GAY TEACHER READS HOMOSEXUAL STORY TO 3RD GRADERS

And now I have to wonder if you bother to really read posts or are you just making assumptions of what is said and jump off the deep end from there.

 

You remind me of the passage in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein where the mad doctor's creation, whose freakish appearance produces rejection everywhere, approaches a child in the hope the boy, being free of the "prejudice" of adults, will befriend him; but of course the boy cannot help but see him for the miscreant he is, and he then becomes something worse than a miscreant by murdering the child. Similarly, a great many homosexuals have become something worse than merely perverted, by consenting to be used as a propaganda tool against decent people by the fascist left.

Homosexuals don't do sexual fidelity, even when they're monogamous.

 

On the slim possibility that you are not a troll, this serious of an aversion to homosexuality - to where it disrupts your daily life - is not healthy. You mention schizophrenia, and your paranoid ramblings here have a strong semblance to the disorder.

If your religion keeps you from endorsing or condoning homosexuality, whatever. If it gives you fits such as this, you may want to get an evaluation.

 

Please expand upon this, because you are using a logic all your own.

If they are monogamous how are they not sexually faithful to their spouse or partner?

 

I agree that sex ed in schools can be problematic, but...

TBH, the rest of your post seems really off base. In my opinion, it is important for someone with a good working knowledge of the subjects talk to teenagers about topics surrounding sexuality. I mean it is the 21st Century, but to me that just means that the sources teenagers are learning from are that much more suspect. I don't want my son getting his sex education from a porn site or Maxim magazine (is that still a thing?).

Education and raising a child is all about interfering, that's what you do. If you find talking about STDs, birth control options, matters of consent, and healthy relationships uncomfortable, you can find someone else to help (if you find it "creepy", you might need your own help), but I think those are important subjects to have sober conversations about with children of the age to understand them.

 

Looking at porn won't lead to kiddie porn. Don't make stuff up.
Most anything can become an addiction. Even chatting on website forums. Any addiction can be bad. But porn doesn't lead to addiction anymore than drinking leads to addiction to alcohol.
Sure there are significant others who don't want their significant other looking at others. Understandable. It's why I said it's up to the couple, no one else.

 

I am sure you do. But that is you, not me or the next person. So believe what you want and let others believe what they want. All, at this point are equal in being correct.

Of course you don't. But beauty didn't know it would turn into a man. She fell in love with the beast.

 

Every christian is a true christian in their mind. That' why there are hundreds, if not thousand of different christian denominations.
There is no true christian, but to each person and the like minded to them.

 

OK...IMO, based on my personal and professional experiences, "It's in the interest of parents and society that children not become homosexual if there is any choice about it. Early indoctrination into the idea of homosexuality could lead to experimentation and habitual practices that might not otherwise have occurred."

 

IMO, based on my own observations of family systems, experience can have an imprinting effect on sexual orientation.

 

What is this alleged experience? And why would anyone else care?

 

That's my point. There is no instinct involved, but rather sense data only that allows us to discriminate between men and women. Instinctual requires something that is hard-wired, but if a pair of silicone implants and some lipstick is all that's necessary to confuse sailors, then... it's not instinctual.

No, you can't go back to saying there are specific pools based upon actual gender. We've already decided that it's not instinctual.

If I were to put on a miniskirt, shave my legs, and put on some makeup (there would have to be a lot more involved, but you get my point) I could probably fool some very heterosexual men into believing that I'm female. That's because I would appear to somewhat approximate a female. Change some mannerisms, try not to talk too much, etc. etc. etc.

So is a man attracted to me a homosexual? Of course not! Would a homosexual who is instinctually homosexual be attracted to me, even though I look like a female?

That is the problem for those who say heterosexuality/homosexuality is hard-wired. The ability to fake a particular gender means that it is visual, and not gender-based.

 

You are confusing up several different things. Yes we have hardwired instincts towards certain things. A good early example is the sucking mechanism when we are babies. Just because you can use an instinct's tenancies to actually fool it to a different direction it doesn't mean that the instinct isn't there. Additionally, the instinct alone is not the only factor. We have instincts for saving ourselves, but we can also over ride that for many different reasons. Doesn't mean it's not there. The other thing being is just because my definition of a given pool doesn't match yours, doesn't mean that I am working outside of my instinct. Sure we as humans manage to make many different common references and groupings, but if we could view them visually, we'd actually see many overlapping rings with some parts that were isolated or only overlapped with a few others.

Basically it comes down to your instinct details might not match my instinct details.

 

We can't do so at 100% accuracy but I can determine sex 99% of the time. There goes your main premise.

 

1. What exactly do they mean by getting them young?
2. How many gays think this way compared to the total gay population?
3. How many gays became gays because of this influence?
4. How does one suppress and abstain from his natural attractions and choose to be gay? Monks already have a hard time suppressing their natural desires.

 

What makes you think I hate gays? I don't hate anyone except paedophiles and wacko warmongers in Washington.

 

Most people don't hate HOMOsexualS any more than they would with someone with a mental illness or defective gene they just hope they get the help they need and that a cure is found. In the mean time we don't want them exposing our impressionable children to their mental illness or disease !

 

I'm with you on the rationale, but I still don't hate them. I just hate being reminded of what they do, and wish that they wouldn't keep reminding me of it.

 

I see you are one of those people who likes to define every deviation from the norm as a mental illness now 20% of the population is considered mentally ill because poor social skills, being unhappy, having trouble concentrating, having mood swings are now in many cases mental illnesses and now being attracted to different people than the norm is a mental illness to you. Maybe we are all human and unique and we don't need a cure, as long as we can function in society we are just fine as we are.

 

wow, you just absolutely have no idea do you? You're implying that homosexuals are just promiscuous sluts, and can't be in strong faithful relationships, and yet you're putrid implication is one of the very reasons why gay marriage is such a triumph. It proves that your wrong. That two consenting peoples of the same sex can seriously contemplate having a mature faithful relationship with all the trappings that are found in heterosexual marriages, including sexual fidelity.

You think it's leftist propaganda that's being propagated I could equally say that it's conservative rightist scaremongering that has been in place since 1970s and still continues to retard the neuron pathways of some people.

 

If we're talking about exposure, then imagine how tired a homosexual person must be of being reminded that his dick needs to penetrate a vagina every once in awhile or it might drop off. Music, movies, books etc. most forms of media portray the heterosexual norm ok, so if you feel like you're being bombarded from all sides by the almighty gay "agenda" just think how ****ing tiring it must be to be hounded by the sexual norm everyday and also realise that much of that "agenda" for want of a better a word, makes not much of a difference in changing people's prejudices. Sad really...

 

Read my lips - I don't want to know about anyone's sodding sex life, hetero or homo. Quite frankly I'd rather not even contemplate AS, and the only time I do is when the gay mafia start with the PR, then I feel that I have to retaliate in order to remind them that not everyone celebrates their weird habits.

 

Brazil isn't a Western nation. Portugal barely is. There is quite a difference between decriminalizing gay behavior and what we have now with Cultural Marxists cramming it down people's throats. The whole gay marriage push has only been around the last 20 years.

Why didn't all those nations you listed allow gay marriage, gay adoptions and all the rest back when they decriminalized it?

 

]

Don't know...I wasn't alive back then. That was the era of my great-great-great-grandfather.

But still...this is nothing new.

2001 - Netherlands passes SSM with adoption.
2002 - South Africa and Sweden passes same sex couple adoption
2003 - Belgium, Ontario, and British Columbia passes SSM
2004 - Manitoba, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, and the Canadian territory of Yukon follows suit.
2005 - Canada makes SSM nation wide. Spain also passes SSM
2006 - South Africa passes SSM
2008 - Norway passes SSM
2009 - Sweden passes SSM

The list goes on.

Netherlands - Primarily Roman Catholic and Protestant religions
South Africa - 86.6% Christian of some flavor or another
Sweden - Primarily Lutheran
Canada - 67% Christian
Norway - 70% Evangelical Lutheran
Spain - 69% Catholic
Belgium - 58% Catholic with another 7% being other forms of Christians.

So again I have to ask...by whose morality is this bad? It seems to me that a lot of Christian nations are in favor of it and if it's passing Christian and Catholic majority nations...perhaps Christianity is starting to listen to that whole "Love thy neighbor" bit and letting homosexuals pursue their agenda of living the same sorts of lives that heterosexual married couples get to live.

 

So you somehow imagine I don't mean anything like what I said. How very...odd.

Seeing there is no such thing and never will be, affirmation of that delusion can only be considered a triumph for lunacy.

Not when the relationship is sexual, they can't.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

I don't just think it, I know it.

No you couldn't, unless the truth can be equated to a lie.