U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-06-2013, 03:41 AM
 
Location: The Brat Stop
8,353 posts, read 5,993,105 times
Reputation: 2279

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
The gay army will stop at nothing to shove their agenda down the throats of decent folks in this republic.
Peace..


Sixpence None The Richer- Kiss Me with lyrics - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-06-2013, 04:25 AM
 
Location: TX
6,491 posts, read 5,241,411 times
Reputation: 2619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz View Post
Sure, a few things. But nothing that requires a whole semester of classes.
Of course it would. There are TONS of things to learn about it, far more than 99% of the "upstanding parents" out there will EVER know. But again, I guess it depends on your standards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz View Post
Well, if you acknowledge parents suck...and they require state level intervention...what does that suggest?
See, that's the problem right there. Everything has to "suggest" something. Your side of this issue lives on non sequiturs. Like the following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz View Post
I already went over that..with the procreation example. Totally logical.
This is actually a logical fallacy, the idea that because two people cannot procreate, it is somehow wrong or harmful for them to have sexual relations. The only place that the first means the other is in your own mind; that's why there is no substantial evidence to back your theory up. I mean, I get that you figure homosexual sex is pointless, but that's not near enough to enforce this view on anyone else. I may think having three kids is pointless. Yet I would need to prove it before I could even dream of fighting it legally, and aren't you glad for that? Well, I hate to break it to you, but everyone else has the same protection you have. Everyone else has the right to demand you make sense of your claims/opposition for it to be backed by law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz View Post
there is no basis for the notion that a homosexual couple is on equal footing as a heterosexual couple.
Of course there is. Again, KNOWLEDGE is a good thing, Hot_Handz.

Here is evidence that might suggest gays are just as good (better, actually) at making a marriage work than heterosexuals:

Study: Same Sex Couples Have Lower Divorce Rates Than The Straights
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans

Here is evidence that being raised by gay parents is not harmful to children in any way:

APA Policy Statement: Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children
Studies of same-sex parenting

And here is evidence that children of same-sex couples may even fare better, generally speaking:


Kids raised by gay parents may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research.

Kids raised by gay parents tend to have a more equitable division of labor in the home. Children seem to adjust better with this setup.

Children in lesbian homes tend to have higher self-esteem and confidence, do better academically and are less likely to have behavioral problemssuch as rule-breaking and aggression than children in straight families.

Gay parents, on average, enjoy significantly better relationships with their childrenthan do heterosexual ones, and the kids in same-sex families exhibit no differences in the domains of cognitive development, psychological adjustment, and gender identity.

Children with gay parents are no more likely to suffer from gender confusion nor to identify themselves as gay. However, they do tend to be less conventional and more flexible when it comes to gender roles and assumptions than those raised in more traditional families.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz View Post
The fact is the only explanation needed to be stated is that they believe sexual relations are to be between woman and man. It doesn't need to go further than that.
Okay then, the only explanation needed to be stated for saying people shouldn't be allowed to have 3 kids is the belief that parenting is between 2 parents and no more than 2 kids. I'll give you 24 hours to decide which kid you love the least

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz View Post
So if you believe in the power of media influence...then would you agree that indoctrination and propaganda in schools can influence sexual orientation?
There is much evidence that sexual orientation is not something taught; why would I insist otherwise?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 05:36 AM
 
8,100 posts, read 5,002,331 times
Reputation: 1578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Of course it would. There are TONS of things to learn about it, far more than 99% of the "upstanding parents" out there will EVER know. But again, I guess it depends on your standards.
Again, let's say out of a class of 25 children...let's say 3 need these life skills because they have no parents or deadbeat parents. Why should the greater portion be subject to something they would learn at home. Why should it be incorporated at the expense of other activities that children could possibly benefit from?

Family values and child rearing is something the schools need to simply stay away from!



Quote:
See, that's the problem right there. Everything has to "suggest" something. Your side of this issue lives on non sequiturs. Like the following:



This is actually a logical fallacy, the idea that because two people cannot procreate, it is somehow wrong or harmful for them to have sexual relations. The only place that the first means the other is in your own mind; that's why there is no substantial evidence to back your theory up. I mean, I get that you figure homosexual sex is pointless, but that's not near enough to enforce this view on anyone else. I may think having three kids is pointless. Yet I would need to prove it before I could even dream of fighting it legally, and aren't you glad for that? Well, I hate to break it to you, but everyone else has the same protection you have. Everyone else has the right to demand you make sense of your claims/opposition for it to be backed by law.
You're strawmanning me.... I NEVER said it was wrong or harmful...Just more logical. And it is! Secondly, views don't have to be forced on anyone. My view isn't being forced on you or anybody.

But here is the thing, maybe the homosexual agenda can be interpreted by holding the Constitution hostage (which it is), but outside of the law (which is preference) you cannot make any argument as to why it should be accepted accept for your own personal set of values! I said that before, right?

Here is the thing, you would be making a great point if you were debating from somebody who wishes to uphold the Constitution.



[quote]Of course there is. Again, KNOWLEDGE is a good thing, Hot_Handz.

Quote:
Here is evidence that might suggest gays are just as good (better, actually) at making a marriage work than heterosexuals:

Study: Same Sex Couples Have Lower Divorce Rates Than The Straights
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans
hmmm...

The table below details the divorce rates for the 43 states that reported their divorce statistics to the CDC in both 2003 and 2008. It is calculated by taking the total number of divorces in the state that year, and dividing it by the number of married persons, as reported by the Census Bureau. The result is then multiplied by two, since each divorce involves two people. This is different than how the divorce rate is sometimes calculated, which may be as a share of the overall population rather than the number of married persons; I prefer my approach because it will not penalize a state for having a lot of marriages (and therefore more opportunities for divorce). However, there are also more complicated versions of the divorce rate calculation that account for the age of the married couples, and so forth; these are probably superior, but mine is intended to be a simple approach.

Of course he prefers his OWN method....remember what I said about holding the Constitution hostage? Well you can also hold numbers hostage...if you do it long enough you canmake them say whatever you want.

Quote:
Here is evidence that being raised by gay parents is not harmful to children in any way:

APA Policy Statement: Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children
Studies of same-sex parenting

And here is evidence that children of same-sex couples may even fare better, generally speaking:
Are as likely...and this would cool and all, but I never stated my issue with homosexuality lies with their inability to be grounded parents. Not sure why you are pointing it out. But while we are here, for a gay couple to have children they need a dysfunctional heterosexual couple, a surrogate or some situation to that effect. Of course, a quack doctor and a willing Frankenstein subject would do...but you still need a woman and a mans genetic material to achieve this.


Quote:
Kids raised by gay parents may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research.
This article is citing studies with extremely small sample sizez.

Quote:
Kids raised by gay parents tend to have a more equitable division of labor in the home. Children seem to adjust better with this setup.
lol ok first...

Between 1 million and 6 million children in the U.S. are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples, she says. Children being raised by same-sex parents were either born to a heterosexual couple, adopted, or conceived through artificial insemination. <-- ?????????

......between 1 and 6 million this study is dead in the wateralready. Great data collection method!!

furthermore...

Researchers looked at information gleaned from 15 studies on more than 500 children, evaluating possible stigma, teasing and social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths.

So that's about 30 some odd children per study...again, super small sample size


Quote:
Children in lesbian homes tend to have higher self-esteem and confidence, do better academically and are less likely to have behavioral problemssuch as rule-breaking and aggression than children in straight families.
It's not clear exactly why children of lesbian mothers tend to do better than those in heterosexual families on certain measures.

Oh! I know why? Because there simply is not enough data!!


Quote:
Gay parents, on average, enjoy significantly better relationships with their childrenthan do heterosexual ones, and the kids in same-sex families exhibit no differences in the domains of cognitive development, psychological adjustment, and gender identity.
On the other hand, it may suggest that the household instability that the NFSS reveals is just too common among same-sex couples to take the social gamble of spending significant political and economic capital to esteem and support this new (but tiny) family form while Americans continue to flee the stable, two-parent biological married model, the far more common and accomplished workhorse of the American household, and still—according to the data, at least—the safest place for a kid.

Another point, and they alluded to it...The concept of the "homosexual family" is still way too early in it's infancy to start championing these claims in the social witch hunt it has generated in modern day politics.

Quote:
Children with gay parents are no more likely to suffer from gender confusion nor to identify themselves as gay. However, they do tend to be less conventional and more flexible when it comes to gender roles and assumptions than those raised in more traditional families.
We can find studies that suggest anything....really. But on this last article, I have to point this out. The "attack" on the heterosexual family is quite alarming. Seriously, let's push the agenda for homosexual normativity or "ought-ness" by pointing out the failure rate of hetero relationships?

But then we stack a data from an social phenomenon that hasn't grown legs yet, relatively...couple with small sample sizes and stack it against a much larger one that has roots over hundreds of years? What is not bigoted about that?



Quote:
Okay then, the only explanation needed to be stated for saying people shouldn't be allowed to have 3 kids is the belief that parenting is between 2 parents and no more than 2 kids. I'll give you 24 hours to decide which kid you love the least
If that is a position you hold, who am I to say you are wrong? See, the issue here is that the homosexual agenda is rooted in the Constitution....yes we are going back to it.

It's being held hostage. It really is an arcane and draconian document at this stage because people LOAD it with their preference. And I don't know if you have noticed...but it pisses a lot of people off one way or the other.

Change may come where we have a society that is receptive of homosexuals...but it may not happen the way homosexuals want it to. I believe in the saying "resistance is futile" but that doesn't mean that nothing productive doesn't come out of resistance. The problem is that homosexuals think that there are no variables just one result, and that is assimilation into the current social infrastructure we have now.



Quote:
There is much evidence that sexual orientation is not something taught; why would I insist otherwise?
Sure, there is evidence...a lot of vague and suggestive pseudo-science, IMO. But here is the thing...neither you or I have the resources or capacity to prove one way or the other...so what are we left with?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 06:07 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
7,215 posts, read 7,914,796 times
Reputation: 7740
The Republican addiction to lying continues, as evidenced by this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 06:08 AM
 
8,100 posts, read 5,002,331 times
Reputation: 1578
This is a partisan issue? LOL

Not hard to spot the tools in here..... dunn dunn dunn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 06:35 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
20,332 posts, read 10,454,337 times
Reputation: 7964
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew View Post
"the girls were told to request a kiss from a female peer, Coon said"
maybe you need to look up the word lesbian.
I AM a lesbian.

Maybe you need to look up the phrase role play.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 06:37 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
20,332 posts, read 10,454,337 times
Reputation: 7964
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew View Post
one girl asking another girl to kiss is?

read the bill schools are required to teach about sexual orientations.
Practicing saying no to unwanted advances.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 07:20 AM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,172 posts, read 7,045,914 times
Reputation: 4175
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Practicing saying no to unwanted advances.
I read the act and posted a link to the act. I missed this requirement and the one that requires them to teach boys that girls in short skirts are sluts. Maybe you can point it out for us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 07:33 AM
 
2,951 posts, read 2,015,231 times
Reputation: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Practicing saying no to unwanted advances.
show me where it says that in the dignity for all students act.

read the law that the class was based on and you'll see why you are dead wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 07:37 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
20,332 posts, read 10,454,337 times
Reputation: 7964
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
I read the act and posted a link to the act. I missed this requirement and the one that requires them to teach boys that girls in short skirts are sluts. Maybe you can point it out for us.
Maybe you can point out where that ACTUALLY happened. Not some rumor, or hear say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top