it with the ingredients already listed more than two or three times.

And you continue to ignore the fact that the majority of homosexuals WERE brought up to believe homosexuality is immoral and unacceptable. That fact invalidates your comparison and your adoptive parent hypothesis.

You don't know what the majority of homosexuals were brought up to believe, yet you post it as fact. That's not to mention that what current homosexuals were brought up to believe has absolutely nothing to do with my comparison, and hardly invalidates it.

All you have proven so far is that you are unwilling to see anything that doesn't agree with your pro-homo stance, and because you say so doesn't refute a thing.

[Birdzeye]

Couldn't pay me to be a teacher nowadays. The inmates are allowed to run the asylum.

Years ago, when I was in a job as a lab tech in a medical research lab and hating it, I was considering a career change. One of the options I was considering was becoming a science teacher.

My SIL threatened to have me comitted.

[Missileman]

The fact remains, the homosexual is raising a child.

If the child turns out to be heterosexual and isn't genetically related to the parent, how does that circumvent nature?



Since I have made no definitive statement based on any data, you can do your own homework. The only "data" I used to come to my logical conclusion was the simple math that led to it with the ingredients already listed more than two or three times.

And we FINALLY get to the point. Your statements weren't based on any data at all...merely formed from bias and fallacy.


You don't know what the majority of homosexuals were brought up to believe, yet you post it as fact.

As it is so often thrown around on this board that 90% of the U.S. is Christian, it only stands to reason that most homosexuals were raised in a Christian household. Since at least 95% of the population is heterosexual, it also stands to reason that most homosexuals were raised in a heterosexual household. Being a big fan of common sense, I'm sure you can appreciate those two statements.


That's not to mention that what current homosexuals were brought up to believe has absolutely nothing to do with my comparison, and hardly invalidates it.

On the contrary, the environment that current homosexuals were raised in is relevant, but in typical anti-homosexual fashion, you arbitrarily discard information that contradicts your prejudice.

[Gunny]

If the child turns out to be heterosexual and isn't genetically related to the parent, how does that circumvent nature?

The homosexual raising the child circumvents nature, not the child's sexual orientation.



And we FINALLY get to the point. Your statements weren't based on any data at all...merely formed from bias and fallacy.

Umm .... no. No bias nor fallacy. As I've stated ad nauseum, just logic and common sense. Something you have chosen to ignore since it doesn't support your stance.

Bottom line: your argument sucks, and you're arguing just to be doing so, and doing a rather piss-poor job of it.



As it is so often thrown around on this board that 90% of the U.S. is Christian, it only stands to reason that most homosexuals were raised in a Christian household. Since at least 95% of the population is heterosexual, it also stands to reason that most homosexuals were raised in a heterosexual household. Being a big fan of common sense, I'm sure you can appreciate those two statements.

No. Playing your game, they're just assumptions on your part.


On the contrary, the environment that current homosexuals were raised in is relevant, but in typical anti-homosexual fashion, you arbitrarily discard information that contradicts your prejudice.

The evironment in which current homsexuals are raised is irrelevant, but in typical pro-homo fashion, you arbitrarily discard information that contradicts your prejudice.

[Missileman]

The homosexual raising the child circumvents nature, not the child's sexual orientation.

I'm talking about circumventing nature in the context of dying out which is the context you presented it in.



No. Playing your game, they're just assumptions on your part.

They are assumptions based upon facts unlike yours which are based not only on nothing at all but are in contradiction to existing facts.



The evironment in which current homsexuals are raised is irrelevant, but in typical pro-homo fashion, you arbitrarily discard information that contradicts your prejudice.

Unlike yourself, I can (and have) actually provide the information that you arbitrarily discard.

[Gunny]

I'm talking about circumventing nature in the context of dying out which is the context you presented it in.

Guess you should have asked instead of attacking, huh?

They are assumptions based upon facts unlike yours which are based not only on nothing at all but are in contradiction to existing facts.

What facts? I have seen no facts presented by you.

My argument is based on logic; which, you keep trying to deny. Go for it dude. You're making yourself look close-minded and one-sided, and not harming me in the slightest.

Unlike yourself, I can (and have) actually provide the information that you arbitrarily discard.

I provide whatever information I say I can. I just don't play your little bullshit games about it, denying the obvious to suit an agenda, then turning around and claiming my hearsay to be fact. I have repeatedly validated my conclusion as being based on logic and common sense. Simple as that. You turn around and dishonestly demand some evidence, which you know full-well doesn't exist since same-sex couples adopting hasn't been going on long enough for their to be any evidence compiled.

And if you are going to deny that homosexuals can be a result of an environment, then you're just as narrow-minded as you present yourself to be.

[Missileman]

Guess you should have asked instead of attacking, huh?

I've been asking the question for several posts...you keep answering out of context. Now that you understand the question, what's your answer?


What facts? I have seen no facts presented by you.

It is a fact that 90% of the U.S. is Christian. It is a fact that at least 95% of the population is heterosexual. It is a fact that the majority of current homosexuals must have come from heterosexual, Christian households, there's simply no other place they could have.

Let's hear your facts.



My argument is based on logic; which, you keep trying to deny. Go for it dude. You're making yourself look close-minded and one-sided, and not harming me in the slightest.

You can call it logic until you're blue in the face, it's anything but.



I provide whatever information I say I can. I just don't play your little bullshit games about it, denying the obvious to suit an agenda, then turning around and claiming my hearsay to be fact. I have repeatedly validated my conclusion as being based on logic and common sense. Simple as that. You turn around and dishonestly demand some evidence, which you know full-well doesn't exist since same-sex couples adopting hasn't been going on long enough for their to be any evidence compiled.

I'm being dishonest for asking you to justify your statements with some actual evidence? You're fucking kidding, right?


And if you are going to deny that homosexuals can be a result of an environment, then you're just as narrow-minded as you present yourself to be.

I suppose there's no point in asking you to provide any evidence to back up this statement either, right? I mean I'll admit it's possible, but since they've not figured out what causes it, and given the facts I posted above, environment doesn't seem to be a likely candidate.

[Gunny]

I've been asking the question for several posts...you keep answering out of context. Now that you understand the question, what's your answer?

I answered you. More than once. Don't blame me because you decided to presume what I meant. Try scolling back a few posts.

It is a fact that 90% of the U.S. is Christian. It is a fact that at least 95% of the population is heterosexual. It is a fact that the majority of current homosexuals must have come from heterosexual, Christian households, there's simply no other place they could have.

If in total they represent 5% of the population or less, they could easily have come from homosexual parents, either ones "living the lie" or single-parent homosexual households. They could come from orphanages.

The fact is, you are guessing and don't relly know for a fact WHERE they come from. Are you going to try and tell me you came to a logical conclusion? Guess this is where I should act like you and pretend you have no possibility of being right since no factual evidence supports your theory.

Let's hear your facts.



You can call it logic until you're blue in the face, it's anything but.

It's completely logical. Just doesn't suit your stance. Live in denial. I'll get over it.


I'm being dishonest for asking you to justify your statements with some actual evidence? You're fucking kidding, right?

Let's put this in true context ... you aren't asking me to justify my statements with some actual evidence. You are demanding evidence you KNOW does not yet exist. So yeah, I'd call that dishonest.


I suppose there's no point in asking you to provide any evidence to back up this statement either, right? I mean I'll admit it's possible, but since they've not figured out what causes it, and given the facts I posted above, environment doesn't seem to be a likely candidate.

One, you have posted no facts as of yet. Just your assumptions. Two, I presented the statement as a theory, not a fact. You seem to have a REAL problem with differentiating between the two. Lord knows you can't differentiate between YOUR opinion and fact.

Don't presume to attribute your weaknesses to me.

[Missileman]

I answered you. More than once. Don't blame me because you decided to presume what I meant. Try scolling back a few posts.

Not one of your answers that you've given has a thing to do with circumventing dying out, the original context of your statement.



If in total they represent 5% of the population or less, they could easily have come from homosexual parents, either ones "living the lie" or single-parent homosexual households. They could come from orphanages.

Well, let's examine your answer. Households where one of the parents is "living a lie" would appear to be a heterosexual environment right? We can toss that one out. In 2000, there were approximately 12 million single parents in the U.S. I couldn't find much on orphanages, but one link I found placed the number of children in orphanages in the late 90's at around 100,000.

With the population being 300 million, 5% comes out to 15 million. Even if I make the ridiculous concession that every single parent is a homosexual, and that every single child in an orphanage is a homosexual, that leaves millions unaccounted for.

I suppose you'll now argue that claiming all 12 million single parents are homosexual is logical. :rolleyes:

[Gunny]

Not one of your answers that you've given has a thing to do with circumventing dying out, the original context of your statement.

Hell-o-o-o-o .... How many times do I have to tell you that you have read more into the statement than I wrote? Tyr to read this with your plain, simple English glasses on: True homosexuals in nature die out without reproducing. Only Man circumvents this by allowing homosexuals to adopt children.

Thus, one can conclude that my point is that nature does not allow homosexuals to have children, while man does. That's a fact, and there's nothing more to it than THAT.

I didn't say a damn thing in my initial statement, or the mirror statement/explanation of this one that you didn't seem to get, in regard to the gender preference of the children being raised by homosexuals. YOU did. YOU assumed. Simple as that.


Well, let's examine your answer. Households where one of the parents is "living a lie" would appear to be a heterosexual environment right? We can toss that one out. In 2000, there were approximately 12 million single parents in the U.S. I couldn't find much on orphanages, but one link I found placed the number of children in orphanages in the late 90's at around 100,000.

With the population being 300 million, 5% comes out to 15 million. Even if I make the ridiculous concession that every single parent is a homosexual, and that every single child in an orphanage is a homosexual, that leaves millions unaccounted for.

I suppose you'll now argue that claiming all 12 million single parents are homosexual is logical. :rolleyes:

Can you ever read what is written without assuming WAY more than is there? Just shake your head and say "No I can't."

I simply offered examples that showed that heterosexual, Christian parents are not the only players in the game; which, is what you have been trying to claim.

I'm not the one sitting here pretending I know where homosexuals come from, nor who has them. YOU are. In each case, I have merely offered a theory based on logical conclusion; which, you refuse to acknowledge simply because they do not suit your argument.

When I start acting like you and making absolute statements based on opinion, THEN you will have every right to bitch. As long as I qualify a theory or opinion as just that, then you have NO right to twist my words nor add meanings to them that you have assumed.

Really, dude, you used to be at least somehwat reasonable to debate with.

[Missileman]

Hell-o-o-o-o .... How many times do I have to tell you that you have read more into the statement than I wrote? Tyr to read this with your plain, simple English glasses on: True homosexuals in nature die out without reproducing. Only Man circumvents this by allowing homosexuals to adopt children.

Thus, one can conclude that my point is that nature does not allow homosexuals to have children, while man does. That's a fact, and there's nothing more to it than THAT.

I didn't say a damn thing in my initial statement, or the mirror statement/explanation of this one that you didn't seem to get, in regard to the gender preference of the children being raised by homosexuals. YOU did. YOU assumed. Simple as that.

Uh, HELLLOOOO back at ya...you still haven't explained how adoption is allowing a homosexual to reproduce if the adopted kid turns out to be heterosexual. Last time I checked, reproducing requires passing something on to your progeny.



Can you ever read what is written without assuming WAY more than is there? Just shake your head and say "No I can't."

I simply offered examples that showed that heterosexual, Christian parents are not the only players in the game; which, is what you have been trying to claim.

I've claimed nothing of the sort, only that due to the demographics of the U.S., unless spaceships are dropping them out of the sky, the majority of homosexuals must come from heterosexual, Christian homes.

[CockySOB]

I've claimed nothing of the sort, only that due to the demographics of the U.S., unless spaceships are dropping them out of the sky, the majority of homosexuals must come from heterosexual, Christian homes.
I'd be interested in how you figure that majority statistic. The heterosexual part is sustainable, but not the Christian part, IMHO.

[Gunny]

Uh, HELLLOOOO back at ya...you still haven't explained how adoption is allowing a homosexual to reproduce if the adopted kid turns out to be heterosexual. Last time I checked, reproducing requires passing something on to your progeny.

Probably becaause I didn't say adoption allows homosexuals to reproduce. It allows them to raise children.


I've claimed nothing of the sort, only that due to the demographics of the U.S., unless spaceships are dropping them out of the sky, the majority of homosexuals must come from heterosexual, Christian homes.

Whatever, dude. What keeps going over your head is that it is irrelevant. You are attempting to use a comparison when there is nothing to compare to. Homosexuals pretty-much had no choice but come from heterosexual households until the advent of artificial insemination and/or gay adoption and/or gay legal gay households. A legitimate comparison only begins by adding ALL demographs and using REAL numbers.

[Missileman]

I'd be interested in how you figure that majority statistic. The heterosexual part is sustainable, but not the Christian part, IMHO.

Every time the subject of morality comes up, all I ever hear is that the U.S. is 90% Christian...I've never researched it, but took it on face value. It seems a reasonable estimate to me. Maybe it's 90% Judeo-Christian and I need to reword my statement accordingly. That alteration has no affect on my point.

[CockySOB]

Every time the subject of morality comes up, all I ever hear is that the U.S. is 90% Christian...I've never researched it, but took it on face value. It seems a reasonable estimate to me. Maybe it's 90% Judeo-Christian and I need to reword my statement accordingly. That alteration has no affect on my point.

Ah. Based on that I can understand what you're getting at. No problem. Personally I'd figure the US demographic to be closer to maybe 80% Judeo-Christian, but like yourself, I haven't felt the need to research the exact numbers.

[Missileman]

Probably becaause I didn't say adoption allows homosexuals to reproduce. It allows them to raise children.

You didn't huh?



True homosexuals in nature die out without reproducing. Only Man circumvents this by allowing homosexuals to adopt children.



Whatever, dude. What keeps going over your head is that it is irrelevant. You are attempting to use a comparison when there is nothing to compare to. Homosexuals pretty-much had no choice but come from heterosexual households until the advent of artificial insemination and/or gay adoption and/or gay legal gay households. A legitimate comparison only begins by adding ALL demographs and using REAL numbers.[/COLOR]

And with all these homosexuals over the course of history coming from heterosexual homes, you still want to oppose my argument that environmental factors seems to be an unlikely, negligible at best, contributor to homosexuality?