GAY TEACHER READS HOMOSEXUAL STORY TO 3RD GRADERS

Stop falling into the Christofascist trap that Normal and Abnormal mean the same thing as Good and Bad.

They are statements of statistical variance, nothing more.

 

So you admit that people don't do those things anymore in any serious amount in modern society. So then you agree that those things aren't normal.

You could have just admitted your argument was bullshit, but that would require intellectual integrity, and as a conservative I understand why that is a foreign concept to you.

 

Actually a lot of books in school do. There are school courses about comparative religion.

 

That is a laugh. The mistake is our over-focus on academics and under-focus on practical life skills which very few have. Lets teach kids how to manage their money, succeed socially, cook healthy meals, understand politics, start a business, practice safe sex, and get a job. These skills are just far more important than anything you will find in Shakespeare and so many are so badly uninformed in them.

We already have a nation of academics, lets have a nation of winners. We will be far ahead of China and Europe if we do this.

 

No doubt you see it that way.

Meantime, the actual observation is that our inclinations (no matter how 'natural'), are not always best expressed.

 

It's abnormal not to kill people, also (see my previous posts), but we restrain ourselves.

And, your lack of experience and worldliness tells here. In many societies, it's culturally very normal to wait until marriage, and then remain monogamous.

 

It's abnormal not to kill people, also (see my previous posts), but we restrain ourselves.

And, your lack of experience and worldliness tells here. In many societies, it's culturally very normal to wait until marriage, and then remain monogamous.

 

You're kidding right ?! WHAT PARTY PROMOTES AND SUPPORTS PERVERSION ?!!!!!

 

You are merely stating a fact, and not a very accurate one at that. Marriage law trumps contract law. It is unnecessary. It should go away. But if it doesn't then it needs to be applied equally to consenting adults who wish to engage in it.

 

We're probably agreeing on the same thing, just from two different angles. How's this? For any measurement in a given population, it is normal to have abnormalities.

 

So instead of making use of a social structure as the simplistic basis of law, you would prefer a more complicated and extensive set of laws?

 

You are obviously not a professional in the field, nor are you up to date. Any of the above are only disorders IF they cause significant distress and inability to function in the individual, and/or causing harm to others when acted upon. You want them to be disorders because you find them icky.

 

I'm not using any value of good or bad in my assessment. Even if divorce becomes a norm, marriage can never also become abnormal, because you can't divorce unless you first marry. There are only three possible combinations: Marriage is the norm and divorce is abnormal, both marriage and divorce are abnormal, both marriage and divorce are normal.

 

Uhm...but how in the name of Zeus' butthole do you have divorce without there being the marriage in the first place?

 

I would prefer government only legislate to the extent necessary to defend liberty. Sometimes that requires carefully balancing competing interests, and sometimes - in the case of marriage - it requires simply getting out of the way.

 

NONE.

Thanks for asking.

 

What's a load of rubbish is the fact it is illegal to relay a simple life lessons from the Bible like "Treat Others As you wish to be treated" , Thou shall not kill . thou shall not steal , honor thy mother and father, etc, etc ,etc, but you can promote HOMOsexuality to 3rd graders. Seriously , you don't find this insane !!!! Things like this and the out of control poliferation of HOMOsexual content 24/7 in every entertainment venue in order to promote the perversion of HOMOsexuality as a perfectly normal alternative lifestyle to young , impressionable , sexually confused
adolescents is their MASTER AGENDA..

 

I think you said what I was thinking.

To everyone else we will agree to disagree. I stand by my beliefs and I will not change them. It is not normal to be gay but it is becoming more common and I understand why they want gay marriage but I will never support it. I don't agree with it but having said that I don't hate gay people.

Also I want to add I never had sex with anyone but my wife and it will stay that way for the rest of my life. I love her and no matter what happens I will never have sex with anyone else. My wife is all I need and when she dies I will stay true to my love for her. No other woman can give me what my wife has given me. My love for her will last for the rest of my life.

There is nothing wrong or abnormal to wait untill your married to have sex.

 

I've seen the gay's MASTER AGENDA - it says, "Drive homophobes out of their frigg'n minds." And that's it. That's all it says.





Mission accomplished.

 

'homophobes' ... snorffles

 

Let them find out about it in their own time, it isn't something they must know before leaving school?

 

You can say that again! Whenever I hear a male talking about his 'partner', I'm always astonished if the partner subsequently turns out to be female. -

 

Yeah I don't doubt your sincerity; your wife must be thrilled to elicit such devotion.
But you go right along publicising your sexual fidelity to the world, while denying that freedom to a proportion of humanity because your religious principles dictate it's morally repugnant. Thank god many of us have progressed beyond such repulsive anachronistic thinking.

 

I propose that if you are of the opinion that government doesn't have any business deciding what constitutes marriage, government doesn't have any business teaching children. If government is going to take upon itself the right and burden of teaching children, it should teach children what the parents want taught and not what the liberal elite want taught.

If you are of the opinion that religious opinions should not be taught in schools, I suggest that what is being taught in schools is a religion, namely, secular humanism. By any standard you want to measure, secular humanism is a set of beliefs about morality and man's relation to man and god.

Bow to the Robots: "And that is why we have judges - because tyranny is tyranny whether it be by one man or a million." Tyranny by judges is still tyranny, too.

Montegriffo: "Gay partnerships are perfectly legal and only seen as perverted by a small minority." A larger minority than is homosexual, and yet the minority that is homosexual gets to triumph. And only legal by judicial fiat, not by popular vote.

Questerr: "Civil rights should not be up to a popular vote." I could as easily say religious rights should not be left to judicial whim.

Homosexuals account for approximately 2% of the population. The Christian right accounts for approximately 35% of the population. Why do the "rights" of the 2% trump the rights of the 35%?

Questerr: "They speak for Constitutional freedoms and protected rights, which you as a theocrat oppose." Religious rights are also a Constitutional freedom, in fact, one of the very first. Nowhere in the Constitution did the founding fathers contemplate giving men the right to take a dick up the ass. In fact, it was still illegal in 14 states until 2003.

Questerr: Where exactly is this liberal "movement" to make pedophilia legal? https://www.google.com/search?num=5...i67k1j0i10i67k1j0i22i30k1j33i21k1.-fpWWPXIQ2w

Questerr: "What rights did gay marriage take away from anyone?" Seriously? Gay marriage is essentially making it illegal for Christians to be in business unless they violate their conscience and their religion.

TedintheShed: "Damn that cultural Marxist Dr. Martin Luther King Jr! He wanted to change the status quo!" King opposed abortion and homosexuality. His niece abhors the homosexuals' continued equating of homosexuality with being black. https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/mlk-homosexuality-a-problem-with-a-solution

Daniel Light: "For over 2000 years, religious people tortured gay people, they stoned gay people to death, they imprisoned gay people, they chemically castrated gay people, they got gay people fired from their job and they disrespected the military service of gay people." Actually this is pretty much true for all of human history, not just 2000 years, near as we can tell. It's still going on in the Middle East.

Question for those who support homosexual rights being imposed by court order based on the Constitution: If the Egyptian Constitution specifically forbids homosexual rights, and the Egyptian people are against homosexual rights by a wide margin, is it then correct for Egypt to discriminate against homosexuals? If not, why not? And on what basis? If you're going to argue "human rights", who decides which rights are human rights and which are not? White liberals in Western countries? Isn't that cultural racism and bigotry to decide that the Egyptians are wrong to discriminate against homosexuals? What if we left the decision as to what rights are human rights to the 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet and not the 160 million atheists? (Atheism as well as homosexuality is punishable by death in Muslim countries, so consider your answer carefully.)

Daniel Light: "The courts have ruled that if a justice of the peace or minister wants to perform a legal marriage service for a gay couple, then as American Citizens and human beings, that gay couple has that right, and states cannot prevent it. How does that harm YOU." How is this relevant? There are thousands of laws on the books that don't harm me. Does that mean I can't have or express an opinion on them? There's a law that says apples cannot be sold unless they are 2¼" in diameter. I don't sell apples and only occasionally buy them. Does that mean I can't have an opinion on apple laws? Donald Trump's ban on Syrian refugees doesn't harm you. Does that mean you're going to keep your opinion on it to yourself?

One of the problems with liberals is they have no internal consistency. Whatever is "right" is whatever they "feel" is right, but that can change by the day. They deny the slippery slope every time it's brought up, but then once they have their foot in the door, they use the previous perversity to push for the new one. If the left's policy is supported by the people but opposed by the judges, the judges are wrong. If the left's policy is opposed by the people but supported by the judges, the people are wrong. But they have no external moral code to point to to support their position, so there's no good explanation for why they aren't consistent. About the only thing you can USUALLY count on with liberals is that "new" equals "good" and "old" equals "bad". America and the West are always wrong and the rest of the world is always right, unless of course they agree with America or the West.

Maquiscat: "No one is asking you to support it. There are still people who don't support interracial marriages. But in a country of religious freedom, those who do not follow your religion or interpretation of that religion, should not have to be bound by those beliefs." You are incorrect. Homosexuals are demanding Christians support their lifestyle, by catering their weddings, etc. Homosexuals are demanding that Christians betray their own beliefs for the sake of the homosexuals' feelings, and suing them and putting them out of business if they don't. But to paraphrase Peter, "Should Christians obey the laws of God or men?"

Daniel Light: "And yet, since sex ed began being taught in school, teen pregnancy rates have steadily declined ... gosh, wonder why ... wondering, wondering ... do you have any clues? Sex ed? Taught in school? Teen pregnancy steady declined? Hints?" Incorrect. Thomas Sowell showed that teen pregnancy rates in schools that taught sex ed went UP, not down. It seems that having teachers teach sex ed, even abstinence, only raised the kids' awareness and encouraged experimentation rather than decreasing it.

Questerr: "Who gives a **** if it's acceptable to you? No one is forcing you into a gay marriage. Why are you intent on forcing your theocratic beliefs on others?" Why are you intent on forcing your non-theocratic beliefs on believers? Why do the 5% who are atheists get to tell the 90% who are religious people what the law is going to be? Why are the beliefs of 35% of the population suspect because they are religiously based but the beliefs of 5% of the population not suspect because they are not? Why does an atheist's opinion count for more than a Christian's opinion? He says his opinion comes from God, but you deny God exists, so it must be his opinion alone, but if it's his opinion alone, then it counts for exactly as much as your opinion, which is yours and yours alone.

Bow to the Robots: "Again, I'd like you to tell me why you think you have a right to vote on what your fellow citizens may do if it has no effect on you. Then I'd like you to tell me why government should even be involved in marriage which is a cultural and social tradition that should belong to the people." 1) Because the government has a vested interest in making sure that children have a stable, two parent, male & female, household. Otherwise the women and children almost invariably become wards of the state. 2) Because it has a tremendous effect on society at large, and we're all part of society. 3) Because it affects freedom of religion, i.e., Christianity says homosexuality is a sin, but government is now telling Christians they have to tolerate and support homosexuals and their sinful behavior. That gives Christians a vested interest in the law.

Daniel Light: "It is normal for human populations to have a homosexual component." It's "normal" for human populations to have a certain percentage of congenital heart defects, too, but we don't celebrate it and make it a civil right to have a heart defect, we fix it.

Liberals claim this is a false equivalency, but I fail to see any difference between homosexuality and any other kind of sexual perversion. Why don't we give equal rights to S&M practitioners? To B&D practitioners? To pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and zoophiles? Why don't we give equal rights to mistresses as to wives? Mistresses are not acknowledged in the law as having any rights of inheritance, insurance, etc. Why are mistresses treated worse than homosexuals? There are probably way more mistresses, after all. Mistress relationships probably last longer than most male homosexual relationships do.

tealwings: "Kids need age appropriate discussions/lessons about diversity and tolerance." No they don't. This is exactly the kind of left-wing social programming in the schools that has Christians up in arms. If teachers can't preach God and the Bible in the schools, they damn sure shouldn't be preaching atheism and homosexuality.

Another question for the homosexual lobby: If homosexuality cannot be taught, why then are you so sure that bigotry towards homosexuals can be taught? If you can be taught to hate, why can't you be taught to love? I think this is why homosexuals in fact push for this kind of crap in the schools, because they know damn well that kids are impressionable and they want to get to them as early as possible. If they can't make them into homosexuals, they can at least make them accepting of them.

Bow to the Robots: "Actually the First Amendment is what keeps the promotion of religion out of public schools." Actually it's the Supreme Court that keeps religion out of public schools. We had religion in the public schools for 150 years under the 1st Amendment until the Supreme Court suddenly decided that religion in school was wrong. McGuffey's Readers were used in the schools for a hundred years, and are filled with religious references, and somehow never violated the 1st Amendment in all that time.

Kode: (In response to DDT: "What party promotes and supports perversion?") "None." Incorrect. The Democratic party has come out in favor of homosexual marriage and transvestites in the ladies' room.

Here's a problem for liberals that ought to make you tie yourselves in knots. Eleven AmerIndian tribes, including the two largest, prohibit homosexual marriage. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...s-including-two-largest-prohibit-gay-marriage Now being liberals and supportive of both AmerIndian tribal rights and homosexual rights, which one wins? Should the Supreme Court overrule the tribes? Or is that white supremacism? But wouldn't refusing to intervene create a different standard for homosexual AmerIndians and homosexual Americans of other races?

 

You myopic bias is showing again. Those specific "simple life lessons" are not Bible specific. Other religions, and even the atheist, have them as principles of life. There is nothing to stop them from being taught. What's your next failed argument?