No, i don't. Right behavior is in conflict here. I believe it's right for parents to teach their kids correct morals. I also think it's morally abhorrent for other people to tell parents how to raise their kids. It's called being tolerant. I believe that parents should teach their kids sex outside of marriage is wrong regardless who their partners are but it's also none of my business. So i leave it up to the parents for better or worse and clearly with the direction of society in regards to sex, we can say it's for the worse.
You are moving the goalposts again! You stated that you want parents to teach their kids that homosexuality is EVIL without any shred of substantiation to support that erroneous belief. It is "morally abhorrent" to instill children with religious BIGOTRY!
Teaching kids sexual immorality is wrong is not bigotry. That is where your changing goalposts comes into play.
There is NOTHING immoral about homosexuality between consenting adults. Even straight couples engage in anal intercourse and blowjobs. Why is it "immoral" when gays do the EXACT SAME THING?
You are entitled to your ERRONEOUS belief but you do NOT get to impose it on anyone else and it is IMMORAL to indoctrinate children with religious BIGOTRY.
I don't want to impose my beliefs on anyone and thank you for ignoring the dozens of times i said so.. And because we have religious freedom therr can be no laws suggesting religious teachings are bigotry, that's you imposing your religious views on others. Raising kids to respect morality as it pertains to sexuality is not bigotry, thats your uneducated religious opinion.
“Congress shall” is how that piece of the constitution reads. It does not apply to states, individuals, or anyone else for that matter. As private citizens we are free to highlight your bigotry as often as we so choose.
I wasn't about skeptical about the facts you brought, I'm skeptical about the whole transgender thing. I don't doubt some are sincerely like that, but for me there is a part of trend. Stoïcism in a nutshell is "accept what you can't change and focus on what you can change, your actions and your thoughts". For instance, a un-stoïc behaviour is to complain about the weather.
Wrong AGAIN! There is NOTHING in the Constitution that supports religious bigotry! There ARE laws AGAINST bigotry and discrimination and they are CONSTITUTIONAL! It is IMMORAL to INDOCTRINATE children with religious BIGOTRY of any kind!
Wrong. It is good and moral to teach kids that sexual perversion of all types is wrong. You don't get to force your religion on everyone else. Calling people bigots does just that.. you are the villain here.
Sexual perversion is an opinion, just like your religious beliefs. Calling someone a bigot, that is a bigot, is truth — and thankfully society is at a point where we will no longer accept your version of morality.
Nope it's your opinion based on you're religous beliefs that a person who teaches there child properly is a bigot.. its not fact that's your faith based opinion.
Right, trying this road now? Science, nature, and human history all teach same sex relations are not “evil”. Religion on the other hand has been behind most of the atrocities this world has faced. Forcing that on a child is what’s evil.
All factual and easily proven. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it not true, I understand that’s a hard thing to grasp when you live your life according to half read verses in a book written by man and edited by kings.
What would you like me to prove, that homosexuality exists in nature (aka natural)? http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/ Or would you like to read about how belief in sky aliens has caused massive conflict throughout the ages? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence
wow so male Giraffes rub each others necks together wow amazing.. oh and female penguins hang out together when there aren't enough males, all of these instances are related to decreasing competition.. so women outnumber men so according to your hypothesis for humans female female bonding would be very natural but male /male bonding evolutionary speaking would be very unnatural because there are more than enough women...
Sure, or here https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...keep-adopting-eggs-berlin-zoo-is-celebrating/ Or here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#Penguins Still waiting on your to prove your religious nonsense, oh — what was it you said, you don’t have to because of the first amendment that applies to congress
Fact is it's your faith against my faith and the government must remain neutral. Congress can make no law on this issue. Bogus scientific studies don't make proof. You'll notice the word "may" a lot in thoes studies, that means they are not in any way conclusive. And none of them related to humans. That makes for no evidence at all of your point.
If you want to talk about science should we talk about sociology as it related to homosexual men? I guarantee you won't like it. Funny thing is you won't find the studies by using Google, however if you switch browsers boom there they are...