GAY TEACHER READS HOMOSEXUAL STORY TO 3RD GRADERS

Parents are the ones most likely to nurture.
And you do admit, that some parents will push their kids to be gay. Seems rather ridiculous.

Explain why parents are shocked when one of 3 kids is gay.
How did they nurture that 1 gay and not the other 2?

 

Disgusting story. Always trying to indoctrinate children in their deviancy. Gay teacher should be Gay Fired.

 

No, you don't understand. Nature is what we mean when we say something is hardwired, or genetic. Nurture is acquired behavior.

 

Exactly. Parents nurture their children. So how do you claim I don't understand
You are saying gays are nurtured to be gay. Parents do the nurturing. Why would they nurture one of their offspring to be gay and not the others?

 

Nurture is not just parents. It's our physical environment. I thought I had already made this clear.

 

Here is the post I am referring to. You claim who one has sex with, which includes orientation of sexual attraction, is nurtured.

 

Parents, by far, in most cases, have the biggest impact. Especially since most who are gay, say they know it by their early teens.

So how does one of 3 kids in a family become gay while the other 2 don't?
Same environment almost 24/7. But for the grade in school.

 

You might as well ask me to explain why my brother likes blondes and I like brunettes. Maybe some girl in his class had blonde hair and he got his first chubby, so ever since then, he's associated chubbies with blonde hair.

 

I may as well ask that, since it is your claim. So go ahead and answer. Somehow, it was nurtured into them.
I am interested in knowing how this nurturing sexual desires works.

 

All I can say is that if you really are interested, this is a good article to get you at least familiarized with the basic concepts.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html

 

I was actually interested in your thinking. Do you base your entire premise on that link?

Why would your brother get a woodie over a blond and not a redhead? What nurtured that? Or is it nature that made him get a woodie over a blond and not a redhead.
I say nature.

Having said all this, I don't care why a person is gay. Nor should anyone else.
Just like who cares why one prefers blonds, redheads, fat, or skinny people.
Unless one is truly interested human development.

Also as of note: While I personally prefer blonds, I married a brunette. And I could get a woody over most any female.
But I could never get a woody over another male.
So, I am not sold on the nurture theory.

 

I don't think you're capable of understanding my argument, but it can be found a few pages back if you care to look for it.

 

The nature vs nurture argument about HOMOsexuality is far from over. I went to school with a set of identical twins ,one was a star (obviously heterosexual) football player the other was a flaming queer. I also, had a relative whose parents frequently him with his grandmother who would dress him up as a little girl and let him play with dolls. He died from Aids at the age of 21. I also worked with another woman who coddled her son and most of his early playmates were girls. He was never encouraged to do things with his dad like hunting , fishing , yard work ,maintaining the family car etc. His mother used to say he didn't like getting his hands dirty. In his early teens he was invited to parties that were predominantly attended by HOMOsexuals where he was highly recruited by them .Needless to say he turned full blown queer ! So IMO it's a combination of nature and nurture. Irregardless ,OUR YOUNG IMPRESSIONABLE CHILDREN DO NOT NEED TO BE EXPOSED TO IT !!!!!

 

I don't, and i don't think you fully understand it either.

Any rate, does it really matter why one is gay. There are gay people and there will always be gay people.

 

Please elaborate further as to why they can't when the relationship is sexual.

Oh then why don't you enlighten me with YOUR definition of the term. I'm sure it's closer to the actual meaning than what I thought it meant.

 

When they find a way to fix the defective gene your's will be he last generation of HOMOsexualS on the planet !!!! If we can keep you from teaching and promoting to our impressionable children. Besides being a defective gene it can also be learned !

 

I wondered how long before you used the "those who don't believe as I do aren't Christians" argument.

 

Uhh ....no. First, to be an adulterer, one must be married. Now according to some here, gay marriage cannot exist, therefore, per them, gays cannot be adulterers. The second requirement for being an adulterer is to then have sex with a person other than your spouse. There are plenty of monogamous gay couples in long term relationships. So no it is no an inherent trait for homosexuals to be adulterers.

 

There are all kinds of Christians just like there are all kinds of ball teams.

There are Mighty Mites football teams for young and baby players.
Then there are more mature teams for older kids in grade school and high school.
Then there are college teams, and minor league teams.
Then there are the star players in the NFL.

So it goes with baby Christians, those who just say they are and have no faith and bear no spiritual fruit, then those in liberal churches, etc., etc, and finally the Evangelical, faithful and believing Christians being at the highest level.

 

I think it is pretty much over already. What we have left is a political strategy to attract homosexuals to the democratic party, rather than any honest attempt to figure out why homosexuality occurs. It's like global warming, which is probably of interest to a few hundred climatologists who might be genuinely interested in the subject, and a few hundred million socialists who see AGW as a stepping stone towards giving the state more power.

With homosexuality, it's a fairly old and worn out tactic used to add one more disparate group under the socialist umbrella. There's this image of an evil corpulent old white guy christian republican who preaches against the evils of homosexuality, and then there's the sandal wearing vegan socialist waving the rainbow flag of peace, love, and acceptance. That they're doing this in the classroom is just another recruitment tactic. The more kids they can convince to be gay, the more voters. Plus, it's such an evil image of republicans hurting innocent kids that it's a two-for-one.

What really jerks my chain is that they're winning at the expense of kids who are taught that they will get special privilege brownie points if they go along with being gay or transvestites. Once they figure out how to square the circle of a gay transgender, it'll be all over. Us evil white guys will be hauled off to correctional transition facilities where we will be surgically enhanced with fake boobs and lobotomies.

 

So...how can you make the argument that the Bible is right when nearly every Christian sect uses the same passages to promote different messages.

Which one of them is right and which is wrong?

 

Don't expect a reply. He wouldn't respond to me putting up the actual definition and then asking how they failed to live up to that definition.

 

Wow. Fake boobs and lobotomies. Wow...I just don't know what to do with that. That's some tinfoil hat level of thinking there.

 

Why don't you take some Bible study classes, or get a good study Bible and find out for yourself?