Two Lesbians Raised A Baby And This Is What They Got

[-Cp]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/A3YSfNKSwFk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[KarlMarx]

Here's the problem. Sure, there are cases where gay couples raise good kids but is it the norm? That is the question. I'm sure you can find kids raised by alcoholic parents that are just as well adjusted and articulate as this young man.

Also, many of us believe that marriage is an institution started by God and we believe that the Bible is the word of God. What you're expecting us to say is "nevermind all of that stuff in the Bible is OK, but doesn't apply here"... .sorry, ain't going to happen.

[Noir]

Here's the problem. Sure, there are cases where gay couples raise good kids but is it the norm? That is the question. I'm sure you can find kids raised by alcoholic parents that are just as well adjusted and articulate as this young man.

Also, many of us believe that marriage is an institution started by God and we believe that the Bible is the word of God. What you're expecting us to say is "nevermind all of that stuff in the Bible is OK, but doesn't apply here"... .sorry, ain't going to happen.

While that's somewhat true, the are broader studies on single sex house holds show interesting stats.

Such as 0% abuse in lesbian households, and only 2.8% of those raised as having homosexual tendencies.


Los Angeles, CA -- The Williams Institute, a research center on sexual orientation law and public policy at UCLA School of Law, has announced new findings from the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), the longest-running study ever conducted on American lesbian families (now in its 24th year). In an article published today in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, the 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were asked about sexual abuse, sexual orientation, and sexual behavior.
The paper found that none of the 78 NLLFS adolescents reports having ever been physically or sexually abused by a parent or other caregiver. This contrasts with 26 percent of American adolescents who report parent or caregiver physical abuse and 8.3 percent who report sexual abuse.
According to the authors, "the absence of child abuse in lesbian mother families is particularly noteworthy, because victimization of children is pervasive and its consequences can be devastating. To the extent that our findings are replicated by other researchers, these reports from adolescents with lesbian mothers have implications for healthcare professionals, policymakers, social service agencies, and child protection experts who seek family models in which violence does not occur."
On sexual orientation, 2.8 percent of the NLLFS adolescents identified as predominantly to exclusively homosexual.

[Noir]

Regarding the above, I think a key factor is that gays can never have children by mistake, or when they dont want them. They have to want to want them, and then prove to others that they are ready etc.

Whereas hetros can get preggers at 16 or try and hold a failing relationship together by having a baby or (lord help me for saying it but it's true) having a baby for the welfare benifits...

[jimnyc]

I can post story after story where kids were raised by queer parents and turned out fucked up. Or the parents ended up fucked up. Or worse.

Sorry, but one video doesn't "prove" anything. Each case is different. And it hardly means jack shit on the grand scale of things, and certainly doesn't make anything right. I'm confident you can find 2 homeless junkies who can raise a child with love, and the child can turn out just fine. Doesn't mean it's a good idea or something we should allow as a "normal" part of society.

[Noir]

I can post story after story where kids were raised by queer parents and turned out fucked up. Or the parents ended up fucked up. Or worse.

Sorry, but one video doesn't "prove" anything. Each case is different. And it hardly means jack shit on the grand scale of things, and certainly doesn't make anything right. I'm confident you can find 2 homeless junkies who can raise a child with love, and the child can turn out just fine. Doesn't mean it's a good idea or something we should allow as a "normal" part of society.

True, one video shows nothing really, could be the single exception. Longitudinal studies that have been running near twenty years on the other hand...

[jimnyc]

True, one video shows nothing really, could be the single exception. Longitudinal studies that have been running near twenty years on the other hand...

There are studies that will show no adverse effects to queers or "their" children after many years. There are studies that will show the opposite. Basically, I'm just saying that this one video is a non-story, 'cept to those who would have a political agenda and would want to say "Oooh Oooh, look, see, queers can do....".

[Missileman]

I can post story after story where kids were raised by queer parents and turned out fucked up. Or the parents ended up fucked up. Or worse.

Not to mention the exponentially larger number of stories where kids were raised by straight parents and turned out fucked up.

A lot of the result depends on the kid too. Sometimes bad parents can turn out good kids and vice versa.

[revelarts]

One comment,
the ends doesn't justify the means.

[jimnyc]

Not to mention the exponentially larger number of stories where kids were raised by straight parents and turned out fucked up.

A lot of the result depends on the kid too. Sometimes bad parents can turn out good kids and vice versa.

Of course it would be larger with straight parents, as there are exponentially larger amount that are in fact parents to begin with. I don't think anyone here stated that issues were limited to one another.

[Noir]

Of course it would be larger with straight parents, as there are exponentially larger amount that are in fact parents to begin with. I don't think anyone here stated that issues were limited to one another.

That's why study's report their finding as percentages. Making the actual real numbers irrelevant. As percentages are comparable and not distorted by the fact that one type of household greatly outnumbers the other

[fj1200]

Doesn't mean it's a good idea or something we should allow as a "normal" part of society.

It isn't a matter of "allowing" as it happens already. There is zero opportunity to keep a lesbian couple from getting pregnant and likely zero from allowing a gay/lesbian couple from adopting overseas (I don't know all the adoption rules but it clearly happens). The only government issue at this point, that I can see, is state-sponsored adoption and whether gay couples raising kids is better than the foster system.


One comment,
the ends doesn't justify the means.

What "ends," What "means"?

[Noir]

What "ends," What "means"?

Why only the end of Western Civilisation as we know is it. This new society will be a godless one, but under sharia law. Heterosexuality will be outlawed, punishable by death by either stoning Or by having other hetrosexuals thrown at you until you both die. And the only private enterprise allowed is that of the porn industry (though it is heavily regulated) for example movies may only ever be filmed in see-though tents that are camped in the mainstreet of each city, and police will be on hand to provide that all regulations are followed and to join in should the director require it...

[CSM]

Why only the end of Western Civilisation as we know is it. This new society will be a godless one, but under sharia law. Heterosexuality will be outlawed, punishable by death by either stoning Or by having other hetrosexuals thrown at you until you both die. And the only private enterprise allowed is that of the porn industry (though it is heavily regulated) for example movies may only ever be filmed in see-though tents that are camped in the mainstreet of each city, and police will be on hand to provide that all regulations are followed and to join in should the director require it...

Hey, is that sarcasm?

[jimnyc]

Why only the end of Western Civilisation as we know is it. This new society will be a godless one, but under sharia law. Heterosexuality will be outlawed, punishable by death by either stoning Or by having other hetrosexuals thrown at you until you both die. And the only private enterprise allowed is that of the porn industry (though it is heavily regulated) for example movies may only ever be filmed in see-though tents that are camped in the mainstreet of each city, and police will be on hand to provide that all regulations are followed and to join in should the director require it...

Or worse, society will have things thrust upon it by the strength of the minority, and that minority will be lead by activist judges and circuit court of appeals ran by judges that are nuttier than a Jimmy Carter plantation.

[jimnyc]

Hey, is that sarcasm?

Them their foreigners are always sarcastic! And watch out he don't call you the "C" word. I saw a British comedian laughing about this recently, and talking about people he knows and every other one of them was a "C". But don't use the word in front of a woman even once in the US or all hell breaks loose! LOL

/back on topic

[CSM]

According to the article "78 adolescents" compared to a result of "26%" ... maybe I am reading it wrong but that implies the sample base is drastically smaller on one side of the study. Something doesn't look right here. All other figures are in percentages; why not the number of lesbian raised adolescents?

[Noir]

Or worse, society will have things thrust upon it by the strength of the minority, and that minority will be lead by activist judges and circuit court of appeals ran by judges that are nuttier than a Jimmy Carter plantation.

Exactly! It'll be like when niggers got the right to vote all over again! 'Societys moving forward' they said, 'bollocks' I said.

[CSM]

Additionally, I bet a nickel to a donut I can find 78 adolescents raised by homosexual couples that ALL were abused or now have homosexual tendencies. Something just smells about this study.

[jimnyc]

Exactly! It'll be like when niggers got the right to vote all over again! 'Societys moving forward' they said, 'bollocks' I said.

You mean the people who were born a certain color and had no choice? Hmmmm.... Now show me where the queers had no choice...

[Noir]

Them their foreigners are always sarcastic! And watch out he don't call you the "C" word. I saw a British comedian laughing about this recently, and talking about people he knows and every other one of them was a "C". But don't use the word in front of a woman even once in the US or all hell breaks loose! LOL

/back on topic

Reminds me of RD Hunter, the comedian who was talking about the differences in Britian and America, and about how we are rude about everyone and take the piss out of everyone and part of it went something like 'I've actually been introduced to new people by someone going "hey Reg, this is my mate Barry, bit of a twat" and thats how you talk about your friends!' lol

[Noir]

You mean the people who were born a certain color and had no choice? Hmmmm.... Now show me where the queers had no choice...

I know it's rude to answer a question with a question but I know you already know my answer, so if I may ask -
So if indeed a 'gay gene' is found you'd grant them total equality?

Also, I have a thread on this kinda issue, ie a gay gene, that I'll be posting soon...

[jimnyc]

Reminds me of RD Hunter, the comedian who was talking about the differences in Britian and America, and about how we are rude about everyone and take the poss out of everyone and part of it went something like 'I've actually been introduced to new people by someone going "hey Reg, this is my mate Barry, bit of a twat" and thats how you talk about your friends!' lol

I think the one I saw was Peter Kay, but I'm not 100% sure. Funny bastard though!

[jimnyc]

I know it's rude to answer a question with a question but I know you already know my answer, so if I may ask -
So if indeed a 'gay gene' is found you'd grant them total equality?

Also, I have a thread on this kinda issue, ie a gay gene, that I'll be posting soon...

Know before you post it, I've seen them all. No "real" peer reviewed and scientifically agreed upon gene has ever been found, only by a handful of "scientists" with agendas or non agreed upon analysis.

And no, if a gay gene was found, I would say that doctors would then have a beginning point for a cure.

[Abbey Marie]

I know it's rude to answer a question with a question but I know you already know my answer, so if I may ask -
So if indeed a 'gay gene' is found you'd grant them total equality?

Also, I have a thread on this kinda issue, ie a gay gene, that I'll be posting soon...

I suppose they could receive some sort of gene therapy, just as would happen with any other genetic aberration.

[Noir]

I suppose they could receive some sort of gene therapy, just as would happen with any other genetic aberration.

Would this be taxpayer funded?

[ConHog]

Additionally, I bet a nickel to a donut I can find 78 adolescents raised by homosexual couples that ALL were abused or now have homosexual tendencies. Something just smells about this study.

Any study that conclusively says that something is ALWAYS the case for one group or another is a fucked up study.

Fact is, no study will ever prove that being gay is automatically good or bad when it comes to parenting. I'm convinced that some gays would make good parents, I'm also convinced that many heteros are TERRIBLE parents.

An additional fact is that no amount of studies that claim that gays can be good parents is going to convince me that being gay is natural. I'm sure I don't stand alone there.

[CSM]

Any study that conclusively says that something is ALWAYS the case for one group or another is a fucked up study.

Fact is, no study will ever prove that being gay is automatically good or bad when it comes to parenting. I'm convinced that some gays would make good parents, I'm also convinced that many heteros are TERRIBLE parents.

An additional fact is that no amount of studies that claim that gays can be good parents is going to convince me that being gay is natural. I'm sure I don't stand alone there.

Obviously, if being gay was "natural" as opposed to being heterosexual, there would be far, far less people on the planet.

[ConHog]

Obviously, if being gay was "natural" as opposed to being heterosexual, there would be far, far less people on the planet.

If it were natural, that would mean there was a gay gene and eventually that gene would die out since they can't breed.

[fj1200]

Hey, is that sarcasm?

It was more satire. Not bad at that either.

[revelarts]

"ends" = decent healthy young adults
"mean" = Homosexaul unions/marriage/shacking up/living together as Mom&Mom - dad&dad

good ends, bad means
clear enough?



Noir I remember YEEEEEARS ago when people were promoting sex ed in schools they said it WOULD DECREASE promiscuity, STDs and Illegit births. and Some CRAZY Christians disagreed and added that it would help lead to more Promiscuity and the the schools would end giving out condoms and Birth control meds in school. the LEFT LAUGHED and laughed at those CRAZY OLD Christians right farts , HAR HAR HAR...

well here we are. It's worse than imagined, now they not only want us to "accept" loose hetro morals but embrace and promote homo activity and marriage no less. If that's not a slippery slope i don't know what is.

[Noir]

I think the one I saw was Peter Kay, but I'm not 100% sure. Funny bastard though!

Peter Kay wouldn't say ****, it'd be more a Frankie Boyle / Jimmy Carr / Russell Brand / Noel Fielding / Tim Minchen thing to say. All of which are excellent comics.
and one of my fav american comedians, George Carlin, wouldn't shy away from it...

[fj1200]

"ends" = decent healthy young adults
"mean" = Homosexaul unions/marriage/shacking up/living together as Mom&Mom - dad&dad

good ends, bad means
clear enough?

Your opinion was never in doubt really.

[Noir]

Noir I remember YEEEEEARS ago when people were promoting sex ed in schools they said it WOULD DECREASE promiscuity, STDs and Illegit births. and Some CRAZY Christians disagreed and added that it would help lead to more Promiscuity and the the schools would end giving out condoms and Birth control meds in school. the LEFT LAUGHED and laughed at those CRAZY OLD Christians right farts , HAR HAR HAR...

well here we are. It's worse than imagined, now they not only want us "accept" loose hetro morals but embrace and promote homo activity and marriage no less. If that's not a slippery slope i don't know what is.

So you think if it wasn't for sex ed in schools people wouldn't be as promiscuous?

TBH most of the people who i knew who were getting preggers when i was 15/16/17 were the ones that had dropped out of school.

I'd say other factors are much more important than learning how to put a condom on in classes and what an STD was. Mainly relating to television and magazine outlets.

Magazines especially, i use to flick through my gfs 'womans mags' half in horror (so sheltered i was lol) every other page was 'how to get a better orgasm' '50 ways to turn on your man' 'is your man meeting your needs' etc. I swear what those girls are getting pumped into them (unfortunate term of words i know) is boggling.

[logroller]

So you think if it wasn't for sex ed in schools people wouldn't be as promiscuous?

TBH most of the people who i knew who were getting preggers when i was 15/16/17 were the ones that had dropped out of school.

I'd say other factors are much more important than learning how to put a condom on in classes and what an STD was. Mainly relating to television and magazine outlets.

Magazines especially, i use to flick through my gfs 'womans mags' half in horror (so sheltered i was lol) every other page was 'how to get a better orgasm' '50 ways to turn on your man' 'is your man meeting your needs' etc. I swear what those girls are getting pumped into them (unfortunate term of words i know) is boggling.

Maybe they just buy for the pictures.:laugh:

[logroller]

Here's the problem. Sure, there are cases where gay couples raise good kids but is it the norm? That is the question. I'm sure you can find kids raised by alcoholic parents that are just as well adjusted and articulate as this young man.

Also, many of us believe that marriage is an institution started by God and we believe that the Bible is the word of God. What you're expecting us to say is "nevermind all of that stuff in the Bible is OK, but doesn't apply here"... .sorry, ain't going to happen.

Where is 'here'? Society in general, or codified in the law? Do you think govt is justified in codifying morality? Talk about a slippery slope.

[revelarts]

So you think if it wasn't for sex ed in schools people wouldn't be as promiscuous?

TBH most of the people who i knew who were getting preggers when i was 15/16/17 were the ones that had dropped out of school.

I'd say other factors are much more important than learning how to put a condom on in classes and what an STD was. Mainly relating to television and magazine outlets.

Magazines especially, i use to flick through my gfs 'womans mags' half in horror (so sheltered i was lol) every other page was 'how to get a better orgasm' '50 ways to turn on your man' 'is your man meeting your needs' etc. I swear what those girls are getting pumped into them (unfortunate term of words i know) is boggling.
Sure, the whole culture's been going in that direction for a long time but instead of fighting against the tide the schools decided to flow with it, adding (at the very least tacit) legitimacy to school age sexually activity.

[Noir]

Sure, the whole culture's been going in that direction for a long time but instead of fighting against the tide the schools decided to flow with it, adding (at the very least tacit) legitimacy to school age sexually activity.

So you would rather people went through school not learning about STIs, STDs and methods for pregnancy prevention?

[jimnyc]

So you would rather people went through school not learning about STIs, STDs and methods for pregnancy prevention?

I'm not sure if it's caused problems, and if so, how much - but I think all things sexual should be taught to children by their parents, not by schools.

[Noir]

I'm not sure if it's caused problems, and if so, how much - but I think all things sexual should be taught to children by their parents, not by schools.

If you'd rather.
Personally I'd rather learn about diseases and infections etc from a Biology teacher.

[jimnyc]

If you'd rather.
Personally I'd rather learn about diseases and infections etc from a Biology teacher.

Well, as it is, at least here in the US, biology teachers do no such thing. This is taught in school by a "health" teacher, simply by explaining what it is and how its caught. A parent can do the exact same thing, when they feel its appropriate, not the school.

Of course biology does teach diseases and infections, just not sexual.

[Noir]

Well, as it is, at least here in the US, biology teachers do no such thing. This is taught in school by a "health" teacher, simply by explaining what it is and how its caught. A parent can do the exact same thing, when they feel its appropriate, not the school.

Of course biology does teach diseases and infections, just not sexual.

Oh i sees, over here basically all of year 10 (third year in high school for you guys) Biology classes are dedicated to sexual reproduction, half the year in plants, half the year in animals. And within animals we're taught (and tested) on STDs/STIs, how you catch them, what the warning signs are to suggest you have one, and child birth (which is concluded by watching a real child birth which is wonderfully disgusting) plus other things like testicular/breast/cervical cancer, arguments for/against breast feeding etc.

[jimnyc]

Oh i sees, over here basically all of year 10 (third year in high school for you guys) Biology classes are dedicated to sexual reproduction, half the year in plants, half the year in animals. And within animals we're taught (and tested) on STDs/STIs, how you catch them, what the warning signs are to suggest you have one, and child birth (which is concluded by watching a real child birth which is wonderfully disgusting) plus other things like testicular/breast/cervical cancer, arguments for/against breast feeding etc.

I'm speaking strictly about humans, and STD's and pretty much everything sexual/ Animals and plants of course might be discussed elsewhere. But the "touchy" subjects were all handled in a health class, or sexual education, totally separate from biology. It's just my opinion, that sexual education (birds and bees crap) are better left for the parents. Or at the very least, parents should be able to opt their children out so that the sex ed classes aren't mandatory.

[Missileman]

I'm speaking strictly about humans, and STD's and pretty much everything sexual/ Animals and plants of course might be discussed elsewhere. But the "touchy" subjects were all handled in a health class, or sexual education, totally separate from biology. It's just my opinion, that sexual education (birds and bees crap) are better left for the parents. Or at the very least, parents should be able to opt their children out so that the sex ed classes aren't mandatory.

That leaves young ladies succeptible to age old sex myths like "you can't get pregnant the first time". At a certain point, no matter what, young people ARE going to get curious about the standard equipment. I say it's better that they are aware of the consequences of use and have a shot at avoiding the negative.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm speaking strictly about humans, and STD's and pretty much everything sexual/ Animals and plants of course might be discussed elsewhere. But the "touchy" subjects were all handled in a health class, or sexual education, totally separate from biology. It's just my opinion, that sexual education (birds and bees crap) are better left for the parents. Or at the very least, parents should be able to opt their children out so that the sex ed classes aren't mandatory.

I've always thought this was an infringement of parents' rights. And you can't win.
If you even are allowed to opt out, your child is probably looked at as weird for having done so. Your best bet, IMO, is to teach your child what you believe to be right from wrong, and LIVE it yourselves. Kind of a "Moral Condom" for them, so to speak.
:coffee:

[jimnyc]

That leaves young ladies succeptible to age old sex myths like "you can't get pregnant the first time". At a certain point, no matter what, young people ARE going to get curious about the standard equipment. I say it's better that they are aware of the consequences of use and have a shot at avoiding the negative.

I'm not saying DON'T teach them, just saying I think it's the job of a parent, not a school. The children will learn mostly the same thing around the same times - only from a different source.

[Noir]

I've always thought this was an infringement of parents' rights. And you can't win.
If you even are allowed to opt out, your child is probably looked at as weird for having done so. Your best bet, IMO, is to teach your child what you believe to be right from wrong, and LIVE it yourselves. Kind of a "Moral Condom" for them, so to speak.
:coffee:

Out of wondering, what is taught in schools sex Ed that you don't want taught to your child? Maybe the American way is quite a bit difference to the British one but I can't think of anything objectional in ours.

(unless someone was like 'I don't want my child to see what a man/woman's genitals look like etc)

[jimnyc]

Out of wondering, what is taught in schools sex Ed that you don't want taught to your child? Maybe the American way is quite a bit difference to the British one but I can't think of anything objectional in ours.

(unless someone was like 'I don't want my child to see what a man/woman's genitals look like etc)

It's not that the content is objectionable, it's just not their job, at least in MY opinion. Parents have been responsible for teaching their children about "the birds and the bees" since the beginning of time, and it should have remained so. Sexual education was not always a class taught in school.

[Noir]

It's not that the content is objectionable, it's just not their job, at least in MY opinion. Parents have been responsible for teaching their children about "the birds and the bees" since the beginning of time, and it should have remained so. Sexual education was not always a class taught in school.

Was it in place when you were at school? If not how did you're parents Go about teaching you the sti/std etc?

[jimnyc]

Was it in place when you were at school? If not how did you're parents Go about teaching you the sti/std etc?

Yes, they did, when I was in 7th grade. I had already been aware of everything from parenting, and asking questions of my parents. I'd feel much more comfortable asking my parents, as opposed to asking a teacher in front of a classroom.

[Abbey Marie]

Yes, they did, when I was in 7th grade. I had already been aware of everything from parenting, and asking questions of my parents. I'd feel much more comfortable asking my parents, as opposed to asking a teacher in front of a classroom.

I think it's the co-ed thing that really makes kids squirm.

[DragonStryk72]

Here's the problem. Sure, there are cases where gay couples raise good kids but is it the norm? That is the question. I'm sure you can find kids raised by alcoholic parents that are just as well adjusted and articulate as this young man.

Also, many of us believe that marriage is an institution started by God and we believe that the Bible is the word of God. What you're expecting us to say is "nevermind all of that stuff in the Bible is OK, but doesn't apply here"... .sorry, ain't going to happen.

By that reasoning, no one should have babies ever. Ordinary parents were responsible for birthing the two boys who shot up Columbine, and many other families where there are no alcoholics have sprouted some.

All that stuff in the bible says not to judge, as well, but that doesn't exactly get follow. Same with not cursing your parents (If you've said God Damn to or about your parents, you've nailed this one), and a host of other things we're pretty much all guilty of at some point. This is why the New Testament is focused so much more on forgiveness of sin, and acknowledgement that man is not, and will never be perfect.

As to sex ed in school, Frankly, it doesn't seem to really impede anything one way or another. Horny teenagers will fuck, and some of them will get pregnant, or catch an std. The best you can really hope for is to give them as much info as possible, and hope you raised them well enough to realize that, yes, that bad things can happen to them too.

[DragonStryk72]

Yes, they did, when I was in 7th grade. I had already been aware of everything from parenting, and asking questions of my parents. I'd feel much more comfortable asking my parents, as opposed to asking a teacher in front of a classroom.

for me, that was reversed. Neither me nor my dad wanted to have that talk.

[Noir]

Yes, they did, when I was in 7th grade. I had already been aware of everything from parenting, and asking questions of my parents. I'd feel much more comfortable asking my parents, as opposed to asking a teacher in front of a classroom.

Each to their own, I'd prefer to ask a teacher, like it's something everyone is embrassed at at some level, and if there's one thing you can be sure of in a class full of 15 year olds, is that if you don't know something, others won't too.

Though just thinking about it now I memo'd one of the lessons when we were naming parts of the vagina that were shaded in on an overhead projector, and one guy, John, called out '****' for every other answer, must to our boyish amusement lol, and then at the end Falkner said 'and just for John, you'll need to be looking above 'a' and bellow 'e' for your special interests.' xD

[jimnyc]

for me, that was reversed. Neither me nor my dad wanted to have that talk.

I'm sure you're not alone. That's why I think it should be an opt-out program.

[Gunny]

Would this be taxpayer funded?

What's it to you? You don't pay taxes here.

[Noir]

What's it to you? You don't pay taxes here.

I would be interested to know abbeys opinion on the funding (:

[Abbey Marie]

I would be interested to know abbeys opinion on the funding (:

You're inordinately interested in my opinion on all sorts of things.
You are showing signs of a bit of a crush on me. :laugh2:

[Noir]

You're inordinately interested in my opinion on all sorts of things.
You are showing signs of a bit of a crush on me. :laugh2:

Naw, I fear I only have eyes for SassyLady and Gunny, you played too hard to get, ignoring me all the time =P

Anyways back on topic, publicly funded?

[Gunny]

Naw, I fear I only have eyes for SassyLady and Gunny, you played too hard to get, ignoring me all the time =P

Anyways back on topic, publicly funded?

Buddy, I suggest you address your perverted attentions in another direction.

[fj1200]

^It's sweet you think he's serious unless SL is too old for him.

[Noir]

Buddy, I suggest you address your perverted attentions in another direction.

I've tried but when you get angry, rawr, that furious beast sets my ovaries on fire!

[logroller]

What's it to you? You don't pay taxes here.

neither do a large minority of American citizens...still free to have an opinion on the matter.

[ConHog]

You're inordinately interested in my opinion on all sorts of things.
You are showing signs of a bit of a crush on me. :laugh2:

I admit to having a crush on you Abbey.

As for the topic.

I think we can all agree that teaching sex from a health standpoint is a okay at a school. Teaching sex from a morality standpoint is NOT okay.

[Noir]

Teaching sex from a morality standpoint is NOT okay.

just to clarify,that means religious folks saying 'gay sex is bad' or 'sex before marriage is sin' yes?

[ConHog]

just to clarify,that means religious folks saying 'gay sex is bad' or 'sex before marriage is sin' yes?

I thought I was clear. I don't believe school is the pace to be teaching ANY morality.

[Wind Song]

I thought I was clear. I don't believe school is the pace to be teaching ANY morality.

We teach kids how to let along with each other. We have a zero tolerance policy for bullying.

[ConHog]

We teach kids how to let along with each other. We have a zero tolerance policy for bullying.

As does our school. That is about school safety though, not morality. Morality is for the parents to teach. Same as we don't allow our students to dress provocatively, that isn't out of morality, it is because of educational needs. Same as we don't allow fights, etc etc.

[Noir]

As does our school. That is about school safety though, not morality. Morality is for the parents to teach. Same as we don't allow our students to dress provocatively, that isn't out of morality, it is because of educational needs. Same as we don't allow fights, etc etc.

So you don't think we should teach kids its bad to abuse each other, from any moral standpoint, merely a matter of order for the school so it doesn't get sued. Fascinating.

I tell ya the internet brings you into contact with some odd ideas...

[ConHog]

So you don't think we should teach kids its bad to abuse each other, from any moral standpoint, merely a matter of order for the school so it doesn't get sued. Fascinating.

I tell ya the internet brings you into contact with some odd ideas...

No, I don't think schools should be teaching morality. They should simply be teaching "follow the rules " It's a parents job to explain WHY they school doesn't allow kids to pick on each other. Now of course the schools end up teaching that to because some parents won't . But they shouldn't be.

That's at least part of the reason for the decline in our educational system. A Biology teacher can't be just a Biology teacher anymore. Instead they have to be a counselor, a referee, a disciplinarian, etc etc. One of the biggest complaints I hear from our teachers is that they don't actually get to spend enough time teaching their subject in a class.

[Abbey Marie]

Noir, why would you support teaching morality (whatever that is) in schools and not allow prayer? Seems to me that such non-academic exercises are either ok or they are not.

[Noir]

Noir, why would you support teaching morality (whatever that is) in schools and not allow prayer? Seems to me that such non-academic exercises are either ok or they are not.

What have morality and prayer to do with each other? Teaching a moral code is nothing to do with religion.

[ConHog]

Noir, why would you support teaching morality (whatever that is) in schools and not allow prayer? Seems to me that such non-academic exercises are either ok or they are not.

Absolutely correct, and I am against both. Teachers need to be teaching their subject, not leading children in prayers or playing "can't we all just get along?"

Our policy is simple. You don't have to like someone, you don't have to agree with what they are doing, but you WILL show proper respect to them, the school and yourselves. To me, morality would be trying to dictate how kids feel about gay, or whatever . We just don't do that at our school.

[ConHog]

What have morality and prayer to do with each other? Teaching a moral code is nothing to do with religion.

Really? I, and others , get our moral code FROM our religion. That is why we consider gay to be immoral, etc etc.

[Noir]

Really? I, and others , get our moral code FROM our religion. That is why we consider gay to be immoral, etc etc.

Morals can be taught without favouring any one religion (or none) i.e. Murdering people is immoral whether or not there is a god of any type in the universe.

[ConHog]

Morals can be taught without favouring any one religion (or none) i.e. Murdering people is immoral whether or not there is a god of any type in the universe.

Absolutely. But morals also differ among people. For instance, my morals tell me that being gay is wrong. Your morals may not. So who's morals does a school teach? I have no doubt you would prefer they teach yours, but THEN the school is violating my first amendment rights. So , as a school we don't teach that. Rather we teach " no matter how you feel about the gay kid you will NOT harrass, bully, or otherwise pick on them PERIOD"

[ConHog]

Morals can be taught without favouring any one religion (or none) i.e. Murdering people is immoral whether or not there is a god of any type in the universe.

PS I hope you realize that not everyone is morally opposed to murder.

[CSM]

.... Murdering people is immoral whether or not there is a god of any type in the universe.

Says who? That would be your version. I am thinking morality is very, very subjective and is impacted by an individuals society and their standing in it. Some societies hold canabalism as not only moral but sacred while others deem it immoral (for an example). By the way, this is NOT funny.

[Abbey Marie]

Morals can be taught without favouring any one religion (or none) i.e. Murdering people is immoral whether or not there is a god of any type in the universe.

As can allowing prayer. What religion is prayer favoring?

[Noir]

As can allowing prayer. What religion is prayer favoring?

Secular praying, what?
Tell me how these lessons would go exactly.

[Abbey Marie]

Secular praying, what?
Tell me how these lessons would go exactly.

I never said secular praying. You indicated that prayer would favor one religion. I say they don't have to. You can feel free to pray to whomever or whatever you wish. In your case, I guess Morrissey? (sp)

[Noir]

I never said secular praying. You indicated that prayer would favor one religion. I say they don't have to. You can feel free to pray to whomever or whatever you wish. In your case, I guess Morrissey? (sp)

I don't pray to anyone. But how exactly would you teach a class of children to pray involving no gods?

[ConHog]

I don't pray to anyone. But how exactly would you teach a class of children to pray involving no gods?



Psss Zaoists pray to their ancestors, who they don't believe are gods, but they do believe can influence the gods. So there you go, it IS possible to pray without praying to a god.


Catholics (I beleive) pray to Mary who they certainly don't consider to be a a god.

Some Africans pray to trees. Again , they don't think the trees are gods.

[Abbey Marie]

I don't pray to anyone. But how exactly would you teach a class of children to pray involving no gods?


You don't teach it; you allow time for it. We currently don't, as far as I can tell.

[Noir]

You don't teach it; you allow time for it. We currently don't, as far as I can tell.

Allow time when?
and Surly you guys have breaks during the day? If you can't go 3 hours without praying, somethings gone wrong.

[ConHog]

Allow time when?
and Surly you guys have breaks during the day? If you can't go 3 hours without praying, somethings gone wrong.

Hey Noir, some of your fellow Christiaphobes have in fact sued schools because students prayed before eating their lunch.

How do you justify that?

[Noir]

Hey Noir, some of your fellow Christiaphobes have in fact sued schools because students prayed before eating their lunch.

How do you justify that?

What do i have to justify exactly? Aslong as they are in their own time (i.e. lunch break) and not disrupting others they can fill their boots as far as i'm concerned.

[gabosaurus]

I am sure that many God-fearing, conservative heterosexual couples have raised (or are currently raising) extremely screwed up children. Perhaps some of them are in this thread. :eek:

[Abbey Marie]

I am sure that many God-fearing, conservative heterosexual couples have raised (or are currently raising) extremely screwed up children. Perhaps some of them are in this thread. :eek:

How's it going, Gabby? Haven't seen you in awhile.

[bullypulpit]

Here's the problem. Sure, there are cases where gay couples raise good kids but is it the norm? That is the question. I'm sure you can find kids raised by alcoholic parents that are just as well adjusted and articulate as this young man.

Also, many of us believe that marriage is an institution started by God and we believe that the Bible is the word of God. What you're expecting us to say is "nevermind all of that stuff in the Bible is OK, but doesn't apply here"... .sorry, ain't going to happen.

Marriage, as an institution, has always been about securing what ever wealth a family may accrue, cementing strategic political and business alliances and generally establishing clear lines of inheritance. As for the marriage of same gender couples, the state has no compelling interest in marriage beyond the contractual relationship it establishes between the couple and that it be entered into freely and without coercion. Thus, religionists, regardless of their stripe, have no business interfering with the marriage contract of two competent, consenting adults. I would go so far as to say that their interference in this matter violates the separation of church and state. And before you start whining about how the separation of church and state is a myth, let me offer you a little quote.


"We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate.

All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to to speak of and act on their belief.

At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral." President Ronald Wilson Reagan


Your implication that families headed by same gender couples are as dysfunctional as those headed by alcoholics is unwarranted and unfounded. No shred of evidence, let alone peer reviewed studies, have been presented by those opposed to the marriage of same gender couples has any demonstrable harm to the couple involved, any children adopted or born into the relationship or to society at large.

[ConHog]

Marriage, as an institution, has always been about securing what ever wealth a family may accrue, cementing strategic political and business alliances and generally establishing clear lines of inheritance. As for the marriage of same gender couples, the state has no compelling interest in marriage beyond the contractual relationship it establishes between the couple and that it be entered into freely and without coercion. Thus, religionists, regardless of their stripe, have no business interfering with the marriage contract of two competent, consenting adults. I would go so far as to say that their interference in this matter violates the separation of church and state. And before you start whining about how the separation of church and state is a myth, let me offer you a little quote.




Your implication that families headed by same gender couples are as dysfunctional as those headed by alcoholics is unwarranted and unfounded. No shred of evidence, let alone peer reviewed studies, have been presented by those opposed to the marriage of same gender couples has any demonstrable harm to the couple involved, any children adopted or born into the relationship or to society at large.

I believe that gays should be allowed to marry, but separation of church and state was never intended by the founders. You know that, I know that, we all know that. So just keep it out of this debate.

[Missileman]

I believe that gays should be allowed to marry, but separation of church and state was never intended by the founders. You know that, I know that, we all know that. So just keep it out of this debate.

They intended for government to not interfere with religion and vice versa...that's a really good definition of separation.

[ConHog]

They intended for government to not interfere with religion and vice versa...that's a really good definition of separation.

Actually no they didn't. They merely intended for there to be no official religion.


The whole idea of separation of church and state is some bullshit made up after the fact. I really don't have a problem with it most of the time, and there is certainly nothing in our founding documents which says religion HAS to be involved in our government, but plain and simple only a fucking idiot makes the claim that the founding fathers wanted religion and government forever separated.

They themselves prayed before EVERY meeting (a tradition still followed today I might add), our government buildings are littered with Bible versus. 99.6% of the founding fathers were religious.

The ONLY actual mention of religion in the COTUS is the first amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



No reasonable nor intelligent person can possibly dig separation of church and state out of THAT .

Now, please bring up the Jefferson's letter to the Dansbury Baptist Association , which by the way was written in 1802 which is obviously some time after the COTUS was written, as some sort of proof; at which point I will point out that he stated that the seperation of church and state he had in mind was exactly the one provided for the first amendment , one where the state is separated from the ability to control religion. Not the other way around, and certainly not that Christians, or Muslims, or whatever, didn't have the right to oh say read their Bibles in a school building, let alone use their religious beliefs to help make law.

You might as well say the first amendment provides for a separation of church and press and therefor the government shouldn't ever publish anything, nor use television or radio.

[Missileman]

Actually no they didn't. They merely intended for there to be no official religion.



The founders were quite proficient in English. If they had intended only for no official religion, I'm certain the 1st would say exactly that. Soooo, to quote Gunny...You're Wrong.

[ConHog]

The founders were quite proficient in English. If they had intended only for no official religion, I'm certain the 1st would say exactly that. Soooo, to quote Gunny...You're Wrong.

so, no facts, no quotes, nothing. Just "you're wrong?"

Can't anyone around here actually debate?

You said it yourself, IF the founders had meant a complete separation of church and state, they certainly would have written that.

And how do you explain the over 250 year tradition of opening every session of Congress with a prayer? Just for example.

[bullypulpit]

I believe that gays should be allowed to marry, but separation of church and state was never intended by the founders. You know that, I know that, we all know that. So just keep it out of this debate.

From the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". Implicit within this statement is that government plays no role in religion and vice-versa. Equally implicit in the concept of freedom OF religion is freedom FROM religion. The only arguments against permitting the marriage of same gender couples are rooted in religious dogma and have no place in legislation as laid down in the Establishment Clause. So, you see, the separation of church and state are at teh very root of this argument.

[bullypulpit]

Actually no they didn't. They merely intended for there to be no official religion.


The whole idea of separation of church and state is some bullshit made up after the fact. I really don't have a problem with it most of the time, and there is certainly nothing in our founding documents which says religion HAS to be involved in our government, but plain and simple only a fucking idiot makes the claim that the founding fathers wanted religion and government forever separated.

They themselves prayed before EVERY meeting (a tradition still followed today I might add), our government buildings are littered with Bible versus. 99.6% of the founding fathers were religious.

The ONLY actual mention of religion in the COTUS is the first amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



No reasonable nor intelligent person can possibly dig separation of church and state out of THAT .

Now, please bring up the Jefferson's letter to the Dansbury Baptist Association , which by the way was written in 1802 which is obviously some time after the COTUS was written, as some sort of proof; at which point I will point out that he stated that the seperation of church and state he had in mind was exactly the one provided for the first amendment , one where the state is separated from the ability to control religion. Not the other way around, and certainly not that Christians, or Muslims, or whatever, didn't have the right to oh say read their Bibles in a school building, let alone use their religious beliefs to help make law.

You might as well say the first amendment provides for a separation of church and press and therefor the government shouldn't ever publish anything, nor use television or radio.

What is giving religious dogma the full weight and force of civil law, as in the case of prohibiting same gender couples from marrying, but the government showing preference for a given religion and establishing law which clearly favors that religion? When religion controls government the Establishment clause becomes moot.

[Missileman]

so, no facts, no quotes, nothing. Just "you're wrong?"

Can't anyone around here actually debate?

You said it yourself, IF the founders had meant a complete separation of church and state, they certainly would have written that.

And how do you explain the over 250 year tradition of opening every session of Congress with a prayer? Just for example.


Saying a prayer before the session is NOT an example of religion interfering with government.

[ConHog]

Saying a prayer before the session is NOT an example of religion interfering with government.

Who said anything about interfering? Even the term separation of church and state doesn't talk about interfering. They merely talk of a separation. The fact that Congress prays before every session proves there is no separation, it speaks nothing about interfering.

That is of course EXACTLY where you and others would like to lead the conversation so that you can claim that anytime anyone of religion tries to have ANY sort of influence on government you can scream separation of church and state at the top of your lungs, but it doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean what you wish it meant anyway.

[Missileman]

Who said anything about interfering? Even the term separation of church and state doesn't talk about interfering. They merely talk of a separation. The fact that Congress prays before every session proves there is no separation, it speaks nothing about interfering.

That is of course EXACTLY where you and others would like to lead the conversation so that you can claim that anytime anyone of religion tries to have ANY sort of influence on government you can scream separation of church and state at the top of your lungs, but it doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean what you wish it meant anyway.


You're still wrong. The founders intent was as I said initially, the lack of interference of each with the other. A prayer before every session proves nothing, but especially offers no proof of a lack of separation of church and state.

[ConHog]

You're still wrong. The founders intent was as I said initially, the lack of interference of each with the other. A prayer before every session proves nothing, but especially offers no proof of a lack of separation of church and state.

Oh I see, so sometimes the founders were clear in their intent, and sometimes not; just depends on the issue?

Don't you think the founding fathers were smart enough to write "government and religion shall not interfere with each other" if that is what they wanted it to say?


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


The ONLY reference to religion in the COTUS. NO matter HOW you stretch it you simply can't make the case that that is separation of church and state.

Now, why don't you realize that debating means more than just screaming "you're wrong" and tell the class why you think the first amendment means separation.

[Missileman]

Oh I see, so sometimes the founders were clear in their intent, and sometimes not; just depends on the issue?

Don't you think the founding fathers were smart enough to write "government and religion shall not interfere with each other" if that is what they wanted it to say?


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


The ONLY reference to religion in the COTUS. NO matter HOW you stretch it you simply can't make the case that that is separation of church and state.

Now, why don't you realize that debating means more than just screaming "you're wrong" and tell the class why you think the first amendment means separation.

You're the one who can't read "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and glean that it does in fact establish a restriction on religion as well as government at the same time. Someone trying to interfere religiously with government would have to do so through legislation and it's prohibited.

[ConHog]

You're the one who can't read "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and glean that it does in fact establish a restriction on religion as well as government at the same time. Someone trying to interfere religiously with government would have to do so through legislation and it's prohibited.

You would be right if the First read "Congress shall make no law respecting.............and religion shall have no place in government" , but that is NOT what it says.

Words have meanings. You can't just make shit up........No matter how hard you try.

[Missileman]

You would be right if the First read "Congress shall make no law respecting.............and religion shall have no place in government" , but that is NOT what it says.

Words have meanings. You can't just make shit up........No matter how hard you try.


I'm not making anything up at all. Separation of church and state doesn't mean their can't be anything religious associated with anything governmental to anyone with any sense. You keep throwing that strawman into the thread for reasons known only to you.

The phrase you added isn't necessary to restrict religious interference with government for the reason I stated.

[ConHog]

I'm not making anything up at all. Separation of church and state doesn't mean their can't be anything religious associated with anything governmental to anyone with any sense. You keep throwing that strawman into the thread for reasons known only to you.

The phrase you added isn't necessary to restrict religious interference with government for the reason I stated.

See THIS


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33968-Court-sets-back-Oklahoma-s-proposed-ban-on-Islamic-law

as an example of why you are wrong. This law wouldn't be neccesary at all if the First banned religion from having an influence on government.


Seriously, read a book.

[Missileman]

See THIS


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33968-Court-sets-back-Oklahoma-s-proposed-ban-on-Islamic-law

as an example of why you are wrong. This law wouldn't be neccesary at all if the First banned religion from having an influence on government.


Seriously, read a book.

Firstly, you've just constructed another strawman. I said INTERFERE, not influence. For someone who claims words have meaning, you sure as hell seem to have a problem the the word interfere.

Secondly, I don't recall flaming you at all. This isn't the first time you've flamed me without provocation. Is that really the direction you want to take our interaction? I'll let you choose.

[ConHog]

Firstly, you've just constructed another strawman. I said INTERFERE, not influence. For someone who claims words have meaning, you sure as hell seem to have a problem the the word interfere.

Secondly, I don't recall flaming you at all. This isn't the first time you've flamed me without provocation. Is that really the direction you want to take our interaction? I'll let you choose.

Perhaps then you need to explain how in your eyes religion could interfere with government in a way that you feel would unconstitutional.

[Missileman]

Perhaps then you need to explain how in your eyes religion could interfere with government in a way that you feel would unconstitutional.

A few examples:

Religious test for government employment. The Pope pressuring a Catholic President to issue an executive order banning abortion. Using Sharia law in any court decision in the US.

[ConHog]

A few examples:

Religious test for government employment.


Unconstitutional



The Pope pressuring a Catholic President to issue an executive order banning abortion.



Weird, but legal and constitutional.




Using Sharia law in any court decision in the US.

Not unconstitutional, but perhaps soon to be illegal in a few states. Provides Islam isn't singled out.

[Missileman]

Unconstitutional



Weird, but legal and constitutional.


Not unconstitutional, but perhaps soon to be illegal in a few states. Provides Islam isn't singled out.


Thanks for your input, but short of a SC ruling, my opinion is as accurate as yours.

[ConHog]

Thanks for your input, but short of a SC ruling, my opinion is as accurate as yours.


No. You have equal right to your opinion that I do, but that doesn't make your opinion correct.

Simple question.

IF it is unconstitutional to use religion in court proceedings, then why would a separate law making it illegal be necessary? You will notice, for example, that no jurisdiction has a law forbidding the government from curtailing free speech. There is no need.

[Missileman]

IF it is unconstitutional to use religion in court proceedings, then why would a separate law making it illegal be necessary? You will notice, for example, that no jurisdiction has a law forbidding the government from curtailing free speech. There is no need.

One judge's interpretation that he's constitutionally entitled to use Sharia law in his court doesn't make the practice constitutional. If as you say, the practice is constitutional, then a law against it will be moot. You can't make an unconstitutional law.

[ConHog]

One judge's interpretation that he's constitutionally entitled to use Sharia law in his court doesn't make the practice constitutional. If as you say, the practice is constitutional, then a law against it will be moot. You can't make an unconstitutional law.

You're misunderstanding.

IF the COTUS already forbids something, then there would be need to pass a law forbidding it.The law is NOT moot, because within guidelines a judge can order any sentence he wants, including on based on religion, that isn't unconstitutional.