GAY TEACHER READS HOMOSEXUAL STORY TO 3RD GRADERS

These are your words, "The left never cease from trying to pervert our children. The libs want to feminize our males. Weak men are easily conquered and we see the left has already been conquered and now push for everyone to be sissy boys so they can have the commie dream fulfilled. Make the US into a third world S hole like Venezuela, the liberal utopia."

"Feminize our males". "Weak men". "Sissy boys". "pervert our children". All = "third world S hole".

Sounds like hatred of gays to me.

 

I'm not sure of your point. There are many straight and gay people that are doing better than you and I, so what? I know a gay couple that I think the world of, so what does that have to do with pushing your gay agenda to school children?

 

Bunk.
Perversions are learned through experience and imagination.
Some become more appealing when experimented with, no matter how perverse.
Homosexuality may never have been tried if the person were somewhere out in the old West and met a girl at a young age.

 

There were no homosexuals in the old west huh pilgrim? The is a very funny thread.

Homos on the Range How gay was the West?
JANA BOMMERSBACH0000

​

The most surprising thing about homosexuality in the Old West is not that it was rare in the rugged, macho world of the cowboy, but that it was so common and so not a big deal.


That’s a complete reversal of the popular notion that the West was populated by virile, heroic men who could live for months on the open range with little more than their rope, their horse and, of course, the ultimate phallic symbol, their gun.

Thinking of these symbols of manhood as uniting sexually with other men is like finding out one of the Marlboro men died of lung cancer—it’s a disconnect that many will find uncomfortable.

In fact, History professor Clifford P. Westermeier noted any examination of sexual activity by cowboys—homosexual or not—was such a cautious topic, his article in the 1975 Red River Valley Historical Review was titled “Cowboy Sexuality: A Historical No-No?”

“To tamper with the image of a folk hero, a historic formula, a legend, and most of all, that of the American cowboy heritage is probably more dangerous than the proverbial where ‘fools rush in,’” Westermeier writes. He notes the traditional cowboy had four failings: drinking, gambling, lechery and violence. “Of these … lechery is often alluded to but is the least detailed activity of his frenetic pleasures.”

While most would expect the cowboy’s lechery was pointed towards women, that wasn’t always true, but it also didn’t mean what it would mean today.

https://truewestmagazine.com/homos-on-the-range/

 

Source citation needed for the above claim if stated as fact specifically about homosexuality being learned rather than being innate.

 

Maybe because there were few women. I imagine in prisons some men find sex with men pleasurable with other men since no women around for years. However, had they never gone to prison they very well might never have considered it.

I know the Greeks, etc. had their man love going strong. So what? My point is that homosexual attractions are mostly nurture not nature. Wasn't that the argument? Even though I agree some males are born more effeminate and have a greater tendency to be comforted by a male figure.

All perversions may be inside people if the environment is right and society is obliging. But if that is not the case then such may never materialize. Not to mention grace, prayer and self denial is a great support to staying on the straight and narrow. Or is that a bad thing to you?

 

Well my source would not be Kinsey. Nor would it be psychologists of today nor "experts" in the media.
I will go with Biblical teachings and common understandings through a host of sources.
Nor do I care what conclusions you all choose to come up with.

 

A bad thing to me? Is this about good vs bad to you?

 

You cannot discern that from my comments?

All sex outside of marriage has a degree of sinfulness to it. Mitigated by multiple factors. But sin is bad, yes, that I know.

 

And demand your tax money that pays for public schools be refunded.

 

How about this - when the public schools are graduating 100% of students, and all graduating students have the reading, writing, mathematical, and critical skills and historical knowledge of a 12th grader, then we can talk about adding extraneous non-essential secondary stuff like gay marriage.

 

My mind doesn't interpret the world that way. I'm a Buddhist. I came to Buddhism naturally, before I knew about it, or became a Buddhist. For me there is no good/bad, evil/not evil. There is only mind and action.

 

I did not ask what your sources were not.

Fair enough.

So are you here to lecture rather than debate?

 

Both.
By my saying "I do not care what conclusions you all choose to come up with" --- what I am implying is that there are certain questions or ideas that are settled in my mind and this is one of them. For instance, I know God exists, I know He is the Judeo Christian God. It is impossible to convince me I might be wrong. Same with sex outside of marriage has a some sinfulness attached to it. And abortion is wrong and the mainstream media has become the enemy of the people. All that is settled.

 

you go right ahead and obey those laws of God, however many there are. See how many people you can stone for not observing the sabbath.

 

Actually, says a guy who is married to the same woman for 25 years but has a successful gay sister ... a sister more successful than you - one that would make a better role model than you, because you are a socially immature self-proclaimed failure.

 

Whatever.

 

To bad the OP went over your head. How'd you miss this wasn't about sex?

 

You actually think guys can be made more feminine or more masculine for that matter? What a hoot. Binary thinkers, up or down.

 

Emotional? From one that has posts of hatred written in every other word? Hate is the strongest emotion.

 

There is no such thing as sin. It's a church made up concept to get low educated people to follow a god that cares less about you. Would rather see you torment in hell or wipe the face of the earth clean in some flood.

 

Many minds are also made up that folks who push some make believe and force everyone to follow it are the enemy of the people. Those minds are settled.

 

Well as long as you choose to ignore the empirical evidence for the One God you can pretend you have the answers.

 

By all means, what is this supposed "empirical" evidence?

 

All that is certainly within your rights, and I'd defend those rights, and you for having them. But, you don't have a right to foist those beliefs onto others in any direct legalistic fashion.